The Brief

In one big way, Gov. Gavin Newsom is tougher on public employee unions than his Republican counterpart in Texas: Making state workers show up in the office.

After facing strong opposition from workers, it took Texas Gov. Greg Abbott three months to reverse his 2025 ban on remote work for state employees. But Newsom, whose return-to-office mandate has been in effect since July 1, shows no signs of backing down.

It’s a stance that has upset — and at times befuddled — some state workers who are calling for the governor to scrap the four-day-a-week in-office policy as they hammer out new labor agreements.

Typically, they’re allies to the Democratic governor. They helped him fight off a recall in 2021, and they encouraged their members to vote for him against his Republican opponents.

More importantly to them, they maintain they’re just as effective at home, which they say they proved when Newsom ordered them to work from home during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“It’s confusing to people when they think that they’ve done a great job to be told, ‘Well we don’t think it’s good enough and you should incur going back into the office,’” said D’Arcy McLeod, chairperson of the Professional Engineers in California Government’s bargaining team.

Roughly 108,000 of California’s more than 245,900 state employees are affected by the mandate, according to the state human resources department. The others generally already are required to work at a specific location five days a week, including prison, firefighting, law enforcement, and custodial employees.

Service Employees International Union Local 1000, California’s largest state worker union, represents 96,000 employees and is in contract negotiations. It argues that remote work saves taxpayers and employees money, reduces traffic and lowers emissions — all without affecting productivity.

Newsom’s mandate allows exemptions on a case-by-case basis, including for those who live 50 miles or farther from their worksite, or who conduct work outside the office, such as telehealth providers and inspectors. Public transportation costs for commuting are also reimbursable.

But that isn’t enough for SEIU, which in May filed an unfair labor practices complaint with the California Public Employment Relations Board. It also threw its support behind a bill that would give state agencies more authority to shape their hybrid work policies.

“A blanket mandate does not work for all the jobs that our workers do,” said Anica Walls, the union’s president. “Let the departments decide.”

California exceptionalism?

States have taken different approaches to calling workers back to the office since the pandemic. Republican-led Nevada and Democratic-led New Mexico require state employees to be in the office five days a week, for example. Utah with a Republican governor wants them at the office twice a week.

But Newsom’s blanket policy appears to be an outlier among other blue states with robust public employee unions: Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon and Washington state still embrace remote work in some capacity. It also differs from Texas, a Republican-led state that Newsom has contrasted with California.

A few months after President Donald Trump began his second term and called for federal employees to return to the office, Abbott banned remote work for Texas state employees. But following a multi-agency survey that found that telework did not curb productivity and helped reduce turnover, Abbott walked back the move.

Newsom “is a man who has talked about the importance of innovation, wrote an entire book about government adapting to technology and providing services in a more cost-effective way,” said Ted Toppin, the executive director of the engineers union.

“It strikes me as interesting and ironic that Texas would have a more modern, flexible and efficient take on state employee telework.”

Despite a state audit that concluded that telework could save California as much as $225 million a year, Newsom moved forward with his March 2025 executive order directing workers back into the office at least four days a week.

In May during a state budget presentation, Newsom told reporters that he is “empathetic to change,” but that returning to the office helps build a sense of community. The governor has also contended that in-person work fosters collaboration, accountability and helps boost small businesses.

McLeod said he’s surprised Newsom remains resolute to the mandate even after the audit found that remote work proved successful during and after the pandemic.

“Every single Newsom appointed official that testified for the state auditor indicated that … the work that was being delivered during telework was substantially of higher quality and more efficient,” said McLeod of the engineers union.

The CalPERS Sacramento Regional Office in downtown Sacramento on July 15, 2026. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters

What unions wanted from Newsom

In some ways the rift echoes labor disputes from California’s last two governors.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger came out swinging against public employees with unsuccessful ballot measures that were designed to cut their influence. He later imposed unpaid furloughs on public employees during the Great Recession.

Then Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown battled with unions over pensions, passing a law that curbed retirement benefits and required workers to chip in more for their benefits. He had a reputation for being stingy with raises, too.

Public employee unions were optimistic about Newsom. He offered concessions when he asked workers for temporary pay reductions during the pandemic, gave one-time bonuses to many employees and negotiated contracts that often included goodies for workers in hard-to-fill positions even if the deals didn’t please everyone.

Then came the fight over returning to the office.

Besides union leaders, Newsom’s steadfast commitment to in-person work has baffled Steve Maviglio, a Democratic political consultant who has worked with public employee unions on pension issues. For Newsom, a Democratic politician who is likely eyeing a bid for the presidency, “it’s political malpractice to come across as anti-labor,” said Maviglio.

“The only thing you’ll be able to say is that ‘I stood up to state workers,’ which isn’t particularly helpful in a Democratic primary where labor is the key constituency nationwide for Democrats.”

But for Will Swaim, chief executive of the libertarian think tank California Policy Center, Newsom’s fight with the unions signals something larger than remote work. Rather, it is a “policy disagreement that has turned into a foundational challenge to democracy,” said Swaim.

SEIU 1000 has donated at least $2 million to current members of the Legislature, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database. In addition to its contract, the union is pushing for more flexible telework policies through a legislative proposal currently in the state Senate.

Through its campaign donations and labor talks, SEIU is attempting to wrest control from Newsom, a publicly elected official, over who gets to shape policies over government work, according to Swaim.

“That’s simply undemocratic,” said Swaim. “I don’t know anybody out there who believes that in their jobs they could tell their boss, ‘I’m not coming to the office, no matter what you want.’ It just doesn’t fly.”

But bosses should work to accommodate current employees, according to SEIU president Walls — especially if they have presumably bigger ambitions to oversee even more workers.

“As a state employee I would have trouble voting for someone who would be the boss of federal employees when I know he hasn’t shown to be a stellar employer to state employees,” said Walls.

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.