A protester waves the national flags of Mexico during a demonstration for immigrant rights outside of Los Angeles City Hall this month.
(
Qian Weizhong
/
VCG via Getty Images
)
Topline:
If you are part of a family that has been affected by the Trump administration’s deportation plans, keep reading for how experts and advocates recommend parents and guardians can talk to young people about their rights when it comes to immigration enforcement — and how to prepare for worst-case scenarios.
Why it matters: According to the California Immigrant Data Portal, in 2021, 20% of minors in the state — around 1.8 million people — were either undocumented or living with someone undocumented. This was true for 32% percent of Latino teens and children, and 19% of Asian American youth.
Family preparedness plan: Kristina Lovato, the director of the Center on Immigration and Child Welfare Initiative at UC Berkeley, said that it’s “really important” for every family who could be affected by immigration enforcement to have what agencies and organizations call “a family preparedness plan” in case of an emergency. The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) has a thorough tool kit with guidance on ways to prepare for such a scenario, focusing on a care plan for children.
Read on ... for advice on how to speak to young people about their rights when it comes to immigration enforcement.
Panic has continued to spread through immigrant communities across California ever since President Donald Trump’s inauguration in the light of his promises to conduct mass deportations.
Concerns have also been stoked by the new administration’s reversal of a 2011 Department of Homeland Security policy that kept immigration agents away from “sensitive locations” like schools and churches.
So if you are part of a family that has been affected by the administration’s deportation plans, keep reading for how experts and advocates recommend parents and guardians can talk to young people about their rights when it comes to immigration enforcement — and how to prepare for worst-case scenarios.
Bear in mind that this is not legal advice, and it’s always recommended that you consult an immigration attorney for guidance on your family’s specific situation.
What does a ‘family preparedness plan’ look like?
Kristina Lovato, the director of the Center on Immigration and Child Welfare Initiative at UC Berkeley, said that it’s “really important” for every family who could be affected by immigration enforcement to have what agencies and organizations call “a family preparedness plan” in case of an emergency.
For example, ILRC suggests that parents should identify a trusted adult to take care of their kids, in case they are detained or deported. (There is a possibility that a child may end up in the child welfare system after a parent is detained or deported.)
There are three avenues to designate a trusted adult to care for for your child:
Find another adult who can verbally agree to take care of your child in a situation where you cannot. The downside of a verbal agreement is that the trusted adult may not be able to make certain decisions for your child, like medical decisions, in the event that their parent or caregiver is deported.
Complete a Caregiver’s Authorization Affidavit so that the trusted adult can also make school and medical decisions on behalf of your child. This option does not impact your parental rights.
Have the court appoint a guardian for your child by filling out a GC-211 form. This new guardian can, in certain situations, make more decisions than an authorized caregiver on behalf of your child, and the guardianship can also be made conditional, to “kick in” if a parent or caregiver is deported. This route does not take away your parental rights, but it does suspend them by granting legal custody of your child to someone else — making it “a serious decision” to embark on, notes ILRC, and one which should be accompanied by legal advice.
In any case, parents or caregivers should let their children know about their plan, recommends ILRC — telling them exactly who they would stay with if they were not there.
The toolkit also suggests documenting your child’s medications and medical conditions, such as allergies, and giving a copy to their school, and another to the adult you designated as an emergency caretaker.
Regardless of your child’s nationality, advocates suggest making sure they have a passport.
“No matter who is in the White House, in California, we will continue to lead with California values,” State Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a December news release. “My office will continue to use the full force of the law and every tool at our disposal to protect the rights of California’s immigrants – and we need staff at these critical locations to do the same.”
“We cannot let the Trump deportation machine create a culture of fear and mistrust that prevents immigrants from accessing vital public services,” said Bonta.
Notify the local educational agency administrator of any immigration officer’s request to enter campus.
Ask to see — and make copies or notes of — the officer’s credentials, including name and badge number; the phone number of their supervisor; any documentation that allows school access, like a warrant.
Document the actions of any officer who enters the premises without consent.
Notify children’s guardians as soon as possible of ICE activity, and do so before an officer questions or removes a student for immigration-enforcement purposes (“unless prevented by a judicial warrant or subpoena”).
Notify the California Department of Justice of any attempt by an immigration officer to access a school site or a student by emailing immigration@doj.ca.gov.
If anyone in California suspects that a school or its staff are assisting ICE, state Bonta urged them to report these concerns to his office.
Know your right to remain silent
An ICE agent can approach a minor in a public space to ask questions or ask for their identification, said Lovato. But in this case — and almost all cases with law enforcement — the young person should know that they do not need to respond to any questions, according to legal experts.
“A minor can state that they want to remain silent until they speak with a lawyer,” Lovato said. “Do not answer any questions about your birthplace, immigration status or how you’ve entered the United States.” Lovato also recommended not giving an ICE agent “any personal information about yourself or anyone in your family.”
Nicole Vara (left), with the Latino Task Force, stands with a group of elected and public safety officials, labor leaders, and community members fill the steps in front of City Hall in San Francisco on Jan. 28 during a press conference to reaffirm San Francisco’s commitment to being a Sanctuary City.
(
Beth LaBerge
/
KQED
)
How should you talk to your kids about ICE in the news?
Lovato studied the impact of deportations on Los Angeles families during the first Trump administration. She said many young people in these families faced an “ambiguous loss” after seeing a parent forcibly separated from them, coupled with the uncertainty of when they may be reunited.
“It’s a type of loss that is often unnoticed by the general public,” she said. She also noted many children in the study who had seen their parents deported then experienced anxiety that they themselves — or other family members — would be next, even if they had documentation.
It’s easy for young people and children to pick up on any tension around them — and kids “overhear everything,” said Ioanna Angelakis, a marriage and family therapist based in San Francisco.
“They might hear [something] in a certain way that they can’t understand and they can’t process,” she said. "This stress can appear in different ways for kids, like acting out in school.”
Some concrete advice advocates suggest for parents and caregivers:
Reassure your children
Angelakis said that while it may be difficult, parents need “to get their own fears under control.”
She said that parents should explain to their children — even if they’re teenagers — that their family will “continue to protect them” and will do everything they can to “make sure that the kids remain safe.”
“There is no easy solution for all of this, and it is truly terrifying if a family is in danger,” she said. But Angelakis said that a parent’s reassuring tone can help children from developing tremendous anxiety — or from mirroring their family’s stress.
Tell your child you have a plan
Angelakis said parents should try “putting some containment” on the anxiety their child is feeling, and let them know that “our family has a plan and we’re doing everything that we can to stay safe.”
These plans would include the back-up childcare and guardian situations suggested by the ILRC.
Tell your child they don’t have to say anything to law enforcement
What’s more, for some children, advocates acknowledge that going to a police officer or providing information to people or schools might not be helpful for them or their families. This can be the case for a child from a mixed-status family, or a young person whose community has historically experienced violent responses from the police.
Lovato explained that immigration organizations have been encouraging parents to tell their kids and engage in a household practice of “saying no to ICE. Actually verbally, reciting it and practicing: just saying no.”
Regulate your own anxiety
Angelakis said in many situations, fear is warranted and rational — since for so many, ICE headlines hit close to home.
But she emphasized that parents should try to regulate their response when talking to their children. A way for guardians to check on their own anxiety by consulting with other trusted people in their life, and make sure they are not getting “caught in [their] own head,” said Angelakis.
This includes “making sure you breathe right,” she recommended. And that “we pass on the relevant information to the child” in a way that isn’t “skyrocketing anyone’s anxiety.”
Being a role model on how to handle distress and conflict, like making sure anger looks “in-control” rather than “out-of-control.”
Angelakis said that while families can also try to limit their news intake, she acknowledges that many families are hearing about “terrifying” situations which are hard to ignore.
“It’s really important that we do have these conversations with kids, and [that] we do minimize any kind of anxiety evoking or anxiety increasing conversations.”
But she emphasizes: “Kids are pretty incredible. And super resilient and awfully smart.”
This story contains reporting by KQED’s Tyche Hendricks and Ki Sung.
The European Union has announced a fine of $140 million against Elon Musk's X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, for several failures to comply with rules governing large digital platforms.
The backstory: In July 2024, in a set of preliminary findings, the European Commission formally accused X — which serves more than 100 million users within the EU — of several violations. These included its failure to meet transparency mandates, obstructing researchers' access to data and misleading users by converting the blue verification badge into a paid subscription feature.
Read on ... for more on Musk's battle with the EU.
The European Union has announced a fine of $140 million against Elon Musk's X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, for several failures to comply with rules governing large digital platforms. A European Commission spokesperson said the fine against X's holding company was due to the platform's misleading use of a blue check mark to identify verified users, a poorly functioning advertising repository, and a failure to provide effective data access for researchers.
Europe's preference had not been to fine X, said the spokesperson, Thomas Regnier, as he drew a contrast with the Chinese-owned platform TikTok. Regnier announced Friday that TikTok had separately offered concessions that would allow it to avoid such penalties.
"If you engage constructively with the Commission, we settle cases," Regnier said at a press conference in Brussels. "If you do not, we take action."
The possibility that X would face financial penalties in Europe had drawn significant political fire, not only from Musk but also from others in Washington, D.C., over the past two years since the European Commission began its investigation.
"Rumors swirling that the EU commission will fine X hundreds of millions of dollars for not engaging in censorship," Vice President J.D. Vance wrote on X on Thursday. "The EU should be supporting free speech, not attacking American companies over garbage."
In July 2024, in a set of preliminary findings, the European Commission formally accused X — which serves more than 100 million users within the EU — of several violations. These included its failure to meet transparency mandates, obstructing researchers' access to data and misleading users by converting the blue verification badge into a paid subscription feature.
Nonetheless, the company could have faced far higher financial penalties, with European authorities able under new legislation — known as the Digital Services Act — to fine offenders 6% of their worldwide annual revenue, which in this case could have included several other of Musk's companies, including SpaceX.
The fine announcement follows months of accusations from activists and trade experts that authorities in Brussels were deliberately easing up on enforcement to appease U.S. President Donald Trump. Musk was a prominent supporter of Trump's campaign and spent several months this past spring serving as an administration adviser and the public face of the Department of Government Efficiency initiative.
The willingness to take on Musk's business empire could serve as a critical test of the EU's determination, especially in light of Trump's previous threats of tariffs over the bloc's fines against U.S. technology giants.
The confrontation highlights a growing division over the concept of digital sovereignty, which has transformed long-standing allies into competitors as Europe strives to establish itself as the global authority for digital regulation, and the Trump administration pushes back against perceived curbs on U.S. companies' profits and freedom of expression.
So, experts warn, this direct punitive action against Musk's businesses carries the risk of U.S. retaliation, even though the EU remains heavily dependent on American technology for a range of sectors.
The Trump administration also has consistently argued that the EU unfairly targets U.S. technology companies with severe financial penalties and burdensome regulations, equating these measures to tariffs that justify trade retaliation. Just last week, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stated that the EU must revise its digital regulations to secure a deal aimed at reducing steel and aluminum tariffs.
The Commission denied again Friday any connection between the trade negotiations with the U.S. and the implementation of its technology rulebooks, any targeting of American firms or any kind of infringement on freedom of expression.
"Our digital legislation has nothing to do with censorship," said Commission spokesperson Regnier. "We adopt the final decision, not targeting anyone, not targeting any company, not targeting any jurisdictions based on their color or their country of origin."
Despite the Trump administration's pressure, the EU has proceeded with the enforcement of its digital antitrust rules, recently imposing fines of $584 million on Apple Inc. and $233 million on Meta Platforms Inc.
It also has issued substantial penalties against other corporations, including over $8 billion total in fines against Alphabet Inc.'s Google over several years and a separate directive for Apple to repay €13 billion in back taxes to Ireland for providing unfair state aid.
The CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program has restarted, offering SNAP users in the state instant rebates on up to $60 of produce.
(
Mariana Dale
/
LAist
)
Topline:
The CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program — a state program offering SNAP recipients up to $60 of free produce each month — has restarted as of November.
The backstory: The program, which first launched in 2023, is dependent on state-allocated annual funds that are spent until they’re used up, and the 2024 cycle ran out for CalFresh users back in January of this year.
But this year, the program has received an injection of $36 million, which is projected to last until summer 2026.
Read on ... to get answers to common questions about the program and how you might be able to use its benefits.
It’s only been a month since the federal government shutdown caused the 5.5 million Californians who use CalFresh — the state’s version of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — to see their payments delayed.
And although payments of SNAP (formerly referred to as food stamps) have restarted, another holiday season is around the corner, putting extra strain on folks who are food insecure in the Bay Area.
One positive development: The CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program — a state program offering SNAP recipients up to $60 of free produce each month — has restarted as of November.
The program, which first launched in 2023, is dependent on state-allocated annual funds that are spent until they’re used up, and the 2024 cycle ran out for CalFresh users back in January of this year.
But this year, the program has received an injection of $36 million, which is projected to last until summer 2026.
In previous years, the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program has made “a real, real difference to so many families,” before its funds were used up, said Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-San José), who chairs the state Legislature’s Human Services Committee with oversight of CalFresh policy.
But despite that, he said, “still only a small percentage of all CalFresh-eligible families are using it.”
While only six stores in the Bay Area are participating in the program right now — almost all of them in the South Bay — anyone receiving CalFresh benefits can automatically receive $60 worth of fresh produce each month if they’re able to reach one of these locations.
Keep reading for how the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program works, where it’s available and how to redeem your money in-store.
And if you don’t need this information yourself right now, consider sharing it with someone else who might: “One in five Californians suffer from food insecurity,” Lee said. “So statistically speaking, you are, or you know someone who is struggling with food.”
Can anyone on CalFresh use the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program?
Yes: If you receive any CalFresh (SNAP) benefits, you have automatic access to the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program at participating stores (see below).
You don’t need to apply for anything, as your EBT card itself is your proof of eligibility.
Can I use the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program in any store that accepts EBT?
No: You’ll need to visit one of the specific stores participating in the program.
In the Bay Area, almost all of these stores are in Santa Clara County:
Santa Fe Foods, 860 White Road, San José
Arteaga’s Food Center, 204 Willow St., San José
Arteaga’s Food Center, 1003 Lincoln Ave., San José
Arteaga’s Food Center, 2620 Alum Rock Ave., San José
Arteaga’s Food Center, 6906 Automall Pkwy., Gilroy
In Alameda County, you can use the program at:
Santa Fe Foods, 7356 Thornton Ave., Newark
There are also participating stores in Monterey and Salinas counties, and several in the Los Angeles area. See a full list of grocery stores participating in the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program.
How do I use the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program in the store?
Next, do your shopping as normal, and pick up fresh fruits and vegetables as part of your trip. You don’t have to separate the produce or pay for it in a different transaction.
At the register, tell the cashier you’d like to use your EBT card to pay for your shopping, like you usually would. When it comes to the fresh fruits and vegetables in your cart, you’ll initially see the costs of those particular items come off your EBT funds — but then those funds will be immediately returned, making that produce effectively free at the register.
Another way of seeing it: If your cart amounts to $15 of EBT-eligible food, including $5 of produce, you’ll initially see $15 debited from your card on the screen — but then you’ll see the instant rebate of $5 for your produce, meaning your final receipt will only be $10.
“People don’t have to enroll and do anything different; they don’t have to keep track of some paper coupon or some other card,” said Eli Zigas, executive director of Fullwell: the Bay Area nonprofit advocacy organization partnering with the state to administer the program this year.
“It’s all built into the EBT card at the participating locations,” he said.
And while you can get these instant rebates for up to $60 worth of produce each month, remember: You don’t have to “spend” that $60 up in one transaction. Your EBT will automatically keep track of your produce purchases and just stop issuing the instant rebates once you’ve hit that $60 cap for the month.
Does the amount of produce I can buy using the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program depend on how much I’m receiving in CalFresh benefits?
No: Every CalFresh household can get up to $60 of free fresh fruits and vegetables with their EBT card, regardless of the amount of benefits they receive. It’s a flat amount for all SNAP users in the state.
My EBT balance is at $0 right now. Can I still use the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program?
No: To get the instant rebate on money spent on fresh fruit and vegetables, you’ll first need to actually spend those funds using your EBT card — even though you’ll immediately get the money back onto that card.
If you don’t have any money on your EBT card available, you’ll have to wait until your CalFresh funds are reloaded next month to be able to use the program again. But remember that if your EBT funds are running low, you can still spend a smaller amount — or whatever’s available on your card — on fresh fruit and vegetables and receive the money back instantly, until you’ve maxed out that $60-per-month cap.
Is there a deadline to use the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program?
The $36 million approved in the most recent state budget by the California legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom for the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program “is three and a half times more money than this program has ever had previously for an annual cycle,” Zigas said.
In previous years, Lee said, the funding would last for different periods “because the program was so wildly successful and oversubscribed that it would run out for a while.”
So what about 2026? “We estimate, based on previous usage, that the program will have funds to run through the summer,” Zigas said.
But after summer arrives, Zigas said, “it’s all going to depend on what the usage is, and whether there’s renewed funding.” So while you still have many months to try the program, you shouldn’t wait too long — not least because each month that passes will bring another $60 for you to spend on produce.
In the wake of the SNAP delays caused by the government shutdown, “I think people have seen recently more than ever before how important CalFresh is and how much people are struggling to put food on the table,” Zigas said. “We would love to see this program not only operate continuously all year long without interruption, but also expand — because it’s a limited number of grocery stores right now offering this program, and it could be so much bigger.”
Is the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program the same as Market Match, and can I use both?
Market Match is a statewide program that distributes funds to farmers’ markets across California, allowing people using CalFresh to “match” an amount of their choosing from their EBT card at the market with tokens to spend at that location — essentially doubling their funds.
Market Match is a separate state program from the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program, but people on CalFresh can use both programs.
Why does the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program focus on fresh produce specifically?
The program’s focus on fresh fruit and vegetables “is recognizing that CalFresh benefits, as good as they are, are often insufficient for people to afford the food that they want for their families,” Zigas said.
This is especially true of fresh fruits and vegetables, he said, “which are harder to justify buying when you have less income because they’re not shelf stable, and you don’t know if your kids are necessarily going to like them.
“People would like to buy fresh fruits and vegetables, and often just don’t feel like they can make that choice — or afford it,” he said.
President Donald Trump, joined by Republican lawmakers, signs the "One, Big Beautiful Bill Act," a massive spending and tax bill, at the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., on July 4.
(
Jeff Chiu
/
Getty Images
)
Topline:
There isn’t a ton of research into the effectiveness of making people prove they have jobs in order to access social services. But what evidence there is points in one direction: Placing work requirements on programs like Medicaid does almost nothing to increase employment or hours worked, while actively hurting people in need.
Background: A significant part of Congress’ so-called Big Beautiful Bill’s takedown of Medicaid funding revolves around forcing people to show that they’re working 80 hours each month before they can receive benefits. And with about a year left until that requirement takes effect, California policymakers are scrambling to mitigate its most toxic effects — even if they are legally required to implement the broader law.
Read on ... for more on California's plans to handle the coming changes to Medicaid.
There isn’t a ton of research into the effectiveness of making people prove they have jobs in order to access social services. But what evidence there is points in one direction: Placing work requirements on programs like Medicaid does almost nothing to increase employment or hours worked, while actively hurting people in need.
With roughly 15 million Californians relying on Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid, for their health coverage, the Golden State is staring that grim truth in the face.
A significant part of Congress’ so-called Big Beautiful Bill’s takedown of Medicaid funding revolves around forcing people to show that they’re working 80 hours each month before they can receive benefits. And with about a year left until that requirement takes effect, California policymakers are scrambling to mitigate its most toxic effects — even if they are legally required to implement the broader law.
“At the end of the day, there’s not a full workaround,” said Hannah Orbach-Mandel, a policy analyst at the nonpartisan California Budget & Policy Center. “But I do believe there are some ways that California can try to be a little creative about how the law is implemented, and people are looking into that now.”
Those possibilities include using California’s relatively high minimum wage ($16.90 an hour in 2026) to propose substituting income earned for hours worked under the new Medicaid rules, along with ways to streamline what is likely to be a nightmarish bureaucratic task of recording and verifying the information the federal government is demanding.
The stakes are certainly high enough. According to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration, as many as 3 million Californians could be thrown off Medi-Cal based on the work requirement alone — a significant portion of the many millions of Americans across the country who face a similar fate. While the actual numbers will rise or fall depending upon how the requirements are implemented, the resulting strain on California’s health care system from fewer patients and more unreimbursed care could buckle it.
The work requirement derives from a generations-old Republican talking point that most people on public assistance could be working, but are either too lazy or unmotivated to do so. Research has disproven that theory repeatedly.
As of 2023, nearly two-thirds of all adults aged 19-64 on Medicaid were working full-time or part-time, according to the health policy research site KFF, formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation. Among the remainder who weren’t working, the vast majority fell into one of three categories: sick or disabled, caregiving for another person or attending school. All of those groups receive exemptions to the work requirement in the new law.
It’s no surprise, then, that the Congressional Budget Office has already said implementing work requirements for Medicaid recipients won’t move the needle on employment. During debate on a 2023 Medicaid bill, the CBO concluded that “the employment status of, and hours worked by, Medicaid recipients would be unchanged” by work requirements.
A couple of states have tried such restrictions themselves, with disastrous consequences. In the first seven months after Arkansas implemented work requirements in 2018, for example, roughly 18,000 people lost their Medicaid coverage — most of them, state officials said, not because they didn’t qualify, but because they either didn’t understand the new rules or couldn’t navigate the maze of administrative details and gave up, losing their health care access in the process.
Meanwhile, there was no notable improvement to the state’s employment numbers or to its total number of hours worked, a finding that has been confirmed by more recent research. The Arkansas requirements were halted in 2019 by a federal judge who ruled the program did not meet the objectives of the Medicaid program.
Nevertheless, Republicans enshrined such requirements nationally in H.R. 1 this year, and they are set to go into effect Jan. 1, 2027. They also further mandated that Medicaid recipients repeat the qualification process twice each year. The budget reconciliation bill says that those in the Medicaid expansion group between the age of 19 and 64 must show that they’re either working, going to school, in job training or doing community service at least 80 hours a month in order to stay eligible.
Those rules will chase people off Medicaid, which could increase death rates and lead to severe financial trouble. Many of those people, Orbach-Mandel says, will still fully qualify to receive benefits, but they either won’t know it or will get lost in red tape.
In California, 3 million people suddenly losing their health coverage means they’ll likely have no health insurance and no access to regular care, and will instead wait to see a doctor until they need to go to the emergency room — the one place where they know they cannot be denied care even if they can’t pay.
It all adds up to a massive new strain on an already overburdened health care system.
“That burden ends up falling on a lot of hospitals, like safety-net facilities,” Orbach-Mandel said. Many of those hospitals are already struggling to survive financially. The combination of fewer Medi-Cal patients and higher unreimbursed emergency room costs could drive them to discontinue certain services or face possible closure, as hospitals in Willows and Inyo County recently have discussed.
The Medicaid takedown is an almost perfectly Trumpian gambit: It helps to finance massive tax cuts for the nation’s richest individuals at the expense of some of the most vulnerable Americans, many of whom voted for Donald Trump. Republicans championed the work requirements mostly as a way to kick people off Medicaid.
That they will do — an estimated 6.3 million nationally, though some estimates run many multiples higher than that. California’s total may run higher or lower than the Newsom administration’s 3 million estimate as well, in part because there is no guidance yet on how the requirements are to be administered or monitored.
Orbach-Mandel said the state is ultimately responsible for gathering and producing the relevant documentation. Much of that work will be farmed out to California’s cash-strapped counties that could be saddled with building out the verification process.
Clarifying how that process should work is one way the state could ease some of the administrative effects of the new requirements. In terms of keeping more people eligible for Medi-Cal, the state’s minimum wage may come into play.
Orbach-Mandel said that one idea being tossed around is using the statewide minimum wage in a calculation of what California workers’ output is actually worth. Since that wage is higher than most other states and way above the national minimum of $7.25 per hour, California might argue that its Medicaid enrollees can prove a certain amount of earnings, rather than have to document the 80-hour work requirement.
Since federal implementation guidelines are still lacking, no one is certain what the final rules will be. It’s also possible that Congress ultimately postpones the start of the program, especially given Trump’s miserable approval numbers — and the fact that his approach to health care is the lowest-rated component of those.
Put simply, Trump’s coattails aren’t what they used to be. The Medicaid work requirements are looming, yes — but for many of the president’s longtime Republican loyalists in Congress, the 2026 midterms are going to happen first.
Fiona Ng
is LAist's deputy managing editor and leads a team of reporters who explore food, culture, history, events and more.
Published December 6, 2025 8:32 AM
The L.A. County District Attorney's office on Wednesday announced charges against over a dozen county employees tied to unemployment fraud.
(
Araya Doheny
/
Getty Images
)
Topline:
Eleven full-time Los Angeles County workers have been charged with felony grand theft for claiming unemployment benefits during the pandemic, according to the L.A. County District Attorney's Office.
Details: Similar charges were field against 13 other county employees in October. In total, the 24 individuals allegedly stole more than $740,000 through fraudulent claims.
The backstory: The Auditor-Controller’s Office estimates the county has lost more than $3.5 million from unemployment insurance fraud during the pandemic — either committed by county employees or by those faking the identities of county employees.
Eleven Los Angeles County workers have been charged with felony grand theft for claiming unemployment benefits, despite working full time during the pandemic, according to the L.A. County District Attorney's Office on Friday.
The D.A.'s office said the 24 individuals allegedly submitted fraudulent unemployment insurance claims totaling more than $740,000 to the California Employment Development Department between 2020 and 2023 — even though each was working full time and earning at least $3,000 a month.
The D.A.'s office says it will seek restitution from each person and that the county has reimbursed the state for the stolen money.
If convicted, 23 of the defendants face a maximum sentence of three years in state prison. One defendant faces a maximum sentence of seven years in state prison for additional charges.
The Auditor-Controller’s Office estimates that the county has lost more than $3.5 million from unemployment insurance fraud during the pandemic — either committed by county employees or by those faking the identities of county employees.
