The Brief

The Legislature wants to make putting on a California police or firefighter uniform more lucrative.

Three bills are moving forward that would either raise pay for state firefighters or boost retirement benefits for public safety personnel.

Their supporters say the measures are meant to compensate people who risk their lives for others and who by the nature of their jobs are exposed to career-shortening hazards. The proposals are sailing through the Legislature with bipartisan support and overwhelming majorities of lawmakers voting for them.

“Every day has a cost, and it's one that we pay with our lives,” Darrell Roberts, president of the union California Professional Firefighters said at a recent hearing where he spoke in favor of a bill that would let public safety employees retire at 55, two years earlier than currently allowed. “This job is physically and mentally demanding in the extreme and asking us to work until 57 is pushing us not just to our limit but beyond it.”

The proposals carry significant price tags and could potentially drive up annual spending by hundreds of millions of dollars. They could also swell the state’s long-term liabilities by billions of dollars. That could make them a tough sell to Gov. Gavin Newsom given that the state anticipates deficits in the near future.

The two retirement bills in particular are rekindling memories of California’s pension crisis in the Great Recession, when major funds lost tens of billions of dollars. At the time, taxpayer advocates drew attention to sweetened benefits that former Gov. Gray Davis signed into law just a few years before the crash, when the stock market was booming.

Marcia Fritz, an accountant and longtime Californmia pension watchdog, said the current push to expand public safety retirement benefits is similar to the law Davis signed. During Davis’ tenure, California’s pension funds were flush from a soaring stock market fueled by tech companies, and lawmakers believed the good run would continue.

Today, the two largest pension funds — CalPERS and CalSTRS — have not fully recovered from their recession losses. But they have been beating their earnings targets, thanks in part to a stock market again propelled by the tech sector.

To Fritz, the lawmakers advancing the bill are “drinking the Kool Aid that the markets are never going to go down,” she said. “We’re the ones paying for it with reduced services.”

California scaled back benefits for workers hired after 2012 when former Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law that compelled employees to work longer before earning a full pension and required them to kick in more money to fund their own pensions.

CalPERS has estimated that Brown’s pension reform saved government agencies $4 billion in its first 10 years and projected it would reduce their expenses by another $24 billion over the next decade.

To taxpayer advocates like Fritz, that’s a sign tthe law is working and should continue as is. To the public safety unions, that means the government agencies have capacity to increase benefits without fully unwinding Brown’s law.

The bills moving forward would:

• Allow public safety employees to retire at age 55 rather than 57. Assembly Bill 1383 also would allow unions to negotiate more generous retirement formulas that would give public safety employees up to 3% of their income for each year in uniform. And it would boost the cap on annual pensionable earnings by almost $60,000 to $249,000 a year. 
• Create a new deferred retirement program for California Highway Patrol officers and Cal Fire firefighters. AB 1054 is meant to give officers and firefighters an incentive to keep working later in their careers by allowing them to accumulate money that they could cash out in a single lump sum check when they retire.
• Increase Cal Fire firefighters’ pay by recommending a new formula for their raises. AB 2129 would encourage the governor’s office to bring their compensation closer to — but not necessarily equal to — the average of what 20 local fire departments pay. 

How much do they cost?

The bill that would allow police and firefighters to retire earlier carries the biggest potential cost, requiring an additional $282 million in annual contributions to the California Public Employees’ Retirement system and increasing its long-term liabilities by $4.8 billion.

Its price tag would increase if cities, counties and other local government agencies agree to offer more generous pension formulas to police and firefighters, as the bill would allow. If that happens, CalPERS estimates it would cost an additional $353 million in annual contributions and further swell the fund’s long-term debt.

Those estimates do not account for the 20 county-run pension systems that are separate from CalPERS.

The potential costs are one reason California cities and counties oppose the measure. “We do definitely support strong retirement benefits, but those benefits must remain sustainable and fiscally responsible for our local agencies,” Johnnie Pina, a lobbyist for the League of California Cities, said at a recent Senate hearing.

It’s less clear what the other two measures will cost.

Supporters of the bill that would give CHP officers and Cal Fire firefighters access to an alternate retirement investment program during their last five years of service say it is intended to be cost neutral, although similar plans offered by cities and counties have driven up expenses. The bill requires CalPERS to assess the program every five years, which union representatives say would allow lawmakers to make adjustments if they see unintended drawbacks.

The measure that would nudge Newsom to raise pay for Cal Fire firefighters has an uncertain cost because it’s written in a way that would allow flexibility for the governor’s office.

It encourages the governor to bargain “in good faith” toward bringing Cal Fire compensation closer to what local governments pay, but does not mandate it. A 2023 state compensation survey found that local fire departments pay firefighters between 11% and 29% more than Cal Fire.

"Instead of being the lowest paid, we will inevitably be somewhere in the middle" if the bill becomes law, firefighter union lobbyist Terry McHale told lawmakers at a hearing earlier this year.

Last year, Newsom rejected a similar measure that was more explicit in demanding an increase in Cal Fire pay. Newsom wrote in a veto message that it would “create significant cost pressures for the state and circumvent the collective bargaining process.” Officials estimate it would have cost between $373 million and $609 million in its first year.

Cal Fire’s firefighter union essentially wants what only one other group of state workers has: Raises based on what other government agencies pay. CHP officers receive annual raises based on what several other large California police departments pay; every other state worker union has to negotiate compensation with the governor.

Gov. Gavin Newsom addresses the media during a press conference unveiling his revised 2026-27 budget proposal at the Capitol Annex Swing Space in Sacramento on May 14, 2026.

(

Miguel Gutierrez Jr.

/

CalMatters

)

What will Newsom do?

All three measures face a major obstacle later this month in the Senate Appropriations Committee, which has the power to sideline bills over cost concerns. If they clear that committee, the bills have a good chance of reaching Newsom’s desk.

At the most recent hearing, lawmakers said increasing incentives to recruit and retain first responders was so important that they’d cut other programs to make room for the additional spending. They commended emergency personnel who rushed to a chemical spill in Orange County in May not knowing if the danger would harm them.

“I still get goosebumps for these firefighters and their families that had to know that they're that they're they were putting their lives online to save that explosion from happening, which they actually end up doing,” Sen. Tony Strickland, a Republican representing Huntington Beach, said at the hearing.

“You can't put a price tag on that,” he said.

The unions have also been a steady presence in the Capitol throughout Newsom’s tenure. Firefighter unions have contributed $6.2 million to lawmakers and legislative campaigns since 2019 and the law enforcement organization known as PORAC has spent $4.5 million over that time, according to CalMatters Digital Democracy database.

They’ve also been reliable allies to Newsom. California Professional Firefighters and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association were two of the largest donors in helping the governor defeat a 2021 recall campaign.

But the unions’ support for Newsom and other lawmakers doesn’t guarantee that he’ll sign the bills. Newsom was mayor of San Francisco during the Great Recession, and he backed a successful ballot measure that required city employees to put more of their own money toward their pensions.

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

Progressive Jane Kim, one of two Democratic candidates for California insurance commissioner, is betting that voters are as hungry for change as those who powered Zohran Mamdani into New York City's mayor's office and Abdul El-Sayed into Michigan's U.S. Senate race after the Democratic Party endorsed her rival, state Sen. Ben Allen.

How it plays out could rest on how engaged voters will be about an elected position they may not know much about; how much weight disillusioned voters give to the state party's endorsement; and how much they respond to ads and mailers that they’ll be bombarded with ahead of the November election.

Kim, a former member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, is squaring off against Allen to become the regulator of the state’s massive insurance market. Kim wants to establish state-run natural disaster insurance for all and expand low-cost auto insurance to all California drivers, in line with well-known progressive ideas like Medicare for All. Allen wants to stabilize and improve the private insurance market after years of availability and affordability problems largely driven by increased wildfire risk and massive, deadly wildfires.

Kim’s message has struck a chord with many Californians: She got the most votes, more than 27%, among the 11 candidates on the ballot in the June primary. Allen came in second with more than 19%.

“(Kim and Allen are) a microcosm of the fracture going on in the Democratic Party across the country,” said Shauhin Talesh, a law professor at UC Irvine whose expertise includes insurance and consumer protection. “They both think insurance companies should be regulated. The question: How aggressively should California intervene and what role should the government claim?”

Allen recently secured the California Democratic Party’s endorsement, which Talesh said wasn’t surprising because the senator is seen as a more “traditional” candidate.

Kim, whose accomplishments include securing free community college for San Francisco residents and the state’s first $15 minimum wage, was the director of the California Working Families Party, a party within the Democratic umbrella that supports progressive policies including raising the minimum wage. She is backed by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, on whose presidential campaign she worked in 2020.

“Is this going to become another situation where people are speaking with their votes (and going against the establishment)?” Talesh asked. “At what point does Democratic Party recognize it?”

But Kim isn’t just lacking the state party’s endorsement. The insurance industry is, not surprisingly, leery of her plans to have the state play a greater role in insurance. So are some consumer advocacy groups such as Consumer Watchdog, whose founder wrote the ballot initiative that became the state’s insurance law.

Jamie Court, president of the group, warned that a state-run natural disaster insurance fund — which Kim says would be funded by portions of premiums policyholders pay to their insurance companies — would require tens of billions of dollars to start, which he said could be wiped out by one catastrophic fire.

Kim has said that while her proposal would require further study, her critics fail to address that there needs to be more discussion and “public engagement to reform the system.”

“I don’t think just allowing the insurance industry to raise rates is the solution,” she told CalMatters in an interview. “People will lose their homes or go uninsured. And that will wreck the economy.”

Allen told CalMatters that his opponent’s proposal “is effectively a massive subsidy for those who are rich” because their homes will cost more to replace after a fire.

Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party, said Kim’s message is resonating with Californians because of “a populist wave, not a progressive wave” nationwide.

He noted that primary results showed Kim did well in historically conservative areas such as the Inland Empire and the Central Valley, as well as in Los Angeles County — which includes Allen’s district.

Considering those results, Jorge Contreras, California director of the Working Families Party, called the state Democratic Party’s endorsement of Allen “out of touch.”

Some delegates for Kim complained their votes did not seem to be counted; Kim called for a recount.

“The votes were counted,” said Robin Swanson, spokesperson for the party. “And recounted. The result was the same.”

Insurance Commissioner candidate Ben Allen delivers remarks during the California Democratic Party convention at Moscone Center in San Francisco on Feb. 21, 2026.

(

Yalonda M. James

/

San Francisco Chronicle via AP

)

Contreras noted that the next day, the California Labor Federation endorsed Kim.

Not everyone buys the "moderate" label being pinned on Allen — including at least one of his own supporters.

“Ben is a progressive by any standard,” said RL Miller, former chair of the California Democratic Party’s Environmental Caucus who also runs a political action committee, Climate Hawks. The group doesn’t endorse in California races, but Miller said she personally endorsed Allen.

“He’s stood with us and authored landmark climate bills over the years,” Miller said, adding that the “tribal nature of Democratic politics these days” might be the reason Allen is being seen as the more moderate candidate.

Allen has a strong track record on the environment, including his work on Proposition 4, the $10 billion bond measure approved by voters in 2024, which includes funding for wildfire prevention. He also authored the law that decreases the use of single-use plastics.

Allen’s votes have also been more aligned with some of the same groups now supporting Kim, including the California Labor Federation. The senator’s record has generally not aligned with business interests, according to CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database.

Though both candidates have pledged not to take money from the insurance industry, Contreras said it’s important to follow the money in this race.

Business groups spent $1.5 million to oppose Kim’s primary campaign, mostly from JOBSPAC, a coalition of employers sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce, according to Digital Democracy.

Meanwhile, Contreras said “Ben Allen has taken crypto money, which came in big for him at the end.” Campaign finance records show billionaire Chris Larsen, co-founder of crypto company Ripple, in May gave $1 million to the PAC sponsored by California Environmental Voters, the biggest outside spender supporting Allen’s campaign.

Contreras said billionaires are going to spend a lot of money supporting moderates this election cycle: “Why? Because they want the status quo. Jane is now going to be the bogeyman.”

Jane Kim speaks to supporters during an election night party at El Rio in San Francisco on June 2, 2026.

(

Beth LaBerge

/

KQED

)

The biggest contributors to Kim’s campaign are the California Working Families Party and the California Teachers Association, which gave about $365,000 and $150,000 each, respectively.

The main difference between this battle and other contests going on elsewhere is that many voters don’t know exactly what the insurance commissioner does, said Kevin Liao, a Democratic political consultant who briefly worked on Allen’s campaign before leaving to work on Tom Steyer’s gubernatorial campaign during the primary.

That could mean that voters will rely on shortcuts such as Sanders’ endorsement of Kim, or the California Democrats’ endorsement of Allen. The race could come down to whose brand will convince voters, he said.

“We’re at a moment when voters, certainly the base of the Democratic Party, are fed up with the party establishment,” Liao said.

But not all candidates with more progressive ideas have found success: In California, the progressive Steyer failed to advance to the general election. Recently, David Crowley, a moderate Democrat, beat Francesca Hong, a democratic socialist, in the Democratic primary for Wisconsin governor by less than a percentage point.

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

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Regular reports out of immigrant detention facilities, some as recent as last month, indicate a pattern of complaints: bad water, untrained staff and slow response times to acute and chronic medical conditions.

Despite those complaints — echoed by disability rights groups, a federal judge and the California Justice Department — Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities have received high marks on their own internal scorecards.

An analysis by the Project on Government Oversight found that, under the Trump administration, the number of ICE detention facilities with the agency’s highest inspection grade, “superior,” has tripled since 2024. That coincided, the analysis found, with weakened detention standards and fewer inspections.

Those “superior” ratings have coincided with a rise in deaths in immigration detention custody — 2025 was the deadliest year in ICE custody since 2004.

Four people have died at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center since August 2025, according to the Project on Government Oversight, the most of any facility in the country during that span.

The ratings come from ICE’s Office of Detention Oversight, which also grades the facilities for “deficiencies,” or violations of ICE detention standards. Those failures are important: If a facility fails twice in a row, it can lose federal funding.

“Despite this provision — or perhaps because of it — detention facilities rarely received failing grades from inspectors between fiscal years 2022 and 2026,” the Project on Government Oversight investigators wrote.

ICE detention facilities are holding a record number of people, at least 65,000 on July 11. But even with that skyrocketing custody population, ICE has also found fewer violations among its facilities.

The analysis found that the number of violations at ICE facilities dropped by 68% between 2022 and 2025.

The Project on Government Oversight, which describes itself as a nonpartisan investigative nonprofit, said in its report that ICE did not respond to multiple interview attempts. The nonprofit released its findings this morning and CalMatters is seeking comment from ICE.

When news media organizations reach out to for-profit prison companies that run these detention centers, like GEO Group and CoreCivic, about complaints, they often point to these federal detention standards as a counterpoint to specific allegations.

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