The Brief

Among the most controversial bills that died this spring was a measure prompted by allegations that Gov. Gavin Newsom secured a lucrative benefit for a billionaire supporter by exempting his restaurants from a minimum wage increase.

Newsom dismissed the allegations as “absurd,” but KCRA 3 reported that the public might never get a full accounting of what happened because participants to the bill negotiations signed non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that threatened them with legal action if they spoke about the issue.

The controversy prompted a bill banning NDAs for legislative negotiations, but the bill died last month even though only one Democratic member of the Assembly Committee on Elections voted against it. It failed because five other Democrats on the committee didn’t vote.

As CalMatters revealed in April, not voting is a common practice for California legislators. Last year, at least 15 bills died due to lack of votes instead of lawmakers actually voting “no” to kill them. So far this year, a database at CalMatters’ Digital Democracy indicates that at least 12 bills have died because lawmakers declined to vote.

Insiders say it’s a way for legislators to be polite to colleagues and perhaps avoid a “no” vote on their own legislation. But critics say it’s also a way for legislators to dodge responsibility for their decisions.

“Some will say that those bills were tough votes for lawmakers,” said Mike Gatto, a former Democratic legislator from Los Angeles. “But one must remember that the whole reason why the public elects these lawmakers is for them to take tough votes.”

The Legislature’s bill-tracking website doesn’t distinguish whether a legislator declined to vote, was absent or if the lawmaker announced they were formally abstaining from voting.

Now, with the launch of Digital Democracy, the public has easy access to video and transcripts that show just how often legislators are present in hearings and even engage in discussion, sometimes highly critical of the legislation, before staying silent during the call for a vote. Some legislators say the practice should be changed.

“I think it is appropriate for legislators to basically vote ‘yes’ or vote ‘no,’ ” Santa Ana Democratic Sen. Tom Umberg, a former federal prosecutor, recently told CBS News for a story done in collaboration with CalMatters. “But, you know, that is the system that we have. Should we change it? Probably.”

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire didn’t respond to CalMatters’ requests to discuss whether the Legislature’s rules on voting should change.

Public safety, ratepayer protection bills die

Among the bills that died recently from California Democrats not voting were several involving public safety issues. They include a bill that would have prohibited sexually violent predators from being released into communities unless they had a place to live. Another would have increased penalties for property crimes. A third would have made it harder for police to charge people with a crime for filing false complaints against officers.

Another bill that died for lack of votes would restrict the controversial practice of gas and electric utilities from using ratepayer money for political lobbying. Senate Bill 938 was in response to a Sacramento Bee investigation last summer that revealed SoCalGas charged at least $36 million to ratepayers for political lobbying to oppose California policies aimed at addressing the climate crisis.

Environmentalists and utility watchdog groups were outraged, arguing that ratepayers’ bills should only reflect the cost to deliver electricity or gas to their homes. They said shareholders should foot the bill for political lobbying.

But Sen. Dave Min, a Democrat from Irvine, saw his bill to ban the practice fail in April before the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee. The committee has 18 members, so the bill needed at least 10 “yes” votes to advance. In two separate votes, six members of the committee declined to vote. When combined with Republicans’ “no” votes, the abstentions were enough to kill Min’s bill.

At its April 16 hearing, Democratic Sens. Bill Dodd of Napa and Angelique Ashby from Sacramento questioned whether the legislation would help consumers since lobbying costs represent a small fraction of a utility’s expenses. In the end, they both declined to vote.

Joining them were fellow Democrats Josh Newman, Anna Caballero, Susan Rubio and the committee’s chairperson, Steven Bradford. Dodd’s office was the only one to respond to CalMatters’ interview request.

“I respect the author and his intent with the bill, but there were unanswered questions about the impact it would have on grants for fire prevention activities,” Dodd said in an emailed statement. “So I reserved voting ‘yes’ or ‘no’ until those questions were answered.”

Not voting on ‘Paneragate’ bill

Several legislators who helped kill the bill banning NDAs from legislative negotiations were also present during that hearing.

The four Democratic Assemblymembers on the elections committee who declined to vote on the NDA ban are Marc Berman of Cupertino, Steve Bennett of Oxnard, Akilah Weber of La Mesa and Matt Haney of San Francisco. Evan Low of Cupertino, who’s running for Congress, was absent for the hearing. The absence is recorded on the Legislature’s tally of votes the same as the lawmakers who stayed silent. None of them responded to interview requests.

It was a controversial bill in part because it dealt with a scandal about the governor that broke in February when Bloomberg News reported that the Panera Bread chain appeared to be exempt from a new law that raised the state’s minimum wage to $20 for fast food workers. In the Bloomberg investigation, sources said the Newsom administration sought the exemption to benefit a billionaire Panera Bread franchise owner who is a major Newsom donor.

After KCRA revealed that negotiators working on the minimum wage bill were required to sign NDAs, Republican Assemblymember Vince Fong introduced the bill to ban the practice for legislative negotiations. Labor groups opposed the bill, and business groups were split. Fong, who is running for Congress, didn’t return a request for comment.

During the hearing, Assemblymembers Berman and Weber spoke with the bill’s author, but still declined to vote.

“This is an extremely important bill that deals with a very important issue,” Weber said in the hearing. She also suggested the bill was drafted too quickly and she had questions about “whether or not the bill was too broad.”

Gatto, a former Democratic Assemblymember, said it was especially galling that lawmakers refused to vote on the non-disclosure agreement bill, given the legislation “itself involves the sanctity of the (legislative) process.”

“It just feels dirtier somehow,” Gatto said.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath announced Monday that she is running to be the county’s first elected chief executive. Horvath is the only candidate so far to enter the race, which is set for 2028.

The new executive post will take the place of the county’s appointed CEO and implement key priorities of the county Board of Supervisors. The executive will oversee the county budget, which is currently roughly $50 billion, and labor relations with more than 100,000 employees.

Horvath was first elected to the Board of Supervisors in 2022 and was re-elected in June to another four-year term. She represents the county’s 3rd District, which covers the San Fernando Valley and parts of the Westside and Central Los Angeles. She is a former mayor of West Hollywood.

The supervisor made her announcement Monday via social media and her campaign website. She called the race a “once-in-a-generation opportunity.”

The backstory

Voters created the position in 2024 when they approved Measure G, which was proposed by Supervisors Horvath and Janice Hahn.

Among other changes, the measure allowed the Board of Supervisors to expand from five to nine members by 2030 and established an independent Ethics Commission, which held its first meeting last month.

The pushback

On Monday, Supervisor Kathryn Barger issued a statement saying she believed it was “premature” to campaign for the new county executive position when it remained unclear whether “the office itself is constitutional.”

Barger pointed to questions raised by former federal judge Stephen Larson about whether California’s Constitution allows an elected county executive to veto board decisions, control county contracts and take on powers state law currently gives the Board of Supervisors.

“Moving forward with an office that would fundamentally change how Los Angeles County is governed, without first resolving these questions, is putting the cart before the horse,” Barger said in her statement. “We need clarity.”

The primary election is scheduled for March 7, 2028.

The Los Angeles Unified School District said it’s reviewing how to proceed after Google’s announcement last week that it will not allow schools to use its search engine unless they opt in to using artificial intelligence.

Google said that in the coming months, access to products like Gemini and Google Search would be turned off by default until schools turn them on, saying it believes “schools should have control over AI in their classroom.” But Google Search, by default, includes an AI chatbot and uses AI to summarize search results — meaning that schools that restrict AI would not have access to Google Search.

Earlier this school year, LAUSD implemented a moratorium on students using generative AI on district-issued devices.

“We are reviewing Google’s announcement and its potential implications for schools, educators and students,” said a spokesperson for LAUSD. “Los Angeles Unified believes emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, have the potential to enhance teaching and learning when introduced thoughtfully, responsibly and with clear safeguards.”

“Search and A.I. are deeply integrated,” Chris Phillips, vice president for education at Google, said to The New York Times. He told the outlet that if a school bans AI, students “will not have access to search, and they’ll see a message from their school that indicates it’s not available.”

Currently, students in LAUSD can still use Google to search for information, a district spokesperson said, but the AI mode — in which students can converse with the company’s chatbot, Gemini — is turned off. Some searches may still show an AI-generated summary or overview. The district has asked Google for a modification to allow the summaries to be turned off.

If a school does opt in to artificial intelligence, Google said it will offer a “guided learning” tool in its chatbot for student accounts “to help them work through problems without skipping straight to answers.”

The announcement has prompted outcry from advocates. "Google forced its AI products into classrooms, and parents fought back," said Lila Byock, founder of Schools Beyond Screens, the group that pushed for LAUSD’s AI moratorium, as well as the district’s screen time limit. "Now Google is refusing to take no for an answer. … Schools Beyond Screens calls on district leaders to reclaim their authority from corporate interests and divest from Google."

The district’s ad hoc committee on generative AI is scheduled to have its next meeting on Nov. 13.

Rep. Thomas Massie moved Monday to force a vote to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, setting the stage for a dramatic vote on whether to remove one of the Trump administration’s most prominent figures following sweeping election losses.

The impeachment resolution was introduced by Massie, a Kentucky Republican, as soon as the House opened for the first day of sessions after the midterms. It largely focuses on the war in Iran but also includes references to Hegseth’s role in carrying out military actions in Yemen and Venezuela.

Massie said the secretary’s actions amount to “high crimes and misdemeanors” and his leadership at the Pentagon “thus warrants impeachment.”

A vote in the House could come by mid-week, putting pressure on Republicans — many of whom blamed their election wipeout on the Iran war — but next steps are highly uncertain.

House Speaker Mike Johnson had tried to prevent this outcome, and warned lawmakers against impeaching the Defense secretary while the U.S. is engaged in military actions in the Middle East.

“Impeaching a Cabinet secretary right now, especially the Department of War in the middle of hostilities abroad would be a terrible, terrible look, a terrible thing for our allies and our enemies to see that,” Johnson, a Republican, said as he opened the chamber.

“We don’t impeach Cabinet secretaries for political gain or for cheap tricks, and I think that’s what this is and I think everybody knows it.”

Most House Democrats are expected to support impeaching Hegseth, with Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries saying over the weekend it’s time for the Defense secretary to go.

If the House votes to impeach Hegseth, it would next go to the Senate for a potential trial. Republicans remain in the majority in both chambers, until the new Congress convenes in January with Democrats in control.

Hegseth issues his own defense and prepares for a fight

Hegseth maintains he’s eager to litigate the military actions that he and President Donald Trump have taken against Iran, Yemen’s Iranian-backed Houthi rebels and Venezuela’s previous leaders.

“If you want to take issue with what we did in Epic Fury or Rough Rider or nabbing Nicolás Maduro, you’re taking issue with the troops and what they accomplished, which is historic,” Hegseth told reporters Monday, using the military code names for the Iran war and campaign of strikes to halt the Houthis’ attacks on shipping in the Middle East.

Hegseth also announced that he would hold a rare news conference on Tuesday — his first in over 180 days — on the impeachment threat. His last briefing was in May, and he has not held one on the Iran war, strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats or other U.S. military actions since then.

The Pentagon chief is bearing the brunt of anger and calls for his ouster after the Iran war and its economic impact contributed to severe Republican losses in the midterm elections that cost the party control of Congress.

Hegseth waves off impeachment push as ‘noise’

Hegseth, after giving a speech at the Naval War College in Rhode Island, brushed aside the impeachment push.

“There’s a lot of politically motivated people who may have substantial policy disagreements, but their disagreements are with success,” he told reporters. He added that “if we want to litigate” the military actions that the Trump administration has taken, “I’m happy to do it all day long.”

“My team, we’re not worried about the noise — it’s what I told the troops, too — ‘don’t worry about the noise,’” he said.

Asked about Vice President JD Vance blaming the Iran war for the massive GOP losses in the election, Hegseth noted that Trump said he would do it again, and “I agree.”

He largely repeated a line that Secretary of State Marco Rubio said to reporters a day earlier: “It doesn’t have to be necessarily popular, but it can be necessary.”

Hegseth argued that the war was necessary because “someone had to confront the Iranian regime’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon” and said “the choice was don’t act and wish it away or take a bold move.”

Iran has long maintained that its nuclear program is peaceful. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran has 440.9 kilograms (972 pounds) of uranium that is enriched up to 60% purity, a short, technical step from weapons-grade levels of 90%.

Trump defended Hegseth to reporters on Sunday night.

“He’s guilty of two things, basically winning two wars,” Trump said. “I believe we saved the Middle East and Israel combined. And it’s awfully hard to say let’s impeach somebody who did that.”

Pentagon chief insists ‘Iran is devastated’

Hegseth reiterated that “Iran is devastated,” even though the Islamic Republic has been able to keep striking military bases in the Middle East that are used by the United States, causing billions of dollars in damage, as well as commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Disruptions to shipping in the waterway, where one-fifth of the world’s oil passed before the war, have led to higher energy prices that hit voters’ pocketbooks.

He said the next steps on the war are up to Trump, including telling Iran: “Hey, we’re done, and we’re going to watch your nuclear material. You better not move it.”

Hegseth’s defense of the war comes after about 6 in 10 voters said the U.S. made the “wrong decision” in taking military action against Iran, according to The AP Voter Poll, a survey of more than 100,000 voters in the United States.

With anger in Congress rising, Hegseth has been on a social media blitz, posting a video last week acknowledging the threat of impeachment. He said it would be “all about the politics of personal destruction” and insisted that “won’t work with me. You can rest assured of that.”

Since then, scores of political appointees within the Pentagon have posted images of Hegseth emblazoned with the words, “Stand. Fight. Defend the Republic.” The White House also posted a video to social media that featured praise from Trump.

___

Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.

It is the final hoorah for the 119th Congress. Republicans have just weeks left in control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The main thing on the agenda: keeping the federal government open. Funding is set to run out on December 11, when a stop-gap measure passed about a month ahead of the midterms expires.

Any funding extension is all but certain to be done through another short-term bill, known as a continuing resolution. The typical government funding process — 12 carefully negotiated appropriations bills — would take time and political will that lawmakers currently lack.

Congress will also need to find a path forward on the National Defense Authorization Act, long considered a must-pass annual military funding package. This year, the bill is quagmired in the unforgiving politics of the Iran war. The conflict is opposed by a majority of Americans — something President Trump has acknowledged was a key force in driving his party out of power.

The House is also likely to vote on an impeachment effort targeting Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Introduced by Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a key figure in forcing the administration's release of the Epstein files, the impeachment measure lists a number of charges, including that the administration failed to properly consult Congress on the military campaign.

Democrats are unlikely to be in a compromising mood on legislation, just weeks away from taking control of both chambers. That means continued work on big-ticket items like the Protect College Sports Act, meant to introduce new regulations around college athlete compensation, and a bipartisan energy permitting overhaul will likely wait until the new term.

With slim majorities in both chambers, they could also have to contend with some attendance problems after a demoralizing performance in last week's midterm elections. That further complicates passing legislation through chambers already governed by the thinnest of majorities.

Mike Ricci, a Republican strategist with the group Seven Letter and aide to former Speakers of the House John Boehner and Paul Ryan, told NPR that a number of forces could help draw reluctant lame duck legislators back to Washington, including winding down their offices, finding new work and attending the White House Christmas party.

Copyright 2026 NPR