The Brief

It’s Gavin Newsom’s final year in office as California governor — and his last chance to use his role as governor to audition for the national stage.

The governor, who will address the Legislature and present his budget proposal this week, has spent the past seven years pushing an ambitious agenda. Now in his final year, numerous interest groups will clamor for him to pass their preferred policies, nix the regulations they fear and protect the programs they favor. How he responds will follow him into his expected presidential primary run.

Will he, with his recent focus on affordability, make a dent in Californians’ housing and health care costs? Will he make progress on reducing homelessness? Will he continue pushing green energy as voters demand cheaper gas? Will he weather another dismal budget deficit without punishing cuts that would alienate the progressives whose programs he has championed?

“This really is a pivotal year for him,” Democratic political consultant Kelly Calkin said. “What do voters in the rest of the country want to see? They’re feeling the pinch of affordability. … He’s probably going to look through that lens on what helps shape his agenda for the next year.”

It’s also his final opportunity to make headway on some of the lofty goals Newsom made when he ran for governor in 2018 that he hasn’t always met.

He vowed to tackle homelessness, which has only gotten worse over his seven-year tenure, despite the more than $24 billion his administration has poured into it. He started off his term with an initial, headline-grabbing proposal to grant new parents six months of paid leave, but quickly pared it back to a two-week increase, for a total of eight weeks, and gradual boosts in how much the program pays.

In 2021 he said the state would add 200,000 new subsidized child care slots by this year, but the plan been delayed for two years and remains tens of thousand of slots short; he has since promised to resume the expansion this year.

He campaigned on establishing a single-payer public health care system, even calling out “politicians saying they support single-payer but that it’s too soon, too expensive or someone else’s problem.” Then he pivoted to “universal coverage,” with the state slowly expanding coverage for low-income Californians, including undocumented immigrants, but abruptly halted that amid a budget deficit last year.

He spoke, like so many before him, of evening out the state’s boom-and-bust tax system that over-relies on stock market returns, but has largely quashed other proposals to raise revenue as the state stares down a deficit.

‘It never seems like enough’

Newsom’s penchant for big promises and first-in-the-nation ideas has been both a blessing and a curse for the ambitious politician. Advocates of those policies say the lofty goals have made a difference, even if the state ultimately falls short of achieving all of them.

Newsom has left his mark on state government: He started new programs like the expansion of public school to all 4-year-olds, created an office to control rising health care costs, flexed the state’s regulatory powers to achieve its greenhouse gas-reduction goals — only to run into resistance with the Trump administration — and pushed state leaders into overseeing thorny issues like homelessness and the mental health care system that had long been left to local and county governments.

“I don’t think there was a lot of stuff lacking,” said Anthony Rendon, the former Assembly speaker who led the chamber during Newsom’s first five years in office, of policy issues the governor has yet to address. After years of working with Newsom’s predecessor Jerry Brown, who was focused mostly on fiscal restraint and building up the state’s reserves, Rendon and former Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins recalled Newsom starting off his first term in 2019 pleasing the mostly Democratic Legislature with a long list of progressive ideas and a willingness to spend on them.

“In retrospect, it never seems like enough,” Rendon said.

Coral Street in Santa Cruz has become a prominent hangout for the unhoused community, who find resources at the Housing Matters shelter during the day.

(

Manuel Orbegozo

/

CalMatters

)

A framer works to build the Ruby Street apartments in Castro Valley on Feb. 6, 2024.

(

Camille Cohen

/

CalMatters

)

Transitional kindergarten instructional assistant Nancy Espino reads a book about crickets to children at Silverwood Elementary School in the Mt. Diablo Unified School District in Concord on Aug. 11, 2025.

(

Laure Andrillon

/

CalMatters

)

Case in point: housing. It’s perhaps the most visible measure by which Newsom will be judged after he leaves office and it comprises a bulk of the recent national Democratic platform focused on lowering the cost of living. About 40% of California households are “burdened” by their rent or mortgage, Census data shows, a policymaker benchmark meaning housing eats up more than a third of their income.

Newsom ran on lowering those costs by boosting production and said it was “achievable” for the state to build an ambitious 3.5 million new homes by 2025. In 2024, the state added just under 120,000 new units, about a fifth of the annual rate needed to meet that goal. In media appearances the governor now downplays his original figure as a “stretch goal.”

Yet those who favor building more say he’s still accomplished more than any other governor on housing. They blame local resistance to housing density, high interest rates and the persistently high cost of building as reasons for the slow progress.

“You can’t solve a systemic problem overnight or even in seven years, but what you can do is change the trajectory of the issue,” said Ray Pearl, executive director of the California Housing Consortium, a nonprofit that advocates for building affordable housing.

A pivot to modular housing this year?

Pearl pointed to actions Newsom has taken, like an early budget move to quintuple the state’s tax credit for low-income housing construction, backing laws that relax rules on where housing can be built and picking legal fights with cities that refuse to plan adequate housing units for their populations.

“Leadership sets the tone,” he said. “It’s changed the focus and the conversation to where the state of California has finally gotten serious in planning for and producing affordable housing.”

Pearl said in Newsom’s final year in office he hopes the governor will support a proposed $10 billion bond lawmakers want to put on this year’s ballot to boost a state affordable housing fund.

Newsom acknowledges California has yet to see his promised building boom, and last month expressed interest in alternative forms of construction, such as modular housing, as another solution. On The Ezra Klein Show, he hinted at an upcoming legislative debate over how the state can promote modular housing, a cheaper way to build in which houses are assembled in factories then shipped to sites to be installed. An Assembly committee chaired by one of Newsom’s allies on housing, Democratic Oakland Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, is set to discuss the method this year. Its use in the Bay Area has already exposed familiar debates about the use of union labor in housing.

“This holds a lot of promise. It holds a lot of political peril, in the context of the politics within labor. And that has to be accommodated and dealt with,” Newsom said. “By the way, if there’s a big preview for California in my last year, it’s in this space legislatively to take it to the next level.”

It’s the closest Newsom has come in recent weeks to stating a new policy goal or proposal. Izzy Gardon, Newsom’s spokesperson, would not provide any details on his housing or any other agenda, telling CalMatters only to “stay tuned.”

Gardon refused interview requests to discuss the governor’s policy goals for his final year. Newsom is expected to deliver his State of the State address on Thursday.

Tough times for health care and social services

Already, advocates for the comprehensive safety-net services that Newsom has championed — another hallmark of his tenure — are urging him to maintain those programs as he stares down another tough budget deficit estimated at $18 billion. The agency overseeing those services accounts for nearly 40% of the state’s general fund spending and many of its programs are projected to lose significant federal funds through President Donald Trump’s tax and spending bill.

Gov. Gavin Newsom marches with a group of supporters towards the state Capitol for his second inauguration on Jan. 6, 2023.

(

Miguel Gutierrez Jr.

/

CalMatters

)

During Newsom’s two terms, he added subsidized child care slots, boosted cash assistance for the poor, installed a state surgeon general who has focused on childhood trauma and the racial health gap and most significantly, incrementally expanded health care coverage to different groups of undocumented immigrants.

The latter, a controversial and costly policy, has allowed the governor to pivot from his original promise of a universal, state-paid health care system that was the pie-in-the-sky dream of progressives and still say he was achieving “universal access.” After passage of the Affordable Care Act, more than 90% of Californians were insured by the time Newsom took office. His expansions, first for immigrant young adults and then for older ones, pushed it to nearly everyone in 2023.

Policy allies generally don’t fault Newsom for shifting away from a single-payer system, which would have required billions more in state funds and complex agreements with an increasingly un-aligned federal administration. They are particularly satisfied that his administration has laid some of the groundwork for such a proposal by attempting to rein in the growth of health care costs through price limits imposed by the Office of Health Care Affordability. But now, they’re worried he’ll walk away from his expansive coverage goals altogether.

Last year, facing higher than expected costs in the Medi-Cal program and needing to close a $12 billion deficit, Newsom undid coverage for the last group of undocumented residents to become eligible: working-age adults. A freeze on new enrollment of adults took effect Jan. 1. Later this year, undocumented immigrant adults will lose Medi-Cal dental coverage and next year most will face monthly premiums that are expected to force some off coverage, to the disappointment of health advocates who are urging Newsom to reverse the cuts.

Amanda McAllister-Wallner, executive director of the advocacy group Health Access California, said she’s worried the administration will consider further cuts this year, after Newsom has come out heavily against other proposals to raise revenue for the health system, like a nurses’ union proposal for a wealth tax. She doesn’t like that the governor appeared willing to back down on coverage at the same time the state’s provision of social services for immigrants became an increasing political controversy nationally.

“The hope was that the Health for All expansion would be considered the baseline, that that would be something we budget for long term because it’s just something that’s part of who we are as a state,” said McAllister-Wallner. “Health care has been an area where the governor has really made a name for himself in a way that I think he can and should be very proud of, and to see … a backing-off of those commitments would be the biggest disappointment for me.”

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

L.A., you have a big choice to make this year. Mayor Karen Bass is running for a second term in office, and there's a long list of others — including City Councilmember Nithya Raman, former reality star Spencer Pratt, community organizer Rae Huang and tech entrepreneur Adam Miller — lined up to run against her.

The election is June 2. If any one candidate for mayor gets more than 50% of the vote, they'll win the election outright. If nobody meets that threshold, the top two vote-getters will compete in a runoff Nov. 3.

LAist and The LA Local are preparing to ask the candidates questions that will shape our voter guides closer to the June election. We want to make sure we're asking the right ones.

So tell us: What are the issues and questions you want the mayoral candidates to address?

Share your thoughts in the survey below.

The Los Angeles Unified School District is officially on the hook for providing high-dosage tutoring to students after a judge approved a settlement reached last fall.

After being accused of denying students their right to equitable education during pandemic shutdowns, the district must now provide 100,000 students — more than a quarter of the district’s TK-12 students — with three years of high-dosage tutoring under a court-approved settlement, amounting to more than 10 million hours. District staff and outside vendors will provide students with a mix of virtual and in-person sessions.

“The District is conducting a program evaluation of the tutoring program, which will explore variation in the implementation, take-up, and impact on student outcomes across a range of tutoring models and vendors,” LAUSD said in a statement to EdSource.

The tutoring mandate stems from a court-approved settlement reached in October and finalized last month in Shaw et al. v. LAUSD et al., a lawsuit filed during the Covid-19 pandemic that alleged that only 60% of the district’s students participated in virtual instruction during the spring 2020 semester, denying them “basic educational equality guaranteed to them by the California Constitution.”

LAUSD would continue to use its already existing high-dose tutoring eligibility criteria to determine which students receive the support. The district did not specify how it would measure the program’s success.

The settlement

The high-dosage tutoring that Los Angeles Unified maintains it has been providing relies on money from the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP). The lawsuit, which includes other supports outlined in the settlement, gained final approval on Feb. 18 and is intended to help close learning gaps and improve academic performance.

The method specifically caters to students’ individual needs and provides either small group or one-on-one support that complements what they learn in the classroom, according to the National Student Support Accelerator at Stanford University.

“Evidence does suggest that that kind of effort would boost student outcomes,” said Morgan Polikoff, a USC professor of education.

“But I think it’s not likely to fully solve the problem, both because it’s missing a portion of the student population — a pretty sizable one — and also because I don’t know if that’s enough hours to solve the problem,” he said, referring to the fact that only a quarter of the student population will receive these services.

Ned Hillenbrand, a partner with Kirkland & Ellis LLP and one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, emphasized the importance of accountability moving forward.

“Our families understood that these issues affected students across the district. They admirably pursued remedial programs for those students as well as their own children,” Hillenbrand said in the statement.

“Now that the court has approved the settlement, our goal is to hold LAUSD accountable and to maximize the benefits students receive during the three-year enforcement period.”

Challenges with access

After the pandemic hit, Judith Larson, a plaintiff in the case, said she waited six months for a school computer to arrive, navigated connectivity challenges and even paid out of pocket for tutoring for her daughter. And one of the mentors struggled to help because she learned math in an entirely different way.

Aida Vega found it difficult to access LAUSD’s tutoring services for her daughter, who struggled academically during the pandemic but eventually graduated. But Vega had to take on an extra job to pay for the support.

“I did have the opportunity as a mom to be able to help my student that year because it was just her at that moment. I paid for her,” she said in Spanish. “But other parents had three, four children in schools and didn’t have that opportunity to pay. And now those students aren’t studying.”

LAUSD’s tutoring webpage says schools will contact families whose students qualify, and that parents can contact their local school sites for more information.

But Walt Gersón Rodríguez, the vice president of Innovate Public Schools, which supported parents in the suit, emphasized the importance of improving access, so parents and students don’t have to embark on a “scavenger hunt” to find them.

“My concern would be that this information doesn’t reach the parents; their children don’t get the service and support,” Rodríguez said. “And then, we have another generation of students that either graduate or don’t graduate and don’t go on to college and get a job or career in a competitive economy that we have today.”

Despite LAUSD’s gains in standardized test scores, which showed students are performing better than they did prepandemic, Polikoff noted that students are still “behind where they would have been had Covid not happened.”

Rodríguez added that some graduates have struggled to meet A-G requirements, courses necessary for students to be eligible to attend University of California or California State University campuses, and are having a hard time getting into college or entering the workforce.

If it weren’t for the setbacks, Larson said her daughter would have loved to attend UCLA. But she still considers herself one of the fortunate ones.

“Many moms and dads that I know, that one [dream] we share is we need to do better and change for our children,” Larson said. “But here we are taking steps, one at a time.”

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday agreed to pay $4.9 million to settle four lawsuits by people who were injured in collisions with Sheriff’s Department patrol cars.

The payouts come amid increased scrutiny of crashes by law enforcement officers. It has emerged as a major national issue, with cities across the country paying out hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements and verdicts because of vehicle collisions involving officers, deputies or agents.

In the latest L.A. County payouts, tied to collisions that happened between 2018 and 2020, all plaintiffs said deputies were negligent when they crashed into their cars.

County supervisors settled the lawsuits during an open-session vote Tuesday. The county admitted no wrongdoing.

A collision in Paramount

Freddy Ontiveros and Antonio De La Cruz Zamora were hit from behind in 2018 in the city of Paramount, according to their lawsuit filed in Superior Court. They alleged in the suit that a sheriff’s deputy “rear ended the vehicle which was stopped behind plaintiff's vehicle, pushing the vehicle into plaintiff's vehicle causing plaintiff personal injuries and property damage.”

The deputy was responding to a call of a robbery in progress and had activated the lights and sirens on the vehicle.

A review of the Crash Data Retrieval system found the deputy was traveling south on Paramount Boulevard at 75 mph and slowed to 35 mph at the time of the collision, according to a corrective action plan presented to the board Tuesday.

“The collision investigation concluded that the deputy sheriff caused the collision as he was driving at an unsafe speed for traffic conditions,” the plan stated.

The case settled for $1.75 million.

Later, the Lakewood Sheriff’s Station — which covers Paramount — conducted a review of all traffic collisions for the calendar year 2020 through the end of 2024. The audit revealed there were 196 total collisions for this five-year period, 129 of which were classified as preventable and 67 classified as non-preventable.

“To improve employee safety and reduce the Department's liability and exposure, Lakewood supervisors continue to conduct bi-weekly briefings which focus on the importance of safe driving as well as abiding by all the rules of the road when operating county vehicles,” the plan stated.

Other collisions

In a separate incident, Shannon Story had a green light at Palmdale intersection on Oct. 27, 2019. According to her complaint, a deputy ran a red light and crashed into Story’s vehicle as she entered the intersection. The impact of the collision caused Story’s vehicle to crash into the corner wall of a 7-Eleven convenience store.

“Plaintiff sustained significant injuries as a result of the collision,” her complaint read. She settled the case for $1.2 million.

In another case filed by Jose Gaitan, he says a sheriff’s deputy in a department vehicle rear-ended his car. LAist was not immediately able to get further details on the crash. He settled for $450,000.

The summary corrective action plan for a fourth collision describes how a deputy was backing up to make contact with a suspect when he ran into a car driven by Alejandra Gonzalez. The deputy “reversed approximately two to three feet and collided into the Plaintiff’s vehicle at approximately 5-10 mph.”

Gonzalez settled for $1.5 million.

With only 100 days to go before the FIFA World Cup, what should have been a period of celebration is turning instead into one of turmoil.

The U.S. and Israel attacks on Iran have raised major questions about whether the Persian country will withdraw from the 48-squad tournament — a step no other country has taken after qualifying since 1950 when Scotland, as well as others such as India and Turkey, decided not to participate in part tied to travel costs to the games in Brazil.

But Iran's participation is not the only uncertainty. Violence in Mexico following the killing of a cartel boss sparked questions about the country's ability to attract fans, while concerns about funding for U.S. host cities have also flared up in recent weeks.

And then there is the outrage over the ticket prices, and controversy surrounding President Donald Trump and his administration's policies, including military actions and immigration enforcement.

Angst in the runup to World Cup tournaments is nothing new. Concerns about violence preceded the 2010 and 2014 World Cup tournaments in South Africa and Brazil, while the selection of Russia and Qatar as hosts for the last previous two tournaments also sparked controversies of their own.

But no World Cup men's tournament has been this big before, with 48 teams set to play 104 matches across the U.S., Canada and Mexico. And no recent World Cup has been staged amidst so much global geopolitical uncertainty.

Here are the top areas of concern ahead of the 2026 World Cup.

Will Iran withdraw?

It was the top question surrounding the FIFA World Cup as the U.S. and Israel went to war with Iran this weekend. So far there's no indication that Iran plans to withdraw, whether to boycott it or for other reasons.

Iran is one of the stronger squads in Asia and is set to play its seventh World Cup this year.

Iran Football Federation President Mehdi Taj acknowledged the uncertainty on Iranian TV, according to Reuters and other media.

"What we can say now is that due to this attack and its viciousness, it is far from our expectations that we can look at the World Cup with hope," Taj said according to the wire agency.

Iran is set to play two games against New Zealand and Belgium in Los Angeles, home to a large Iranian diaspora community. The country will also play Egypt in Seattle.

FIFA has not directly weighed in. Its general secretary, Mattias Grafstrom, said on Sunday the organization would continue to "monitor the developments around all issues around the world."

"We had the final draw in Washington, where all teams participated. Our focus is to have a safe Word Cup with everyone participating," Grafstrom said.

Whether Iran participates at the World Cup may be in doubt, but at least one thing is certain: its fans will find it difficult to travel to the U.S. given that Iran is one of a handful of countries that faces a travel ban, though it doesn't affect the team and its coaches.

Iran's players pose for a team picture ahead of a FIFA World Cup 2026 qualifying game against North Korea at the Azadi Sports Complex in Tehran on June 10, 2025.

(

Atta Kenare

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

Will Mexico be safe for visitors?

The flare-up of violence by armed groups across the country after Mexico killed cartel boss Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes last month has sparked concerns about safety and security at one of the co-hosts of the tournament.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has asserted there will be no risks when the country stages the World Cup, while FIFA President Gianni Infantino has expressed his "total confidence" in Mexico.

Mexico is set to host 13 games for the World Cup, including four in Guadalajara, in the state of Jalisco where Oseguera Cervante's group is primarily based and where much of the violence took place.

Concerns about violence are not new. Questions about safety also were raised ahead of the South Africa 2010 World Cup as well as Brazil in 2014 — and both countries ended up successfully hosting their respective tournaments.

Will American host cities get funding?

Concerns about finances are a perennial concern ahead of major sports events — and the U.S. is proving no different.

The 11 American host cities still have not received $625 million in federal funding for security costs that are critical to staging the tournament, including in Foxborough, Mass. The funding was supposed to be provided by the Department of Homeland Security through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA.

A FEMA spokesperson directed NPR to a recent posting on X from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem noting that "FEMA was in the final stages of reviewing applications to ensure proper oversight" but that the partial shutdown affecting the agency — for which she blamed Democrats — had put "significant portions of the FEMA staff on administrative leave."

For some host cities, the matter is becoming urgent. The White House FIFA World Cup Task Force has not yet responded to NPR's queries.

"Without receiving this money, it could be catastrophic for our planning and coordination," Ray Martinez, the chief operating officer for the Miami Host Committee, told a congressional hearing according to Politico.

Will fans be priced out of the tournament?

Perhaps no issue more directly affects fans than the staggering high costs they are facing to attend the World Cup.

FIFA has set the highest ticket prices ever for a World Cup, making tickets to the tournament unaffordable for many fans. Its use of dynamic pricing has also sparked controversy; the most expensive tickets to the final in New Jersey initially sold at over $6,300 only to jump to nearly $8,700 in later sales.

The MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J., is set to host eight games in the 2026 World Cup, including the final set for July 19, 2026.

(

Al Bello

/

Getty Images North America

)

Not only are ticket prices high — the cost of travel and lodging has surged. Yet despite all the challenges, FIFA claimed it had received over 500 million ticket requests in its last sales window.

That said, FIFA has provided little additional information to back up its claims, making it difficult to determine whether the demand is concentrated just in high profile games such as Colombia against Portugal in Miami or mainly focused in high-profile teams such as Argentina.

Will President Trump and his policies deter fans?

Perhaps the biggest unknown is the effect that Trump and his administration's policies will have on attending the World Cup.

The administration's travel restrictions not only affects Iranian fans, they also hit fans of three other countries that have already qualified for the tournament: Senegal, Ivory Coast and Haiti.

President Trump and his policies remain controversial both at home and abroad. Earlier this year, when Trump threatened to invade Greenland, some European officials raised the prospect of a boycott though the moves never prospered. Even former FIFA President Sepp Blatter encouraged fans to "stay away" from the U.S.

And the latest U.S. and Israel attacks against Iran — which follow the U.S. capture of Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro — have brought renewed attention to FIFA's controversial awarding of its peace prize at the tournament's draw ceremony in Washington, D.C., in December.

The U.S. has already seen a sharp decrease in visitors for a number of reasons, including increased scrutiny at the border (such as a requirement to potentially share social media posts), as well as unease about violence because of high-profile killings involving U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Oxford Economics projects a rise in visitors tied to the World Cup, so the number of visitors could at least partially recover this year, though other research points to a reduced number of visitors from Europe to the U.S. this year.

It's yet another sign of uncertainty in what is set to be the biggest-ever tournament with only 100 days to go.
Copyright 2026 NPR