The Brief

Nearly four years after California voters approved better wages and health benefits for ride-hailing drivers and delivery workers, no one is actually ensuring they are provided, according to state agencies, interviews with workers and a review of wage claims filed with the state.

Voters mandated the benefits in November 2020 when they approved Proposition 22. The ballot initiative was backed by gig-work companies that wanted to keep their workers classified as independent contractors and were resisting a 2019 state law that would have considered them employees. Prop. 22 stipulated that gig workers would remain independent contractors but be treated better.

The state Industrial Relations Department, which handles wage claims, now tells CalMatters it does not have jurisdiction to resolve those related to Prop. 22, citing a July 25 California Supreme Court ruling that upheld the law and therefore maintains that gig workers are not employees. That effectively passes enforcement responsibility on to the state attorney general, whose office was noncommittal when asked about its plans, saying that it does not adjudicate individual claims but does prosecute companies that systematically violate the law.

The lack of enforcement leaves in limbo workers who in many cases have already been waiting for months or years for the state to resolve their complaints. Workers have filed 54 claims related to Prop. 22 since it went into effect in December 2020. At least 32 of them are unresolved, state records obtained by CalMatters show, although at least two of those are due to workers not following through.

Of the unresolved claims, one goes back to 2021, several are from 2022 and 2023, and about half are from this year, through May.

Emails included with the claims show that the Industrial Relations Department told one worker it was severely understaffed, and seven others, starting in 2022, that it did not have jurisdiction to help them since they were independent contractors rather than employees.

Although the number of claims filed with the state represent just a fraction of the more than 1 million gig workers in California, they give a glimpse into what happens when workers turn to the state for help instead of the companies that backed Prop. 22.

What gig workers are complaining about 

Workers say in the claims, and in interviews with CalMatters, that companies such as Uber, Lyft and Instacart failed to provide higher wages and health care stipends under the law, and that the companies’ representatives sometimes act confused or take a long time to handle their requests for Prop. 22 benefits. The gig companies have touted the law as something that has boosted pay and benefits, and have said it has helped gig workers hang on to work they can do whenever they want.

Laura Robinson is among the workers who have had to aggressively pursue what they believe they’re owed under the law. For the past year, she has filed claims with the state and fought two different gig-work companies for different benefits promised under Prop. 22.

She was making a delivery for Instacart a year ago, she said, when a driver making a U-turn hit her, totaling her car. Now, she said, she has lingering back pain, and has only been able to make a total of a few deliveries over the past several months.

Robinson, who lives in Irvine, tried to get Instacart to retroactively provide her with occupational accident insurance as required under Prop. 22.

When she first contacted Instacart about the collision, “four or five different (representatives) told me on chat ‘we don’t provide insurance,’ but I told them this is California,” Robinson said. “Finally someone said ‘oh yeah, I know what you’re talking about.’ ” Robinson had some difficulties documenting the accident, because, she said, the responding Torrance Police Department officer rode away on his motorcycle without writing a report. But after about seven months, she finally heard back from Zurich, Instacart’s insurance provider. She received a lump sum, and monthly payments for the time that she has been largely unable to work, according to bank statements and emails from Zurich to her, which she shared with CalMatters.

Instacart spokesperson Charlotte Healow said all the company’s shopper support agents should know about “shopper injury protection” and that there is information in the app about how to go about filing claims. But Robinson showed CalMatters several screenshots of her chats with support agents who either thought she was asking about health insurance or who told her someone would email her back about her situation — which eventually happened, though it took a few tries.

Robinson said she had also struggled to get a smaller gig platform, food delivery app Curri, to comply with the law. Under Prop. 22, ride-hailing and delivery gig companies are supposed to pay her 120% of minimum wage for the time she spends driving, making up for any shortfall in the pay she receives, but Curri had not done so, she said. Not knowing where to turn, she asked a few different state agencies for help, including the attorney general’s office. She even lodged a complaint with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s National Consumer Complaint Database. After several months, the Industrial Relations Department scheduled a hearing for her case for Aug. 29. Last week, the department told her the company decided to settle and pay her what it owed, according to emails and a release she signed that she shared with CalMatters. Curri’s marketing director referred CalMatters to the company’s legal department, which did not return three emailed requests for comment.

Robinson saw the upside of Prop. 22 after it passed. She liked being able to continue setting her own hours and saw a bump in her earnings delivering for Grubhub due to the law. But she is now frustrated about how tough it was to figure out who’s supposed to be upholding it.

“It’s not helpful if it’s not enforced or applied,” she said.

Robinson said the deputy labor commissioner she was in touch with throughout the process of pursuing her claim against Curri told her last week that because Prop. 22 was upheld by the state Supreme Court — effectively ensuring gig workers cannot be considered employees — the department would no longer be handling similar cases because it does not have jurisdiction over independent contractors.

What do gig workers want?

The Prop. 22-related wage claims reviewed by CalMatters were part of a larger set of nearly 200 claims that gig workers filed with the Industrial Relations Department since the law took effect in December 2020. Citing the California Public Records Act, CalMatters sought all wage claims in that timeframe involving gig companies, but the state did not provide any claims against DoorDash, which is one of the biggest of the app-based gig companies. A department spokesperson could not explain why.

Most of the claimants sought delayed or unpaid wages, including adjustments owed under Prop. 22. Others sought health care stipends required under the gig-work law, and one driver said he sought occupational accident insurance but did not receive it.

The claims also shed light on the mechanics of how app companies are allegedly withholding wages. In them, some gig workers claimed that they were deactivated — kicked off or fired by the app — before receiving all their wages.

The records also indicate the state had trouble holding app companies to account in a timely fashion. In emails about the claims, some workers frequently asked for updates about their cases and complained about limited communications from the state. This prompted one supervisor in the Industrial Relations Department’s San Francisco office to respond by email on May 30, 2024, seemingly noting that gig workers’ complaints were just a fraction of the array of worker complaints the state fields: “I am working with 40% staff shortage. There are over 3,000 cases, most of which are older than yours, and only seven people (total) to handle them.” The department did not respond to requests for comment on whether this shortfall persists.

Monetary wage claims ranged from about $2 to nearly $420,000. Most — 54% — were against ride-hailing and delivery giant Uber and 25% were against its rides competitor Lyft. There were 17 claims against grocery-delivery app maker Instacart, seven against food-delivery platform Grubhub, four against Target-owned delivery service Shipt and three against UPS-owned delivery service Roadie.

The Industrial Relations Department has long tried to resolve gig workers’ wage disputes. The labor commissioner, who heads the department’s Labor Standards Enforcement Division, still has pending wage-theft lawsuits against Uber and Lyft that it filed in 2020 on behalf of about 5,000 workers with wage claims going back to 2017.

Those cases predate Prop. 22, originating during a period when gig workers were misclassified and should have been considered employees under California law, the labor commissioner argues in the wage-theft suits. After Prop. 22 passed, opponents challenged it and the case ended up before the California Supreme Court, which upheld the law in July, effectively affirming that drivers are independent contractors, not employees. A department spokesperson, Peter Melton, said the ruling means the department can no longer handle claims about missing wage adjustments under the earnings guarantee, unpaid health care stipends or other aspects of the law.

Department representatives made similar statements to workers even before Prop. 22 was upheld, the claims records show. An email response, dated March 26, 2024, from the department to an Uber driver stated: “The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement enforces employment law. We cannot enforce Prop 22 earnings because they aren’t ‘wages’ earned by ‘employees’.”

This echoes the position lawyers for Uber and Lyft took in some of the records when responding to wage claims. They asked the state to dismiss such claims, writing in one email: “As of December 16, 2020, drivers using Lyft’s platform are considered independent contractors by statute and, thus, cannot seek relief under the Labor Code.”

Now that the department has disavowed responsibility for Prop. 22 claims, the question remains: Who will enforce the law?

Scott Kronland, the attorney for Service Employees International Union California who unsuccessfully argued before the state Supreme Court that it should throw out Prop. 22, told CalMatters: “I’ve also heard from drivers that they’re not getting the things they’re promised by Prop. 22.”

Kronland said their recourse, after the ruling, is to press local prosecutors or the attorney general, who have the ability to hold companies liable for unlawful business practices under the state’s Unfair Competition Law. Still, he said “enforcement is something the Legislature could clarify.”

In an unsigned email response to CalMatters’ questions after the state Supreme Court decision, including whether it planned to pursue Prop.-22-related cases against gig-work companies, the attorney general’s office said gig workers can submit complaints at oag.ca.gov/report. The email added: “Although the Attorney General does not represent individual workers or adjudicate individual complaints by holding administrative hearings like (the Department of Industrial Relations), DOJ brings lawsuits to hold accountable companies that systematically break the law, for example through widespread violations of wage and hour standards. Reports or complaints of employer misconduct are an important part of our work.”

When CalMatters previously asked the attorney general’s office for copies of any wage complaints it had received from gig workers thus far, a spokesperson responded that the office was representing the state in its effort to defend Prop. 22 before the California Supreme Court — and referred CalMatters back to the Industrial Relations Department.

What gig companies share about Prop. 22’s impact

Gig companies have said that, due in part to the initiative’s earnings guarantee, workers now make more than $30 an hour. But a May study by the UC Berkeley Labor Center found that, for California ride-hailing drivers, average earnings after expenses, not including tips, is about $7.12 an hour, and for delivery workers, $5.93. With tips, drivers’ average hourly earnings are $9.09 an hour, and $13.62 for delivery workers, the study found.

To better understand the impact of Prop. 22, CalMatters asked each of the four largest gig companies — Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart — the following:

• How much they have spent on delivering on each of Prop. 22’s four main promises:
  
  • 120% of minimum wage earnings guarantee
  • Health care stipends
  • Occupational accident insurance 
  • Accidental death insurance
• How many gig workers have received each of the promised benefits. 
• Whether they have passed on costs to consumers, and if so, where they account for those customer fees in their public financial filings. 
• How they handle complaints or issues related to their promises.

Lyft said 85% of California Lyft drivers who have driven for the company since Prop. 22 went into effect have received at least one wage “top up” — the additional money drivers receive under the earnings guarantee — through the end of the fourth quarter of 2023, though spokesperson Shadawn Reddick-Smith would not provide specific numbers of Lyft drivers in the state. None of the other companies would give any information on their delivery of the wage guarantee.

Instacart spokesperson Healow said the company has paid out about $40 million in health care subsidies to its delivery workers, which she said number in the tens of thousands in the state. She also said about 11% of California shoppers have become eligible for a health care stipend since Prop. 22 took effect, and that 28% of those eligible shoppers have redeemed their subsidy.

To qualify for the health care stipends, workers must work at least 15 hours a week each quarter, and be enrolled in health insurance that is not provided by an employer or the government. Because the gig companies won’t share how many workers have received the stipends, CalMatters asked the state health insurance exchange, Covered California, if it had data that might help shed some light. Seven percent of the 1.6 million people who used Covered California reported doing gig work in a 2023 survey, said a spokesperson for the exchange, Jagdip Dhillon.

DoorDash spokesperson Parker Dorrough said that just 11% of eligible couriers used the health care stipend in the fourth quarter of 2023 but that 80% of DoorDash’s delivery workers had health care coverage through another source, such as their full-time job or spouse.

None of the other companies would give any information on their delivery of the stipend. Lyft’s Reddick-Smith said 80% of California Lyft drivers already have health care coverage, including 13% who bought their own coverage (this second group is the set of drivers who qualified for the stipend).

None of the four companies provided the numbers of workers who have used occupational accident or accidental death insurance.

None of the companies would disclose how they account for the fees they charge customers for Prop. 22 expenses, nor are the fees included in their publicly available financial filings. Instacart said it does not charge customers for expenses associated with Prop. 22. Lyft said its per-ride service fee includes a 75-cent “California Driver Benefits Fee.” Uber charges customers a “CA Driver Benefits” fee for each ride and delivery in the state and spokesperson Zahid Arab said the company has “invested more than we collected in fees.”

Uber published a blog post after CalMatters’ questions, saying it has “invested” more than $1 billion in Prop. 22 benefits. Arab would not break down these benefits further.

As for complaints related to the promises, each of the companies said workers should contact support agents, whom they can usually get in touch with in the app; an Instacart spokesperson said workers can make some claims directly in the company’s app.

Accounting and enforcement

Ride-hailing driver Sergio Avedian last year helped raise public awareness of the lack of Prop. 22 enforcement. Specifically, he homed in on one narrow issue: Under the law, gig-work companies were supposed to adjust for inflation each year the reimbursement they pay to drivers for mileage. Avedian said no such adjustment had taken place for two consecutive years. And as a podcaster and contributor to the Rideshare Guy, a popular gig-work blog, he had a high profile. Avedian and a fellow eagle-eyed driver started pestering the state’s treasurer’s office, which had not published the adjusted rates as stipulated under Prop 22. The office eventually did so and, the Los Angeles Times reported, put the state’s gig workers on track to get back pay for the mileage expenses — pay potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Now, a year later, Avedian is curious about gig-company math again. He has asked Uber some of the same questions CalMatters did — including how the company accounts for the driver-benefits fee it adds on to each ride or delivery. The company’s response to him was similar — it provided few specifics.

Besides his concern about the issue as a driver, Avedian said “as a consumer who is paying into the Prop. 22 fund on every trip or delivery, I would like to know the accounting of where my money is going.”

When the gig companies were campaigning for Prop. 22, they implored voters to “help create a better path forward for drivers.”

But Avedian and other gig workers in California say their paths have not changed much. Many still complain about low wages, little transparency from the companies and lack of worker protections.

Yasha Timenovich said he has worked as a ride-hailing driver for a decade, first with Uber, now with Lyft.

“I work 12, 13, 14 hours a day,” said Timenovich, who drives in the Los Angeles area. “But the time I sit and wait at LAX is not accounted for.” He said he has to work long hours to try to make sure he has enough earnings. “We’re not completely independent contractors. We’re not employees. We’re sort of a hybrid model of theirs. We’re pretty much nobody.”

He also said he must obtain health insurance through Medi-Cal, California’s health care coverage for low-income residents — which in turn means he doesn’t qualify for the health care stipend. He said every driver he knows “is on Medi-Cal because they can’t afford health insurance. I don’t know anyone who has (the stipend).”

Many drivers voted for Prop. 22, he said. But “what we were told was a lie.”

Warner Bros. Discovery's blockbuster announcement Thursday that it would accept Paramount Skydance's takeover bid shouldn't be thought of simply as seeking to unify two major Hollywood players, two big streaming platforms and two leading TV news divisions under one roof.

It is certainly that. The nearly $111 billion Paramount-Warner marriage would unite their studios — and their back catalogue of shows and movies. It would add such franchises as D.C. Comics, Harry Potter and Game of Thrones to Paramount's Top Gun, Mission Impossible and Star Trek powerhouse. Paramount+ and HBO Max. CBS and CNN.

But there's more to it.

Paramount Skydance Chairman and CEO David Ellison is relying largely on the financial backing of his father, Larry Ellison — the co-founder of software giant Oracle, the lead investor in TikTok US, and one of the richest people on the planet.

The Ellisons have staged what appears to be a lightning-swift ascent through social and legacy media relying heavily on their connection to the Oval Office.

Should the Ellisons receive a green light from regulators to proceed with the deal, the minnow will have swallowed the whale. Warner currently has more than five times the market value of Paramount.

That's on top of acquiring Paramount itself and a major stake in TikTok US — all in less than a year. And that's in addition to Oracle, which runs much of the digital backbone of the nation's commerce and government.

Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, right, sits next to media mogul Rupert Murdoch as they listen to President Donald Trump speak in the Oval Office.

(

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

/

Getty Images North America

)

"It's tech giants becoming media giants," argues Jon Klein, a former top executive at CNN and CBS News.

But history shows such mega-mergers often end in tears. The movie business is expensive. Cable television is highly profitable but in steep decline as viewers cut the cord. The combined company will be saddled with debt. So why would the Ellisons spend their billions this way?

David Ellison has sought to be a force in Hollywood for years. He helped to produce movies with Tom Cruise at his family's company Skydance Media. But for his father, Larry Ellison, it's about more than just making his son's very expensive dreams come true.

"Beyond any dollars that they can derive — it's the data about consumer habits, down to the specific identity," Klein says.

He says the push into artificial intelligence by Oracle creates a thirst for more insight into how people view news and entertainment and what products they buy online. The streaming channels and social media giant both offer greater and more granular information.

"That's the prism that you've got to look at this Paramount/WBD deal through," says Klein, co-founder of HANG Media, a Gen Z social video engagement platform. "Oracle... wants to be one of the major players in AI. That's what Oracle wants to get out of media."

The deal still hinges on acceptance from antitrust regulators in Washington and Europe, who can seek to block the transaction. California's attorney general made clear Thursday night he would also give the acquisition tough scrutiny.

"If a merger substantially reduces competition in any market, it's illegal. Courts sort of take that literally," says University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner, who held a senior antitrust position in the U.S. Justice Department under former President Joe Biden.

"But in practice, the Justice Department has discretion on whether to challenge these mergers," Posner tells NPR. "And the courts have discretion on whether to block them."

Friendly ties to Trump

President Donald Trump's Justice Department is a wild card. Last year, the department's then antitrust chief, Gail Slater, took an aggressive stance against Google in court. Last month, the Justice Department sued to block Hewlett Packard Enterprise's $14 billion acquisition of a wireless tech competitor. Slater resigned under duress this month, however.

The Federal Communications Commission is unlikely to intervene, as no broadcast licenses would change hands in the Paramount takeover of Warner. But its chair, Brendan Carr, may well advise the Justice Department and he has lauded David Ellison's moves at CBS.

Even before sweetening its offer this week, Paramount proclaimed its "confidence in the speed and certainty of regulatory approval for its transaction."

Publicly, it argues that such consolidation is needed to take on streaming giants, very much including Netflix but also Amazon Prime, Apple, Disney and YouTube.

Behind the scenes — and sometimes in not-so-hidden ways — the Ellisons have become cozy with President Trump. Larry Ellison is a backer and adviser.

On Tuesday night, David Ellison attended Trump's State of the Union address as a guest of the president's ally, Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican. Graham tweeted out a photo of the two men making Trump's signature "thumbs-up" gesture ahead of the speech.

The president cares deeply about TV news. He has publicly said he wants new owners for CNN — which he has blasted repeatedly as "fake news" — and has proven willing to interfere in corporate matters in his return to the White House.

Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos departs the White House on Wednesday. Sarandos was there to discuss Netflix's bid for Warner Bros. just hours before Warner announced its preference for Paramount.

(

Andrew Leyden/Getty Images

/

Getty Images North America

)

Netflix chief Ted Sarandos met Thursday with administration officials at the White House — though notably not with Trump, according to an aide — in a last-gasp effort to salvage his company's competing bid. By the end of the night, Netflix had given up the fight.

The shadow cast over the process by the president has inspired sharp criticism of the path that Paramount and the Ellisons took to land the Warner deal.

"A handful of Trump-aligned billionaires are trying to seize control of what you watch and charge you whatever price they want," Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said in a statement. "With the cloud of corruption looming over Trump's Department of Justice, it'll be up to the American people to speak up and state attorneys general to enforce the law."

"It is not just the seemingly open corruption of this entire process that leaves me shaken," writes Jeffrey Blehar in the conservative National Review. "I am shaken by how little people will care."

Said Seth Stern, head of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, "Ellison will readily throw the First Amendment, CNN's reporters and HBO's filmmakers under the bus if they stand in the way of expanding his corporate empire and fattening his pockets."

CNN's future hangs in the balance

The Ellisons' acquisition of Paramount followed a similar path.

Last summer, the previous owners of Paramount announced the end of late night host Stephen Colbert's CBS show as they sought federal approval to sell the company to David Ellison.

While they cited economics, Colbert's was the top-rated late night show on network television — and he has been a lacerating satirist of the president. Colbert called the cancellation a "big fat bribe."

Ellison subsequently made additional pledges to the FCC's Carr to win support. Among them: he promised the cessation of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives throughout Paramount and the addition of an ombudsman to field complaints of ideological bias. He named the former head of a conservative think tank to that role.

Carr blessed the sale. He has since praised the shifts made at CBS News.

The question of what happens to CNN hovers prominently over the Warner sale. The network has undergone rounds of cuts under a series of owners seeking to reduce debt; Paramount would be its fourth corporate parent in under a decade.

Other elements are in play as well.

CBS's new editor in chief is Bari Weiss, founder of the center-right opinion and news site The Free Press. Ellison bought the site and added it to Paramount's portfolio.

Bari Weiss, CBS News' editor in chief, interviews conservative activist Erika Kirk in a CBS town hall event in December.

(

CBS Photo Archive/CBS via Getty Images

/

CBS

)

Weiss has contended CBS and much of the rest of the media has been too reflexively hostile to conservatives and the president, and she's sought to revamp the newsroom.

CNN's Anderson Cooper, who has also served as a correspondent for CBS's 60 Minutes for two decades, recently announced that he would leave the show, citing the desire to spend time with his small children. Associates, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose internal network matters, say he was concerned about the approach that Weiss has taken at CBS.

She is considered likely to have a role over CNN as well, should the deal go through.

CNN CEO Mark Thompson urged colleagues to focus on their news coverage. "Despite all the speculation you've read during this process, I'd suggest that you don't jump to conclusions about the future until we know more," he wrote in a memo Thursday.

Perceived value beyond the bottom line

The deal David Ellison struck for Warner is valued at nearly $111 billion. The new company would carry substantial debts and have Saudi and Emirate backing. The profits are currently relatively modest.

Yet Klein contends larger motives are in play. Just look at Google, he says, which owns what many consider the dominant media company, YouTube.

"They want to know what you watch, and where you come from, and what you buy when you watch, and where you go after you buy, and what you post in the comments and what you like and love and all that," Klein says.

"And if you can combine that with your streaming content and your studio decisions and your marketing for all the content product you're creating," he adds, "you're in a very very powerful position."

Copyright 2026 NPR

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

The Serving Spoon has been an Inglewood cornerstone for four decades, dishing up grilled corn bread and fried turkey chops. 

Now, though, the whole country is in on the secret. 

The breakfast and lunch spot on Centinela Avenue was announced Wednesday by the James Beard Foundation as one of six winners of the America’s Classics Award, an honor the foundation says goes to “timeless” local institutions. The foundation is also responsible for the James Beard Award, one of the nation’s top culinary honors. 

The Serving Spoon joins a pantheon of other L.A.-area eateries to win the classics award including Guelaguetza, Langer’s Deli and Philippe the Original. 

Jessica Bane, part of the third generation to run the family-owned restaurant, said the honor is still sinking in, but that it validates decades of work. “It’s being done out of love,” Bane said.

The Serving Spoon has been an Inglewood cornerstone for four decades, dishing up grilled corn bread and fried turkey chops.

(

Isaiah Murtaugh

/

The LA Local

)

The award announcement hailed The Serving Spoon as an “anchor” of L.A.’s Black community, run by staff who genuinely care for their customers.“The restaurant is cherished for its joyful hospitality and as a place where all can gather and feel at home,” the announcement read. 

The Serving Spoon didn’t exactly need Beard recognition — the diner is often packed and already has  pedigree as Snoop Dogg and Raphael Saadiq’s breakfast spot of choice in the 2000 Lucy Pearl song “You” — but Bane said the award takes the diner’s reputation national.“The recognition is beyond appreciated,” Bane said. 

The Serving Spoon was founded in 1983 by Bane’s grandfather, Harold E. Sparks. He passed the restaurant down to Bane and her brother, Justin Johnson, through their parents. 

The menu looks much the same as it did four decades ago, Bane said, though some of the dishes have been renamed for regulars. 

During the Thursday lunch rush a day after the announcement, The Serving Spoon’s vinyl booths were packed, as usual. Bane oversaw the dining room while Johnson marshaled plates of fried catfish through the kitchen. 

Tina and Kevin Jenkins waited for a table outside. The L.A. natives each have been coming to The Serving Spoon since childhood. They live in Lancaster now, but make sure to come back to the diner whenever they’re in town. 

“It’s the atmosphere, our people, our music,” Tina Jenkins said.

Despite taxes on imports at levels not seen in a century, Long Beach’s seaport had a good year in 2025. And a decent January.

Port officials said Wednesday they started the new year by leading the nation in trade, responsible for moving more than 847,000 shipping containers in January — 51% of the total cargo at the San Pedro Bay Complex, which it shares with neighboring Port of Los Angeles.

In a call with reporters, Port CEO Noel Hacegaba said that despite a “fair share of doom and gloom” at the time, the seaport finished 2025 as its busiest year on record.

This comes days after President Donald Trump signed new, across-the-board tariffs on U.S. trading partners, and later added he would raise the tariffs to 15%. It’s a direct response to a recent Supreme Court decision that found his tariffs announced last April were unconstitutional.

The new tariffs would operate under a law that restricts them to 150 days, unless approved by Congress.

Asked to measure how much this will affect the seaport, traders, logistics companies and consumers, Hacegaba reiterated a word he has evoked heavily in the past 10 months: uncertainty.

“Our strong cargo volumes do not suggest we are not being affected by tariffs,” Hacegaba said, adding the Port saw a 13% decline in imports driven by major reductions in iron, steel, synthetic fibers, salt, sulfur and cement.

Economists are somewhat more confident, saying it would take nothing short of a national economic crisis to reverse the seaport’s fortunes. “Even if the market is affected, our standing at the Port of Long Beach, even compared to other ports, is strong,” said Laura Gonzalez, an economics professor at Cal State Long Beach.

But experts caution that the ruling will heap the most damage on businesses, especially smaller enterprises, as well as the average consumer who already bore the tariff’s costs last year.

Noel Hacegaba, CEO of the Port of Long Beach, held his first State of the Port in Long Beach on Thursday, Jan. 15, 2026.

(

Thomas R. Cordova

/

Long Beach Post

)

Tariffs added $1,700 in costs to the average U.S. household, as importers raised prices to offset higher import taxes — especially on clothes, shoes and electronics from China and other Southeast Asian nations.

Consumers, Gonzalez said, should budget over the next six months “for essentials.”

Priyaranjan Jha, an economics professor at UC Irvine, said historically trade policies since 2018 have shown that for every dollar of duty imposed, consumer prices rose by about 90 cents.

Even if tariffs are reduced or reversed, and pressure is relieved on importers, consumers shouldn’t expect lower sticker prices right away, he said. “Firms do not always reduce prices as quickly as they raise them, especially if contracts or inventories are involved.”

Richer San, a former banker and business owner in Long Beach, said he’s in regular talks with shops across the city’s historic Cambodia Town that have been crushed by the increased prices of imported ingredients.

“Most of these are family-owned businesses operating on very small profit margins,” he said, adding there is little to no margin to “absorb higher costs.”

Many companies managed to avoid price increases last year in part by stockpiling inventory in the first half of the year to be sold through Christmas and the start of the year. As stock dwindles, many businesses might be less willing to eat the cost of a new set of tariffs.

Marc Sullivan, president of Long Beach-based Global Trade and Customs, said his logistics company saw a brief boom last year in ordered goods, mostly medical equipment and pharmaceuticals.

But by June, orders dropped 35%, a trend that continues today. It’s forced him to freeze any new hiring in the past year and at least through the next six months as he waits for federal officials to settle on tariffs that will determine the cost of shipped goods.

“For the companies that I work with that are importing into the state here, it’s just ‘hold on and let’s see what happens,’” he said.

“I’d like to hire a salesperson to go out and chase new business, … but it’s just a bleak outlook,” he added.

In the interim, he’s received a steady flow of calls (that started “within minutes” of the ruling) from importers looking to claim refunds or recoup their tariff expenses. The U.S. Treasury had collected more than $140 billion from tariffs enacted under emergency powers, and the Supreme Court left the decision of how to appropriate the refund proceedings to lower courts.

His response: They might be stuck waiting for a while. “Customs doesn’t pay anything back quickly,” he said. “It could be a year before you ever see anything back to you.”

Sullivan said he knows of companies that spent upwards of $20,000 per shipment for months.

“They’re going to want that money to be able to reinvest it,” Sullivan said.

But some experts say that consumers, as well as small businesses, deserve a share of refunds.

“The importer may receive a refund even though consumers bore much of the cost,” Jha said. “Courts generally refund the statutory payer, not downstream buyers, but that opens the possibility of follow-on litigation. Small businesses that directly imported goods and paid tariffs should qualify for refunds.”

Topline:

A long turtle lineage: Dubbed “Porkchop” by aquarium staff due to her hefty appetite, the young female green sea turtle represents one of seven sea turtle species worldwide (six of which occur in U.S. waters). These animals have called our oceans home since at least the time of the dinosaurs — about 110 million years ago, according to NOAA. All species of sea turtles found in the U.S. are listed as either endangered or threatened and are protected by the Endangered Species Act.

Porkchop’s healing journey: Aquarium vets had to amputate Porkchop’s right front flipper after tangled fishing lines severely cut off her blood flow. She also had a fishing hook removed from her throat. First rescued after being spotted in the San Gabriel River by volunteers with the aquarium’s sea turtle monitoring program last March, her healing journey took nearly a year. She now swims and eats as well as her four-flippered kin and after a final physical exam, blood sample and X-ray, vets determined she was ready to return to her wild roots. She also now has a microchip, so if she ends up stranded again, scientists will know it’s her.

An ambassador for conservation: Porkchop became the aquarium’s first public-facing ambassador for its expanded green sea turtle rescue efforts. A new holding tank, viewable by the public, doubles the aquarium’s capacity to rescue green sea turtles and provides firsthand education about their conservation efforts. The aquarium is currently caring for another larger and older female green sea turtle — she weighs more than 200 pounds — rescued from the San Gabriel River in January. She’ll be in the public viewing tank in the coming months when she’s recovered a bit more.

How to help local green sea turtles: Green sea turtle populations are actually doing quite well in the San Gabriel River, but trash, debris and pollution remains a big threat. If you fish the San Gabriel River, never litter fishing lines or hooks. If you see a stranded sea turtle in the San Gabriel River or elsewhere, call the West Coast Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Stranding Network’s hotline at (562) 506-4315. You can also donate to the aquarium’s rescue program.