Last Member Drive of 2025!

Your year-end tax-deductible gift powers our local newsroom. Help raise $1 million in essential funding for LAist by December 31.
$683,005 of $1,000,000 goal
A row of graphics payment types: Visa, MasterCard, Apple Pay and PayPal, and  below a lock with Secure Payment text to the right
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • If Prop. 50 approved, Rep. Garcia would cover it
    U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia, a man with medium skin tone wearing a dark gray suit and white shirt, holds a hand up as he speaks in front of a podium with three people standing behind him.
    U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia speaks during a press conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on April 10, 2025.

    Topline:

    Huntington Beach and its all-Republican City Council have proudly led California’s conservative resistance. Now, if California voters approve Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to temporarily redraw the state’s congressional maps, the city would be represented by Rep. Robert Garcia, a gay progressive who leads Democrats on the House Oversight Committee.

    More details: Under Proposition 50, Newsom’s plan to gerrymander California’s congressional maps to favor Democrats, no incumbent Democrat would take on more Republican voters than Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach. Garcia’s new district, rather than stretching north from his home town into liberal Los Angeles County, would instead shift southward to encompass a coastal slice of conservative Orange County — notably, the conservative-leaning cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach.

    About Garcia: Absorbing those GOP voters into the 42nd congressional district is a point of pride for the 47-year-old Peruvian immigrant, a gay progressive whose sharp-tongued condemnations of President Donald Trump and Elon Musk catapulted him into party leadership as the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, the chamber’s main investigative arm.

    Read on... for what this could mean Huntington Beach.

    California may have a reputation as a bastion of blue, but there are only so many Democratic voters to go around.

    Under Proposition 50, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to gerrymander California’s congressional maps to favor Democrats, no incumbent Democrat would take on more Republican voters than Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach.

    Garcia’s new district, rather than stretching north from his home town into liberal Los Angeles County, would instead shift southward to encompass a coastal slice of conservative Orange County — notably, the conservative-leaning cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach.

    Absorbing those GOP voters into the 42nd congressional district is a point of pride for the 47-year-old Peruvian immigrant, a gay progressive whose sharp-tongued condemnations of President Donald Trump and Elon Musk catapulted him into party leadership as the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, the chamber’s main investigative arm.

    He also serves on the committee’s viral “DOGE” subgroup, where he and a group of fellow young progressives use their speaking time to lob sardonic rhetorical questions that cast the proceedings and the chairwoman, Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, as absurd and even laughable.

    “Are Bert and Ernie part of an extreme homosexual agenda?” Garcia asked Paula Kerger, president and CEO of the Public Broadcasting Service, during a hearing in March as his staffer held up a life-sized image of the beloved muppet duo.

    If his party retakes control of the House next year, Garcia would almost certainly ascend to chair the committee, which has vast subpoena powers, and would become the face of congressional Democrats’ resistance to Trump.

    But don’t expect Garcia, a former Long Beach mayor and City Council member, to back down from his anti-MAGA bully pulpit just because he would then represent a town whose city council has embraced the moniker “the MAGA-nificent seven.”

    “Folks have asked, ‘Hey, you know, you're pretty progressive. Is this gonna impact the way you take on Trump or the oversight committee?’” Garcia told political commentator Katie Phang during a virtual fundraiser for Prop. 50 last month.

    “Absolutely not,” he said.

    Garcia’s certainty that he’ll win re-election next year, regardless of which maps are used, is precisely the problem with creating noncompetitive districts as Prop. 50 proposes to do, said state Sen. Tony Strickland, a Republican former mayor of Huntington Beach.

    The city is currently represented by a Democratic congressmember, Rep. Dave Min of Irvine, who succeeded Democrat Katie Porter when she unsuccessfully ran for U.S. Senate last year. But since the district is currently drawn as a competitive seat, Strickland said, Min must win favor from at least some conservative voters if he wants to stay in office. That wouldn’t be the case for Garcia, should Prop. 50 pass.

    Strickland and other local officials in coastal Orange County are skeptical that Garcia — a former Long Beach mayor who said he’s thrilled that his new district would include the entire city — will prioritize their cities’ needs, especially if he doesn’t need their votes to win.

    “The problem with Prop. 50 is you have predetermined elections. You already know who your congressman is before election day,” Strickland said. “As a pretty conservative city, both Newport and Huntington will have one of the most liberal members of Congress. And I just don't think that's healthy.”

    "We want to govern ourselves"

    While Huntington Beach has long asserted its conservative tilt by resisting compliance with state laws they view as too liberal (such as housing construction requirements), the city in recent years has embraced the national culture wars and grabbed headlines for leading a conservative backlash to the state’s ruling Democrats in Sacramento.

    Residents last March approved a ban on flying the rainbow LGBTQ Pride flag on city property. They greenlit a controversial ordinance requiring voters to bring ID to vote, which Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber argue violates state election laws. (Oral arguments before an appeals court are scheduled for Oct. 22).

    And a simmering battle over sexual content in children’s books and Huntington Beach’s public library came to a head in June.

    The city council had previously approved a controversial ordinance establishing a community review board for library books — what critics dubbed a book ban — and also briefly explored privatizing the library, policies they saw as a counterbalance to the state Legislature’s ultraliberal, “woke” laws. But this summer, via special election, voters overwhelmingly supported repealing the review board and limited the city’s ability to outsource library services.

    “We really just want home control. We want to govern ourselves,” said Huntington Beach Mayor Pat Burns. He doesn’t know Garcia personally, but as a former police officer in Long Beach he’s familiar with the former councilmember’s left-leaning politics.

    “Hopefully he's open to helping us, but if he comes in and tries to break us, you know, break our community and try to crush our council in some way,” Burns said, speaking of Garcia, “well, we're going to resist. We're not going to get along.”

    Garcia argues that the successful repudiation of the library crackdown is evidence that the city council’s right-wing approach doesn’t fully represent residents’ values.

    “The vast majority of Huntington Beach are good, hard-working, middle-class folks that want a just future for themselves,” Garcia told CalMatters in an interview. “That's who I'm gonna represent.”

    Garcia reiterated that he’s unafraid to speak out, even when he disagrees with decisions made in cities that he represents. Even so, he said he would be proud to represent everyone in his proposed new district and would fight hard to bring federal dollars home to support local projects. He said he would prioritize issues that “everyone cares about,” such as increased affordability, combating climate change and curbing corruption.

    Still, Garcia also repeatedly noted that the proposed district would still be solidly Democratic. He effused confidence that he would handily win re-election next year and, he hopes, help Democrats retake control of the House.

    Democrats have come under fire for drawing the new maps behind closed doors without input from the public or the independent citizens redistricting commission. But Paul Mitchell, the election data guru and redistricting expert who penned the proposed maps, said that in redrawing Garcia’s district to include coastal Orange County, he and his team hewed closely to proposals that advocacy groups previously presented to the independent commission.

    Moving Garcia’s district to Orange County was crucial to shore up support for three vulnerable Democrats — Min along with Representatives Derek Tran and Mike Levin — and creating two newly redrawn districts, currently held by Republican representatives Ken Calvert and Darrell Issa, that Democrats believe they can flip.

    “That was a critical piece of the puzzle,” Mitchell said in an interview. “It facilitates everything in Southern California.”

    Fellow California Democrats have sung Garcia’s praises for graciously allowing his district to go from one that Vice President Kamala Harris won by more than 32% last November to one in which Democrats only have a 10 percentage point registration advantage.

    “Robert Garcia is an incredible team player,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, chair of California’s Democratic congressional delegation, in a written statement. “He’s taking in some historically Republican neighborhoods, but it’s still going to be a Democratic district.”

    During the same virtual fundraiser in September, Garcia told viewers that taking on more Republican voters was “the right thing to do” because “our democracy’s at stake.”

    “This is not a moment for us to worry about not having competitive seats or about being in Congress for a lifetime,” Garcia said. “This is about winning the majority to protect people and to save our country.”

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

  • Big Tech asserts its influence in California
    A room with cabinets of computers with cables. A person, out of focus in the back, is attending to a cabinet.
    An employee works in a Broadcom data center in San Jose.

    Topline:

    A new law orders regulators to study the cost impacts of fast-growing, energy-hungry AI data centers. Lawmakers are expected to revisit tougher rules as utilities, advocates and tech groups battle over who pays for the grid upgrades.

    The backstory: Tools that power artificial intelligence devour energy. But attempts to shield regular Californians from footing the bill in 2025 ended with a law requiring regulators to write a report about the issue by 2027.

    Why it matters: The law mandating the report is the lone survivor of last year’s push to rein in the data-center industry. Its deadline means the findings won’t likely be ready in time for lawmakers to use in 2026. The measure began as a plan to give data centers their own electricity rate, shielding households and small businesses from higher bills.

    Read on ... for how we got here and the prospects for future legislation.

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

    Tools that power artificial intelligence devour energy. But attempts to shield regular Californians from footing the bill in 2025 ended with a law requiring regulators to write a report about the issue by 2027.

    If that sounds pretty watered down, it is. Efforts to regulate the energy usage of data centers — the beating heart of AI — ran headlong into Big Tech, business groups and the governor.

    That’s not surprising given that California is increasingly dependent on big tech for state revenue: A handful of companies pay upwards of $5 billion just on income tax withholding.

    The law mandating the report is the lone survivor of last year’s push to rein in the data-center industry. Its deadline means the findings won’t likely be ready in time for lawmakers to use in 2026. The measure began as a plan to give data centers their own electricity rate, shielding households and small businesses from higher bills.

    It amounts to a “toothless” measure, directing the utility regulator to study an issue it already has the authority to investigate, said Matthew Freedman, a staff attorney with the Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer advocate.

    Data centers’ enormous electricity demand has pushed them to the center of California’s energy debate, and that’s why lawmakers and consumer advocates say new regulations matter.

    For instance, the sheer amount of energy requested by data centers in California is prompting questions about costly grid upgrades even as speculative projects and fast-shifting AI loads make long-term planning uncertain. Developers have requested 18.7 gigawatts of service capacity for data centers, more than enough to serve every household in the state, according to the California Energy Commission.

    But the report could help shape future debates as lawmakers revisit tougher rules and the CPUC considers new policies on what data centers pay for power — a discussion gaining urgency as scrutiny of their rising electricity costs grows, he said.

    “It could be that the report helps the Legislature to understand the magnitude of the problem and potential solutions,” Freedman said. “It could also inform the CPUC’s own review of the reasonableness of rates for data center customers, which they are likely to investigate.”

    State Sen. Steve Padilla, a Democrat from Chula Vista, says that the final version of his law “was not the one we would have preferred,” agreeing that it may seem “obvious” the CPUC can study data center cost impacts. The measure could help frame future debates and at least “says unequivocally that the CPUC has the authority to study these impacts” as demand from data centers accelerates, Padilla added.

    Data centers "consume huge amounts of energy, huge amounts of resources, and at least in the near future, we're not going to see that change,” he said.

    Earlier drafts of Padilla’s measure went further, requiring data centers to install large batteries to support the grid during peak demand and pushing utilities to supply them with 100% carbon-free electricity by 2030 — years ahead of the state’s own mandate. Those provisions were ultimately stripped out.

    How California’s first push to regulate data centers slipped away

    California’s bid to bring more oversight to data centers unraveled earlier this year under industry pressure, ending with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s veto of a bill requiring operators to report their water use. Concerns over the bills reflected fears that data-center developers could shift projects to other states and take valuable jobs with them.

    A September Stanford report on powering California data centers said the state risks losing property-tax revenue, union construction jobs and “valuable AI talent” if data-center construction moves out of state.

    The idea that increased regulation could lead to businesses or dollars in some form leaving California is an argument that has been brought up across industries for decades. It often does not hold up to more careful or long-term scrutiny.

    In the face of this opposition, two key proposals stalled in the Legislature’s procedural churn. Early in the session, Padilla put a separate clean-power incentives proposal for data centers on hold until 2026. Later in the year, an Assembly bill requiring data centers to disclose their electricity use was placed in the Senate’s suspense file — where appropriations committees often quietly halt measures.

    Newsom, who has often spoken of California’s AI dominance, echoed the industry’s competitiveness worries in his veto message of the water-use reporting requirement. The governor said he was reluctant to impose requirements on data centers, “without understanding the full impact on businesses and the consumers of their technology.”

    Despite last year’s defeats, some lawmakers say they will attempt to tackle the issue again.

    Padilla plans to try again with a bill that would add new rules on who pays for data centers’ long-term grid costs in California, while Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan — a Democrat from San Ramon — will revisit her electricity-disclosure bill.

    Big Tech warns of job losses but one advocate sees an opening

    After blocking most measures — and watering down the lone energy-costs bill — Big Tech groups say they’ll revive arguments that new efforts to regulate data centers could cost California jobs.

    At a CalMatters event in November, Silicon Valley Leadership Group CEO Ahmad Thomas argued that California must compete to attract investments like the $40 billion data-center project Texas secured with  Google. Any policy making deals like that tougher would provoke conflict, he added.

    “When we get to the details of what our regulatory regime looks like versus other states, or how we can make California more competitive ... that's where sometimes we struggle to find that happy medium,” he said.

    Despite having more regulations than some states, California continues to toggle between the 4th and 5th largest economy in the world and has for some time, suggesting that the Golden State is very competitive.

    Dan Diorio, vice president of state policy for the Data Center Coalition, another industry lobbying group, said new requirements on data centers should apply to all other large electricity users.

    “To single out one industry is not something that we think would set a helpful precedent, ” Diorio said. “We've been very consistent with that throughout the country.”

    Critics say job loss fears are overblown, noting California built its AI sector without the massive hyperscale facilities that typically gravitate to states with ample, cheaper land and streamlined permitting.

    Data-center locations — driven by energy prices, land and local rules — have little to do with where AI researchers live, said Shaolei Ren, an AI researcher at UC Riverside.

    “These two things are sort of separate, they’re decoupled,” he said.

    Freedman, of TURN, said lawmakers may have a bargaining chip: If developers cared about cheaper power, they wouldn’t be proposing facilities in a state with high electric rates. That means speed and certainty may be the priority, giving lawmakers the space to potentially offer quicker approvals in exchange for developers covering more grid costs.

    “There's so much money in this business that the energy bills — even though large — are kind of like rounding errors for these guys,” Freedman said. “If that's true, then maybe they shouldn't care about having to pay a little bit more to ensure that costs aren't being shifted to other customers.”

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

  • Sponsored message
  • Steps to mitigate disturbing chatbot interactions

    Topline:

    Psychologists and online safety advocates say parents are right to be worried. Extended chatbot interactions may affect kids' social development and mental health, they say. And the technology is changing so fast that few safeguards are in place.

    Why it matters: Generative AI chatbots are a growing part of life for American teens. A survey by the Pew Research Center found that 64% of adolescents are using chatbots, with 3 in 10 saying they use them daily.

    Be aware of the risks: A new report from the online safety company, Aura, shows that 42% of adolescents using AI chatbots use them for companionship. Aura gathered data from the daily device use of 3,000 teens as well as surveys of families.

    Read on... for more tips from experts.

    It wasn't until a couple of years ago that Keri Rodrigues began to worry about how her kids might be using chatbots. She learned her youngest son was interacting with the chatbot in his Bible app — he was asking it some deep moral questions, about sin for instance.

    That's the kind of conversation that she had hoped her son would have with her and not a computer. "Not everything in life is black and white," she says. "There are grays. And it's my job as his mom to help him navigate that and walk through it, right?"

    Rodrigues has also been hearing from parents across the country who are concerned about AI chatbots' influence on their children. She is the president of the National Parents Union, which advocates for children and families. Many parents, she says, are watching chatbots claim to be their kids' best friends, encouraging children to tell them everything.

    Psychologists and online safety advocates say parents are right to be worried. Extended chatbot interactions may affect kids' social development and mental health, they say. And the technology is changing so fast that few safeguards are in place.

    The impacts can be serious. According to their parents' testimonies at a recent Senate hearing, two teens died by suicide after prolonged interactions with chatbots that encouraged their suicide plans.

    If you or someone you know may be considering suicide or be in crisis, call or text 988 to reach the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.

    But generative AI chatbots are a growing part of life for American teens. A survey by the Pew Research Center found that 64% of adolescents are using chatbots, with 3 in 10 saying they use them daily.

    "It's a very new technology," says Dr. Jason Nagata, a pediatrician and researcher of adolescent digital media use at the University of California San Francisco. "It's ever-changing and there's not really best practices for youth yet. So, I think there are more opportunities now for risks because we're still kind of guinea pigs in the whole process."


    And teenagers are particularly vulnerable to the risks of chatbots, he adds, because adolescence is a time of rapid brain development, which is shaped by experiences. "It is a period when teens are more vulnerable to lots of different exposures, whether it's peers or computers."

    But parents can minimize those risks, say pediatricians and psychologists. Here are some ways to help teens navigate the technology safely.

    1. Be aware of the risks

    A new report from the online safety company, Aura, shows that 42% of adolescents using AI chatbots use them for companionship. Aura gathered data from the daily device use of 3,000 teens as well as surveys of families.

    That includes some disturbing conversations involving violence and sex, says psychologist Scott Kollins, chief medical officer at Aura, who leads the company's research on teen interactions with generative AI.

    "It is role play that is [an] interaction about harming somebody else, physically hurting them, torturing them," he says.

    He says it's normal for kids to be curious about sex, but learning about sexual interactions from a chatbot instead of a trusted adult is problematic.

    And chatbots are designed to agree with users, says pediatrician Nagata. So if your child starts a query about sex or violence, "the default of the AI is to engage with it and to reinforce it."

    He says spending a lot of time with chatbots — having extended conversations — also prevents teenagers from learning important social skills, like empathy, reading body language and negotiating differences.

    "When you're only or exclusively interacting with computers who are agreeing with you, then you don't get to develop those skills," he says.

    And there are mental health risks. According to a recent study by researchers at the nonprofit research organization RAND, Harvard and Brown universities, 1 in 8 adolescents and young adults use chatbots for mental health advice.

    But there have been numerous reports of individuals experiencing delusions, or what's being referred to as AI psychosis, after prolonged interactions with chatbots. This, as well as the concern over risks of suicide, has led psychologists to warn that AI chatbots pose serious risks to the mental health and safety of teens as well as vulnerable adults.

    "We see that when people interact with [chatbots] over long periods of time, that things start to degrade, that the chatbots do things that they're not intended to do," says psychologist Ursula Whiteside, CEO of a mental health nonprofit called Now Matters Now. For example, she says, chatbots "give advice about lethal means, things that it's not supposed to do but does happen over time with repeated queries."

    2. Stay engaged with kids' online lives 

    Keep an open dialogue going with your child, says Nagata.

    "Parents don't need to be AI experts," he says. "They just need to be curious about their children's lives and ask them about what kind of technology they're using and why."

    And have those conversations early and often, says psychologist Kollins of Aura.

    "We need to have frequent and candid but nonjudgmental conversations with our kids about what this content looks like," says Kollins, who's also a father to two teenagers. "And we're going to have to continue to do that."

    He often asks his teens about what platforms they are on. When he hears about new chatbots through his own research at Aura, he also asks his kids if they have heard of those or used them.

    "Don't blame the child for expressing or taking advantage of something that's out there to satisfy their natural curiosity and exploration," he says.

    And make sure to keep the conversations open-ended, says Nagata: "I do think that that allows for your teenager or child to open up about problems that they've encountered."

    3. Develop digital literacy 

    It's also important to talk to kids about the benefits and pitfalls of generative AI. And if parents don't understand all the risks and benefits, parents and kids can research that together, suggests psychologist Jacqueline Nesi at Brown University, who was involved in the American Psychological Association's recent health advisory on AI and adolescent health.

    "A certain amount of digital literacy and literacy does need to happen at home," she says.

    It's important for parents and teens to understand that while chatbots can help with research, they also make errors, says Nagata. And it is important for users to be skeptical and fact-check.

    "Part of this education process for children is to help them to understand that this is not the final say," explains Nagata. "You yourself can process this information and try to assess, what's real or not. And if you're not sure, then try to verify with other people or other sources."

    4. Parental controls only work if kids set up their own accounts

    If a child is using AI chatbots, it may be better for them to set up their own account on the platforms, says Nesi, instead of using chatbots anonymously.

    "Many of the more popular platforms now have parental controls in place," she says. "But in order for those parental controls to be in effect, a child does need to have their own account."

    But be aware, there are dozens of different AI chatbots that kids could be using. "We identified 88 different AI platforms that kids were interacting with," says Kollins.

    This underscores the importance of having an open dialogue with your child to stay aware of what they're using.

    5. Set time limits

    Nagata also advises setting boundaries around when kids use digital technology, especially at nighttime.

    "One potential aspect of generative AI that can also lead to mental health and physical health impacts are [when] kids are chatting all night long and it's really disrupting their sleep," says Nagata. "Because they're very personalized conversations, they're very engaging. Kids are more likely to continue to engage and have more and more use."

    And if a child is veering toward overuse and misuse of generative AI, Nagata recommends that parents set time limits or limit certain kinds of content on chatbots.

    6. Seek help for more vulnerable teens 

    Kids who are already struggling with their mental health or social skills are more likely to be vulnerable to the risks of chatbots, says Nesi.

    "So if they're already lonely, if they're already isolated, then I think there's a bigger risk that maybe a chatbot could then exacerbate those issues," she says.

    And it's also important to keep an eye on potential warning signs of poor mental health, she notes.

    Those warning signs involve sudden and persistent changes in mood, isolation or changes in how engaged they are at school.

    "Parents should be as much as possible trying to pay attention to the whole picture of the child," says Nesi. "How are they doing in school? How are they doing with friends? How are they doing at home if they are starting to withdraw?"

    If a teen is withdrawing from friends and family and restricting their social interactions to just the chatbot, that too is a warning sign, she says. "Are they going to the chatbot instead of a friend or instead of a therapist or instead of responsible adults about serious issues?

    Also look for signs of dependence or addiction to a chatbot, she adds. "Are they having difficulty controlling how much they are using a chatbot? Like, is it starting to feel like it's controlling them? They kind of can't stop," she says.

    And if they see those signs, parents should reach out to a professional for help, says Nesi.

    "Speaking to a child's pediatrician is always a good first step," she says. "But in most cases, getting a mental health professional involved is probably going to make sense."

    7. The government has a role to play

    But, she acknowledges that the job of keeping children and teens safe from this technology shouldn't just fall upon parents.

    "There's a responsibility, you know, from lawmakers, from the companies themselves to make these products safe for teens."

    Lawmakers in Congress recently introduced bipartisan legislation to ban tech companies from offering companion apps for minors and to hold companies accountable for making available to minors companion apps that produce or solicit sexual content.

    If you or someone you know may be considering suicide or be in crisis, call or text 988 to reach the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.
    Copyright 2025 NPR

  • 10 bills that sparked hours of debate this year
    A top view looking down of three people talking among each other next to a wooden staircase with carpet. Each floor shows two different tile patterns.
    People chat together at the state Capitol in Sacramento on Sept. 12, 2025. Photo by Fred Greaves for CalMatters

    Topline:

    California lawmakers spend just a few minutes discussing in public the hundreds of bills they introduce. But these 10 measures had hours of intense debate in 2025.

    Why it matters: A handful of controversial proposals broke through the usual rushed process, drawing hours of testimony and intense public lobbying from some of the state’s most powerful organizations that spend millions of dollars to get their way, according to an analysis of CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database, which tracks every word spoken in the Legislature.

    The backstory: Those long hours are not the norm, compared to the overall 2025 average, which showed lawmakers and advocates spent just 32 minutes publicly talking about each of the 1,657 bills that were discussed in at least one hearing.

    Read on ... for details about the 10 bills generating debate.

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

    Most bills in the California Legislature are barely talked about in public before lawmakers take action, often after secret negotiations with lobbyists.

    But a handful of controversial proposals broke through the usual rushed process, drawing hours of testimony and intense public lobbying from some of the state’s most powerful organizations that spend millions of dollars to get their way, according to an analysis of CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database, which tracks every word spoken in the Legislature.

    That’s compared to the overall 2025 average, which showed lawmakers and advocates spent just 32 minutes publicly talking about each of the 1,657 bills that were discussed in at least one hearing.

    These were the 10 most debated bills of the 2025 regular legislative session, according to Digital Democracy.

    (Note: Advocacy groups listed below may have changed their positions as the bills were amended.)

    Divide over antisemitism bill

    Bill: Assembly Bill 715

    Lead author: Democratic assemblymembers Dawn Addis of San Luis Obispo and Rick Zbur of Los Angeles.

    Time discussed: 15 hours

    Approximate number of speakers: 486

    Why it was a talker: California’s Jewish lawmakers made countering antisemitism in schools their top priority this year, but opposing the bill was a coalition of education groups, unions, civil rights advocates and Muslim community organizations who feared censorship of pro-Palestinian voices and infringement on academic freedom. The groups turned out in droves to testify.

    Number of groups in support: At least 68, including the Jewish Community Action, the Los Angeles County Business Federation and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

    Number of groups opposed: At least 92, including the California Federation of Teachers, the California Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the California School Boards Association.

    Status: Signed into law.

    Local governments balk at transit-oriented housing

    Bill: Senate Bill 79

    Lead author: Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco

    Time discussed: 6 hours, 40 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 198

    Why it was a talker: Local governments balked at a new state mandate allowing developers to build midrise apartment buildings within walking distance of many major train, light-rail, subway and high-frequency rapid bus stations — even if local zoning restrictions would otherwise ban such dense development.

    Number of groups in support: At least 49, including pro home-building groups and the California Apartment Association.

    Number of groups opposed: At least 76, including, at one point, the building trades unions, the California Association of Realtors and dozens of municipalities.

    Status: Signed into law.

    Charter schools oppose new restrictions

    Bill: Assembly Bill 84

    Lead authors: Democratic assemblymembers Robert Garcia of Rancho Cucamonga and Al Muratsuchi of Torrance.

    Time discussed: 6 hours, 32 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 491

    Why it was a talker: This was the latest legislative effort by California’s powerful teachers unions and their allies to add restrictions and oversight to charter schools. Homeschool families and charter schools opposed the measure, introduced in response to high-profile charter school fraud scandals, saying it would strip millions of dollars in state funding from their programs. The bill added auditing requirements and new fees as well as a proposed new Office of Inspector General inside the Department of Education.

    Number of groups in support: At least six, almost all influential unions.

    Number of groups opposed: More than 200, many of them charter schools or home school groups.

    Status: Failed in the Senate.

    Uproar over teen sexual solicitation

    Bill: Assembly Bill 379

    Lead author: Democratic Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen of Elk Grove

    Time discussed: 5 hours, 28 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 149

    Why it was a talker: This bill, originally written by Democratic Assemblywoman Maggy Krell, a former state prosecutor, sought to increase penalties for soliciting teen sex. But the legislation sparked difficult discussions between progressive and moderate members of the Democratic caucus about how hard to crack down on those accused of soliciting sex from minors, based on whether the victims were younger or older teenagers.

    Number of groups in support: At least 48, including law enforcement unions and some Native American tribes.  

    Number of groups opposed: At least 25, including ACLU and various advocates for progressive criminal justice reforms.

    Status: Signed into law.

    Lots to say about ICE agent masks

    Masked border patrol agents walk down a sidewalk, some holding rifles.
    U.S. Border Patrol agents march to the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building after a show of force outside the Japanese American National Museum, where Gov. Newsom was holding a redistricting press conference in Los Angeles on Aug. 14, 2025.
    (
    Carlin Stiehl
    /
    Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
    )

    Bill: Senate Bill 627 

    Lead authors: Democratic Sen. Jessie Arreguín of Berkeley and three other senators

    Time discussed: 5 hours

    Approximate number of speakers: 100

    Why it was a talker: Members of California’s Democratic legislative supermajority aren’t shy about speaking their minds on President Donald Trump and his controversial immigration policies, so it’s no surprise that there was a lot of discussion over California’s first-in-the nation measure to prohibit federal immigration officers and local police from wearing masks in California.

    Number of groups in support: At least 45, including non-police unions, public defenders, the ACLU and immigrant rights groups.

    Number of groups opposed: At least 16, almost all of them police unions.

    Status: Signed into law

    Democrats pitch gerrymander to counter Texas

    Bill: Assembly Bill 604

    Lead author: Democratic Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry of Davis and Sen. Lena Gonzalez of Long Beach

    Time discussed: 4 hours, 58 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 76

    Why it was a talker: There were plenty of heated discussions after California Democrats put forward their own gerrymandering plan after Trump pressured Texas to change its congressional maps to make new Republican districts.

    Number of groups in support: At least 54, including labor unions and progressive groups.

    Number of groups opposed: At least 19, including California Common Cause, Govern for California and conservative groups.

    Status: Signed into law, approved by voters

    California Governor Gavin Newsom, a man with light skin tone wearing a white buttoned down shirt, speaks into a microphone in front of a large American flag designed background with text that reads "Yes on 50."
    Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a rally in support of a “Yes” vote on Proposition 50, a congressional redistricting measure in the Nov. 4th special election, at the Los Angeles Convention Center in Los Angeles on Nov. 1, 2025.
    (
    David Swanson
    /
    Reuters
    )

    Energy bill gets lengthy debate

    Bill: Senate Bill 254

    Lead authors: Democratic Sen. Josh Becker of Menlo Park and two other lawmakers

    Time discussed: 4 hours, 55 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 119

    Why it was a talker: This energy bill created a new public financing system for electric transmission projects and extended a controversial program that shields utilities from some wildfire liability costs, but critics warned it could ultimately drive consumer bills higher. It was part of a package of energy and climate measures the Legislature passed this year.

    Number of groups in support: At least 55, including trades unions, the California Democratic Party, the California Chamber of Commerce, environmental groups and the California Municipal Utilities Association.

    Number of groups opposed: At least seven, including the California Farm Bureau Federation, Rural County Representatives of California and the California State Association of Counties.

    Status: Signed into law.

    Fees for veterans’ benefits draws testimony

    Bill: Senate Bill 694

    Lead author: Democratic Sens. Bob Archuleta of Norwalk and Sabrina Cervantes of Riverside

    Time discussed: 4 hours, 39 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 99

    Why it was a talker: For years, veterans advocates have wanted a state law preventing companies from charging exorbitant fees to help veterans file federal disability benefits claims, something they can do for free through the government and certain veterans’ organizations. But the Legislature has repeatedly balked, as companies claim they provide an important service to help veterans get the benefits they need.

    Number of groups in support: At least 25, including the California State Association of Counties and the American Legion.

    Number of groups opposed: At least nine, including Veterans Guardian, one of the companies that files claims.

    Status: The bill did not pass the Senate, although lawmakers announced they had a deal on the legislation and would vote on it in January.

    Should AT&T opt out of landlines?

    Bill: Assembly Bill 470

    Lead author: Democratic Assemblymember Tina McKinnor of Inglewood

    Time discussed: 4 hours, 13 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 209

    Why it was a talker: AT&T has spent millions in lobbying as it tried unsuccessfully to bow out of its legal requirement to provide copper landlines in much of the state. Rural communities and others pushed back, leading to some of the lengthiest discussions in the Legislature this year.

    Number of groups in support: At least 145, including AT&T, some tribes and other groups aligned with the telecommunications company.

    Number of groups opposed: At least 96, including rural counties, some unions and AARP.

    Status: Failed in the Senate

    Banning junk food at schools causes a stir

    Bill: Assembly Bill 1264

    Lead author: Democratic Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel of Encino

    Time discussed: 3 hours, 49 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 103

    Why it was a talker: There were lots of strong opinions over this bill to ban schools from serving harmful “ultraprocessed foods” to students.

    Number of groups in support: At least 59, including nurses and school unions, the California Medical Association and some school districts.

    Number of groups opposed: At least 46, including agricultural associations, the American Beverage Association and other business trade groups.

    Status: Signed into law.

    Digital Democracy’s Foaad Khosmood, Forbes professor of computer engineering at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, and Digital Democracy’s Thomas Gerrity contributed to this story.

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

  • How the industry changed in 2025

    Topline:

    The electric vehicle industry has taken a pummeling this year. The Trump administration, as expected, reversed a whole suite of federal policies that promoted or encouraged EVs. But sales spiked in August and September.

    Changes to EV policies: California's ability to require the sale of EVs: gone. Federal rules about emissions and fuel economy — being rewritten. Federal penalties for car companies that sell too many gas guzzlers: zeroed out. The $7,500 federal tax credit? Kaput. Meanwhile, automakers delayed or canceled a host of unprofitable EV plans.

    Sales boost: But during the last weeks that the federal tax credit was available, buyers rushed to take advantage of the expiring opportunity. EVs hit an all-time high of 11.6% of the new vehicle market in September. Then sales crashed by 50% in October. And while automakers are slowing their EV plans down significantly, they're not giving up on them, either. The global market for cars that run on gas or diesel is shrinking, while the market for battery-powered cars is expanding — and China is dominating it.

    Read on ... for more on the U.S. and global EV markets.

    The electric vehicle industry has taken a pummeling this year. The Trump administration, as expected, reversed a whole suite of federal policies that promoted or encouraged EVs.

    California's ability to require the sale of EVs: gone. Federal rules about emissions and fuel economy — being rewritten. Federal penalties for car companies that sell too many gas guzzlers: zeroed out. The $7,500 federal tax credit? Kaput.

    Meanwhile, automakers delayed or canceled a host of unprofitable EV plans.

    The all-electric Ram 1500 REV was canceled before a single one was built. The all-electric Ford Lightning was discontinued despite some glowing reviews. (Both pickups will be replaced with extended-range electric vehicles, which come with both a big battery and a backup gas tank.)

    The buzzy Volkswagen Buzz is still available in other countries, but no longer in the U.S. The GM Brightdrop van is no more. The list goes on.

    As for sales? "It's a roller-coaster ride," says Stephanie Valdez Streaty, who monitors EVs for the data and services company Cox Automotive.

    Sales spiked in August and September, during the last weeks that the federal tax credit was available, as buyers rushed to take advantage of the expiring opportunity. Cox estimated EVs hit an all-time high of 11.6% of the new vehicle market in September. Then sales crashed by 50% in October.

    But here's a twist.

    "Among U.S. shoppers who are in [the] market for new vehicles, the interest in electric vehicles actually ticked up a bit after the tax credit went away," says Brent Gruber, who runs the EV practice at consumer insights company J.D. Power.

    It's the EV story you might not have heard this year: Despite the political and product planning whiplash, consumer appetite for EVs has been on a very smooth ride.

    Overall, about 25% of new car shoppers are very interested in buying an EV, according to J.D. Power surveys. And with minor fluctuations, "it's held pretty consistent," Gruber says, despite what he calls the "turbulence" of this year.

    "There's still a tremendous amount of interest," he says. "And from an EV owner perspective, we continue to see high levels of satisfaction once people do get into those products." In fact, EV owners are 94% likely to repurchase another EV for their next vehicle, he says.

    BJ Birtwell runs the Electrify Expo, a traveling festival dedicated to EVs. He says EVs have suffered from being politicized, with a lot of right-of-center Americans rejecting them out of hand.

    "There's still a cloud of skepticism around EVs across some parts of the country," he says. But put a skeptic behind the wheel of a new EV, he says, "and I'll tell you what I see: Smiles for miles." Test drives reveal the cars are fun to drive, he says, and a little research can show that charging at home is easier and cheaper than they thought.

    An American slowdown 

    Still, while Americans remain interested in EVs, it's undeniable that battery-powered vehicles are taking off more slowly than industry execs expected a few years ago. That's not just because of the policy reversal; it's also because of market realities. For example, while charging might be easy at home, it's a hassle for apartment dwellers who don't have that option. Meanwhile, vehicle prices — a challenge for the entire auto market — are even higher for EVs. Lower fuel and maintenance costs can't always overcome that up-front sticker shock, even for people who are hypothetically interested in buying.

    This slowdown will have global consequences for the environment and for human beings: It locks in higher carbon emissions and air pollution for years to come.

    The legacy automakers, of course, have lost billions of dollars on the EV designs they've canceled or postponed. But the delay hurts more than just the big-name auto brands. A whole network of suppliers sell parts to the automakers, and they also bear the burden when plans change.

    Ken O'Trakoun of RPM Partners works with auto suppliers in distress. "The whiplash," he says, "between demand going up and demand receding, it has impacted a number of suppliers." They made investments in factories to supply automakers for vehicles that either aren't being made, or are being made at much lower volumes. "It's pretty disruptive."

    The "ripple effect" from those suppliers "creates impacts on jobs," Valdez-Streaty notes.

    Automakers, too, have laid off or reassigned employees away from battery plants and EV production lines as part of their adjusted timelines.

    A clear global trend 

    But while automakers are slowing their EV plans down significantly, they're not giving up on them, either.

    Partly that's because of the enduring consumer interest; as long as there's a market, the automakers want to serve it. And partly that's because the automakers are all global companies. They want to be able to sell to the rest of the world, too.

    "On a global scale, internal combustion engine cars already peaked back, like, eight or nine years ago," says Huiling Zhou, U.S. EV analyst for the research group BloombergNEF.

    About one in four cars sold worldwide this year was electric, Zhou says — driven by China's remarkably fast embrace of those vehicles. And China, increasingly, is exporting cars around the world.

    That means that the global market for cars that run on gas or diesel is shrinking, while the market for battery-powered cars is expanding — and China is dominating it.

    If automakers want to compete around the world, they simply can't afford to get off the EV roller coaster.

    Copyright 2025 NPR