The Brief

When is it OK for a president to use military forces on civilians in a state over the objections of their governor?

When that governor is Gavin Newsom, California Republican leaders say.

In a rare move, President Donald Trump overrode Newsom and local leaders in sending 4,000 National Guard members and 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles in response to protests against the president’s immigration enforcement.

California is challenging Trump’s order in federal court. While the president argues that he has the sole authority to deploy the military, legal scholars and judges have warned that the move risks intruding upon state sovereignty and tilting the constitutional balance of power between the federal and state governments.

But most California Republican lawmakers, who have vehemently opposed “government overreach,” would not say where they stand on Trump’s military intervention in Los Angeles.

CalMatters asked all 29 Republican lawmakers in the state Legislature whether they support Trump’s troop deployment. Only six answered, and all sided with Trump.

The Democrats had it coming, those lawmakers argued, because their lenient immigration and crime policies — including a 2017 state “sanctuary” law that limits local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agents — forced Trump’s hand.

“It is the root cause of the rioting and violence that we are witnessing this year,” state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil of Modesto said of the sanctuary law in a video last week.

State Republicans also seized on sporadic violent clashes, captured in viral videos on social media, as proof of Newsom and other Democrats’ failure to rein in violence. The GOP lawmakers argued that’s why Trump had to step in, even though local police had said they did not need help from federal troops.

“What do you do when you have a governor who’s not leading (and) is not doing anything about unrest and violence in his own state?” said Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher of Chico.

Republican Assemblymember James Gallagher argues against Gov. Newsom’s oil profit penalty plan at the Capitol on March 27, 2023.

(

Miguel Gutierrez Jr.

/

CalMatters

)

But would the Republican lawmakers say the same if a Democratic president descended the military upon a red state over the head of its governor? Some said yes as others bit their tongues, arguing it should be judged on a case-by-case basis and refusing to entertain hypotheticals.

“It depends on the situation,” Gallagher told CalMatters. “What are the times when you can and when you can’t? That’s what the court’s going to decide.”

It’s no surprise that state Republicans are using the opportunity to slam Democrats on immigration and crime: Those strategies have worked for the minority party in the past. It’s also a chance for them to demonstrate their loyalty to Trump, who wields a definitive influence over the party.

But it is particularly worrisome when Republicans are aligned with Trump in a move to override state authority, which tears at the fabric of the U.S. Constitution, said Eric Schickler, political science professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

“If you think about what the framers were worried about when they created the Constitution, it’s exactly this kind of dynamic,” he said. “It’s not an exaggeration to say the nature of the U.S. political system has changed. And it’s changed not just because of Trump’s force of will as an individual, but it’s changed because members of his party, when he’s asserted authority, have sided with him consistently.”

That alignment could cost Republicans in 2026, said Mike Madrid, a longtime GOP strategist and a vocal critic of Trump. Polling in recent weeks has shown that Trump’s immigration policies and military deployment in Los Angeles are growingly unpopular among Americans.

“I don’t think people are seeing this as an immigration issue anymore. They are seeing it the way the governor has framed this, which is a constitutional issue, a federal overreach issue, a due process issue,” Madrid said. “That puts Republicans on very troubling ground.”

California GOP lawmakers: Trump 'stepped up'

While Trump’s executive order told the troops to guard federal personnel and properties, he and his administration have also repeatedly suggested that the troops are there to crack down. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem last week even said the military was there to “liberate the city from the socialists.”

The military presence has stoked fear among legal experts and some law enforcement officials, who argue there is no legal standing for Trump’s use of authority. Unleashing military forces on domestic protesters can also have a chilling effect, risk escalating the situation further and create confusion among civilians, they said.

CalMatters also reached out to U.S. Reps. David Valadao, Young Kim and Ken Calvert, three Republicans who will likely face fierce challenges from Democrats in 2026. None of them responded.

While acknowledging California’s sovereignty, some state Republican lawmakers told CalMatters Trump needed to intervene due to what they perceived as a lack of leadership from Newsom. They cited videos of brick-throwing, Molotov-cocktail-tossing protesters and made unsubstantiated claims that paid agitators stoked violence among protesters — a claim Trump has made.

Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez, a Coachella Republican and the only incumbent lawmaker who is a retired Marine, initially would not say if the scale of the Los Angeles protests warranted federal intervention, stating he did not have the “confidential intelligence” to weigh in. He also did not commit to supporting the same actions if they came from another president, arguing each situation is different.

Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez speaks during session at the state Capitol in Sacramento on Jan. 23, 2025.

(

Fred Greaves

/

CalMatters

)

But when a CalMatters reporter pushed for comments, Gonzalez pointed to videos of violence as justification for Trump’s deployment.

“When you have leaders that don’t step up, someone needs to step up, and that’s what took place,” he said.

State Sen. Steven Choi of Irvine told CalMatters that while he supports states’ rights, when immigration agents face violence or interference, “it is appropriate for federal authorities to protect both those agents and federal properties.”

Sen. Tony Strickland a former mayor of Huntington Beach, said there is precedent for federalizing the California National Guard to quell domestic riots, referencing the 1992 turmoil in Los Angeles over the acquittal of police officers who severely beat Black activist Rodney King.

But in that example, then-President George H.W. Bush deployed troops at the request of then-Republican Gov. Pete Wilson and then-Democratic Mayor Tom Bradley. The riots were also far more violent, resulting in 63 deaths.

Strickland argued that deaths have been avoided in Los Angeles only because Trump sent in the military, echoing the president’s assertion that the city otherwise would have burned to the ground.

“Do you wait till 63 people die before you call them in?” Strickland said.

Blaming California's sanctuary law

The Republicans argued that Trump’s use of military force was necessary because of California’s 2017 sanctuary state law, which has been upheld in federal court.

Their logic goes like this: Had California police been more cooperative with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, federal agents wouldn’t have had to arrest immigrants in the streets, Californians wouldn’t have been so riled and Trump wouldn’t have had to deploy troops to protect those agents.

Under current law, local law enforcement can choose to alert federal immigration authorities about an upcoming release of an inmate if they are convicted of violent felonies. Senate Republican Leader Brian Jones, of San Diego, failed this year to push through a measure that would have made the cooperation mandatory.

State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, a San Diego Republican, during the state Senate Appropriations Committee session in Sacramento on Sept. 1, 2023.

(

Rahul Lal

/

CalMatters

)

It is California’s lack of cooperation that forced federal immigration agents to hunt down “violent criminals” in public, Jones argued. He dismissed arrests, such as that of a 4-year-old girl on life-saving medication in Bakersfield, as “collateral.”

“When the federal agents are having to go into neighborhoods and find these violent felons to capture and report and prosecute … there are going to be collateral arrests in that, and that’s the state that Gov. Newsom and the Democratic leadership have created,” Jones told CalMatters.

Assemblymember Tom Lackey, a Palmdale Republican who served in the California Highway Patrol for 28 years, said the sanctuary law “created all of this fear and chaos.”

“What we are seeing now is a situation where the supermajority has limited tools to manage immigration; creating a communication breakdown between local and federal law enforcement, and a vacuum that invites a heavier hand from Washington,” he said in a statement.

But Madrid said blaming the tension all on the state’s sanctuary law is an “extraordinarily weak” argument.

“If that were the case, this would have been a situation long before,” he said. “It is consciously deceptive in telling a very, very small part of the problem.”

While Madrid called the state’s sanctuary law a “patchwork” policy, he argued immigration is an issue entirely “on the doorstep of the federal government.” The Trump administration has missed opportunities to rein in the border, Madrid argued, noting Trump last year helped kill a bipartisan legislative deal over border security.

“What California has decided to do is to say: ‘Fine, if you are not going to control border security and … leave us as the largest border state in the country to deal with it, we are going to accommodate it. We are going to ingratiate people into the fabric of our culture, our politics and our economy,’” he said.

Could support for troops cost Republicans?

Aligning with Trump has its perks. The president — the face of a growingly populist party — can galvanize Republican voters and help legislators cement their conservative base. Even as the president’s approval rating slips among Americans, Republican voters continue to show strong support for him.

But Republicans could lose ground, especially among Latino voters, over Trump’s fierce crackdown on immigration and the protests, Madrid predicted.

While Latinos flocked toward Trump in 2024 despite the president’s promise of mass deportation, that threat is no longer “abstract” but “existential,” Madrid said. Moreover, more Americans are alarmed by Trump’s use of the military on its own people, he said.

“He so overplayed his hand on immigration crackdowns that it’s now about overreach and not about border security,” Madrid said.

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

The Los Angeles City Council voted 13-1 on Tuesday to put a measure on the November ballot that will ask voters whether homes affected by the Palisades Fire should be exempt from the city’s controversial “mansion tax.”

If passed, the exemption would apply to the sale of homes damaged or destroyed by the fire. The exemption would last until early 2030, five years from the date of the fire.

This could potentially reduce the tax’s revenue up to 6% — or $32 million each year — according to a May 2026 report from the L.A. Housing Department.

How the ‘mansion tax’ works 

The “mansion tax,” officially called Measure ULA, is a tiered tax on real estate selling for $5.4 million or more. The tax, which was passed by voters in 2022, funds programs such as rental assistance, eviction defense and affordable housing construction in the city.

The measure has fierce defenders, as well as staunch critics. A statewide ballot measure sought to kill the tax before it was pulled by supporters earlier this year in exchange for a legislative deal in Sacramento.

State and local lawmakers have considered reducing the tax or exempting newly constructed apartment buildings. Their ideas have been guided by economic studies that found the tax was slowing down housing development in the city. So far, none of those reforms have mustered enough support to pass.

Where council members stand

Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, whose district includes Highland Park, Chinatown and Westlake, previously spoke against the measure’s scope at a City Council meeting on July 1.

“Any exemption should only be for homeowners whose primary residence was destroyed, and people who genuinely need help rebuilding, not LLCs, investors or people with a portfolio of properties,” Hernandez said. “We had the opportunity to write those protections into this ordinance, and we didn’t.”

Hernandez criticized her colleagues for shooting down the post-fire eviction protections she proposed after tenants living in her district lost work as gardeners and nannies in the Pacific Palisades.

“When wealthy property owners need relief, we’re willing to bend over backwards,” she said. “But when working class people and tenants need protection, suddenly our hands are tied and the political will is not there.”

Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Pacific Palisades, voiced support for the measure at the same meeting.

“Putting this tax on these folks who are trying to recover and reckoning with the fact that some of them just aren’t coming home, is just unspeakably cruel,” Park said. “It’s an exemption that applies in very narrow circumstances to original owners and first transactions for five years, only for residential properties. This is the least we can do as this community continues to recover.”

In Tuesday’s meeting, Hernandez cast the lone vote against placing the measure on the November ballot. Thirteen council members supported the move. Councilmember Curren Price was not present for the vote.

What happens next 

L.A. voters will have the final say on whether Palisades homeowners will be exempt from the tax. The proposal needs a simple majority of support from voters in the upcoming November general election to pass.

How to keep tabs on the L.A. City Council

The L.A. City Council tends to meet Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Meetings typically start at 10 a.m.

Here’s how you can follow along:

• Attend in person: The council typically meets at City Hall, Council Chambers, 200 N. Spring St., Los Angeles
• Watch the live broadcast
• Here’s how to submit a comment or contact the council

It’s a tumultuous time for healthcare. Federal and state budget cuts are changing the rules for public benefits. Most people with Medi-Cal won’t be affected, but it may be confusing to figure out whether your benefits will change.

Are you on Medi-Cal, or is someone in your family worried about the cuts?

Tell us about your health coverage, and we'll share advice, information and updates.

The two most important things to do: Update your contact information with your county benefits office, and keep an eye out for any letters mailed from the county or state.

You can update your information by calling your local county office or online with a BenefitsCal account.

Here are the key changes, what they mean, and where to get help.

Changes for immigrants

Non-citizens — undocumented immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and people with pending immigration cases — are the group most affected, even those with a green card. The state has an immigration status chart to help you check whether these changes apply to you. If they do, you’ll get a letter.

Undocumented immigrants

• As of Jan. 1, immigrants over age 19 without legal status can no longer apply for Medi-Cal (children remain eligible). 
• Those already enrolled keep benefits if they renew on time. If they miss the renewal deadline and coverage ends, they have three months to reapply. After that window, they cannot sign up again. 
• Anyone who loses Medi-Cal may apply for emergency services. Those are limited to pregnancy, emergency visits and nursing home care.
• Starting Jan. 1, 2027, this group moves to “fee-for-service” Medi-Cal that limits some coverage. Doctors visits, prescriptions, and mental health treatment won’t be affected. Confirm your doctor accepts this Medi-Cal type, or find a new doctor by calling 1-800-541-5555.
• Adults ages 19-64 must also prove they are working or volunteering at least 80 hours a month. Students, people with disabilities and parents with young children are exempt from the work requirement. Starting July 1, 2027, adults lose dental coverage. Those 19-59 will also pay a $30 monthly fee.
• Children and pregnant individuals will remain eligible for Medi-Cal.

Refugees, asylum seekers, some green card holders

• Starting Jan. 1, 2027, refugees, asylum seekers, humanitarian parolees, and survivors of domestic violence or trafficking move to “fee-for-service” Medi-Cal. They will still be able to see the doctor, pick up prescriptions and see the dentist, but they will no longer have a health insurance plan. Call 1-800-541-5555 to find a new doctor if your current one does not accept it.
• Six months later, this group will lose full-scope Medi-Cal and dental benefits, keeping only pregnancy and emergency care.

Promotoras, community health workers and legal aid groups can help answer questions about this.

Adults without children

About 5 million Californians gained Medi-Cal coverage when the Obama administration expanded eligibility to childless adults and those earning slightly above the federal poverty level. Now this group faces stricter requirements in order to keep their health coverage.

Work requirements

• Beginning Jan. 1, adults 19-64 and many immigrants must prove at least 80 hours each month of working or volunteering, or half-time schooling. 
• Who’s exempt: children, seniors, pregnant people, those who are disabled or have serious health conditions or addictions, people on Medicare, those recently released from prison, American Indians and Alaska Natives populations and some former foster youth.
• The state will mail a letter if this applies to you. Most renewal packets come in a bright yellow envelope, but notices may look different. Respond quickly.

More frequent renewals

Beginning next March, the state will check Medi-Cal eligibility every six months for adults ages 19-64 and many immigrants, verifying income, work status, and other requirements. Renewal may happen automatically; if it doesn’t you will receive a letter asking for more information.

Seniors (65+) and people with disabilities

Starting July 1, 2027, seniors (65+) and people with disabilities cannot own more than $21,000 in assets, including savings accounts, cash and property other than a home and a car. For couples it’s $31,000 total. This limit also applies to non-citizens. Your county benefits office or a local legal aid group can clarify what counts; the state also has an FAQ about the new limits.

If you’re afraid of losing coverage, do these things right now

Not everyone will be affected, and some people won’t need to do anything. If you’re required to report work hours or other information, you’ll receive a notice in the mail or through the BenefitsCal online portal if you have an online account: Check both regularly.

The state doesn’t yet have a timeline for initial notices, but advocates say the best move now is simply keeping your information current. This is especially important because the rules keep changing.

“It’s so vital they watch the mail, look out for communications from the county, and are responsive to requests for information,” said Jack Dailey, director of health policy at the Legal Aid Society of San Diego.

Bukola Olusanya, regional medical director for St. John’s Community Health, talks to a patient in a mobile clinic van in Los Angeles on Feb. 6, 2026.

(

Jules Hotz

/

CalMatters

)

If you get a notice: You should have plenty of warning before benefits are terminated – respond promptly to any notice of action.

If you get a notice that your benefits will be cancelled and you disagree with that decision, you can appeal and request a state hearing, which “allows you to temporarily freeze an adverse action and keep your benefits while your appeal is being reviewed,” says Alicia Emanuel, a staff attorney with the National Health Law Program.

If you’ve already lost coverage: You have 90 days to restore benefits without filing a new application. Submit the requested information in that window and, if you still qualify, you shouldn't see a coverage gap. After 90 days, you'll need to reapply from scratch.

Where to get free help

Promotoras — community health workers trained through groups like Vision y Compromiso — can meet you in your neighborhood, explain benefits in plain language, and help with Medi-Cal applications. Rosa Lopez, a promotora in Long Beach, said many immigrants worry about losing coverage: “I tell them you don’t have status, don’t worry. The first thing is your health.”

Community clinics often have benefits counselors on staff, and legal aid groups offer free advice for confusing letters — call the Health Consumer Alliance at (888) 804-3536, or check its website. The state also runs a helpline at (800) 541-5555 and keeps its website up-to-date.

One more thing worth knowing: Medi-Cal eligibility isn't just one door — there are several ways to qualify, based on conditions such as income, age, disability, or pregnancy. Before the state can terminate your benefits under one category, it must check whether you still qualify through any of the others. “It's a really critical protection because sometimes an individual is in fact eligible through a different pathway,” Emanuel said. And by law, Medi-Cal must provide free language assistance for people with limited English proficiency.

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

The Los Angeles Unified School Board planned to vote on firing former Superintendent Alberto Carvalho before he abruptly resigned in June, accusing him of “unprofessional conduct” and “unsatisfactory performance,” according to newly-released documents.

The letters – released to LAist in response to a public records request – show the district accused Carvalho of more than a dozen violations of district policy and in some cases, state law. The documents also show his legal representation contested the allegations, calling the school board’s letter a “political hit job.”

Carvalho had been on administrative leave since February after federal agents raided his home and office. He resigned in late June, days before the board planned to vote on his termination.

The Los Angeles Times first reported that Carvalho was threatened with dismissal on June 27, but the full extent of the allegations against Carvalho was not public at the time.

The school board’s allegations

In the letter, Board President Scott Schmerelson outlined a series of allegations, accusing Carvalho of failing to disclose outside income from his consulting work and gifts.Those perks allegedly included tickets to Dodgers games and travel expenses to speaking engagements in Washington, D.C. paid by outside vendors.

Schmerelson also wrote that an ongoing investigation found Carvalho allegedly bypassed district information technology policy, including by asking district staff to allow him access to Telegram, a messaging app the district considered to be “a high cyber risk.”

The letter also alleged Carvalho asked his district-provided driver to perform personal work.

The letter informed Carvalho that the district allegedly found he had the driver “drop off your wife at LAX on multiple occasions, drive you and a female District employee after hours to restaurants and other social outings, and her home on approximately a dozen occasions.”

How Carvalho’s legal team responded

Lawyers with Holland and Knight, which is representing Carvalho, issued a 12-page rebuttal to the district’s claims and called the planned termination “retaliatory.”

Carvalho’s attorneys wrote that the externally funded meetings, travel and other perks were public and often discussed with the district’s general counsel.

The use of a district car and driver is included in Carvalho’s contract, along with a provision for use for non-district business.

“Based on his contract and guidance from the LAUSD General Counsel – and in a heightened threat environment facing public officials like Mr. Carvalho – he understood that he was authorized to use the automobile and driver after work hours,” the letter from his lawyer read.

The response also highlighted Carvalho’s recent contract renewal, unanimously approved by the board in September 2025.

Several parts of Holland and Knight’s response were redacted. An LAUSD employee said the redactions were made to avoid invasion of privacy and because, in some cases, the public interest was better served by withholding information.

“Yesterday’s release of LAUSD’s investigation report confirms, once again, that Alberto Carvalho has broken no laws,” Carvalho’s lawyers said in a statement sent to LAist Tuesday. “While the District’s letter purports to recite other ‘issues of concern,’ it does so in an incomplete and misleading manner – as we set forth in our response to the District.”

LAUSD declined to answer additional questions about the letters or whether an investigation into Carvalho’s former employment is ongoing.

Failed AI chatbot company’s alleged role 

The board’s allegations included Carvalho’s interaction with the tech company AllHere, the now-failed company that contracted with the district to provide an AI chatbot. The board accused Carvalho of accepting $4,633.37 worth of travel and lodging from AllHere to speak at a conference, as well as attending dinner events during the contract procurement process. Federal prosecutors have charged AllHere’s CEO with defrauding investors.

The letter also mentions trips funded by district vendors to Washington D.C. paid for by tele-mental-health provider Hazel Health, to Arizona to speak at an AI-focused event paid for by ed tech company Carnegie Learning, and a trip to Denver for an education roundtable funded by LEGO’s education division.

On the day of the FBI raids, agents also searched the home of a woman in South Florida who was associated with AllHere. Federal authorities said that search was linked to the searches of Carvalho’s home and office in L.A., but have not connected the investigation to AllHere.

Carvalho’s lawyers said in their rebuttal that the district’s prior inquiries into AllHere “cleared Mr. Carvalho of any misconduct.”

On Tuesday, after the release of the letters, they went on to say that “[a]fter thoroughly investigating, LAUSD found no evidence that Alberto violated federal law regarding his interactions with AllHere or any other vendor.”

What are public officials required to disclose?  

California requires public officials to report outside income, gifts and investments, in part so that the public can evaluate officials' decision-making against their financial interests. Officials must submit this document, called a Form 700, annually.

The letter said Carvalho did not file his most recent Form 700 by the April 1, 2026 deadline.

Carvalho was a nationally recognized educator before and during his tenure as LAUSD superintendent. The announcement of his LAUSD appointment included references to his service on the boards of several national education organizations.

The letter lists two dozen examples of payments for consulting work, travel and gifts Carvalho allegedly failed to disclose on the Form 700 between 2022 and 2024. They include tickets to a Dodgers Game provided by the California Credit Union, consulting calls with educational technology companies and travel paid for by publishing and media company Scholastic.

Carvalho’s legal representation said he “never intentionally concealed any income or gifts on his Form 700 filings.”

“The events and travel referenced in the allegations were entirely consistent with Mr.

Carvalho’s duties as leader of the nation’s second-largest school district,” the letter said.

For example, the letter noted Carvalho’s attendance of the 2022 and 2024 “Rookie of the Year” teacher awards ceremonies at Dodger Stadium were publicized and that other LAUSD board members also participated in the event.

The letter noted that many of the alleged payments date back several years.

“If the Board had any concerns regarding his disclosure obligations, there was ample opportunity to communicate such concerns to the Superintendent, and to correct them if needed,” the letter read. “That never happened.”

Carvalho’s lawyers said that the former superintendent notified both the district and the state commission that oversees Form 700 filings that federal agents seized the documents, devices and records he needed to complete the forms.

The deadly and destructive Eaton Fire was caused by Southern California Edison equipment, the L.A. County Fire Department said in a report released Tuesday.

The department's investigation into the cause of the fire found that arcing electrical lines ignited unidentified material that fell to the ground in dry vegetation at the base of the utility’s Eaton Canyon transmission tower. Twelve seconds later, the Eaton Fire exploded under windy conditions.

The fire, which began the evening of Jan. 7, 2025, ultimately killed at least 19 people and destroyed nearly 10,000 homes.

This article will be updated. Check back for details.