The Brief

Have a gun? You're going to need to take another safety class after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a package of bills Saturday that are a boon to gun control advocates and anathema to Second Amendment groups.

The law, Senate Bill 948, would apply to current residents with newly purchased guns starting in 2029. The class would need to be at least four hours long. Starting in 2028, people moving to California with guns would need to obtain a firearm safety certificate within 180 days of arrival. Berkeley Democratic Sen. Jesse Arreguín wrote the legislation.

It was one of 10 gun safety laws Newsom signed. They represent his last gun control efforts as governor, and his own record shows that some of the measures will likely face legal challenges from pro-firearm organizations. For instance, the 2016 ballot proposition Newsom carried that demanded background checks for ammunition purchases is awaiting a final determination from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Rebecca Marcus, a lobbyist for the gun control organization the Brady Campaign, told lawmakers in March that more than 69,000 shootings resulted in death or required urgent medical care in California from 2016 to 2021. Roughly a third of those shootings were accidental, she said, and many involved children.

In a press release, Newsom described the cadre of signed pieces of legislation as efforts to “address multiple stages of firearm-violence prevention: identifying and understanding crime guns, preventing prohibited possession, intervening when someone poses a risk, safely storing firearms, improving training and accountability, supporting young survivors and responding to emerging technologies.”

Emma Brown, executive director of the gun safety advocacy group Giffords, commended Newsom for signing the laws. “California leads the nation in gun safety because its leaders work tirelessly to prevent violence and keep communities safe,” she said in a written statement. “The policies enacted today will save lives by closing loopholes and investing real resources in community violence intervention.”

But pro-gun group California Rifle and Pistol Association faults the four-hour exam law as a possible infringement on Second Amendment rights. Its members fear they’ll be on the hook for expensive safety classes, which they view as one more tax on gun ownership in California.

The group is fine with voluntary courses, but not a mandatory one as a prerequisite for acting on a constitutional right, it indicated in an opposition letter.

“Public safety is better served by enforcing existing laws against prohibited persons, prosecuting violent criminals, and supporting voluntary education programs,” the group wrote.

Another law Newsom signed would expand the list of persons barred from owning weapons. Senate Bill 1220 would bar a person from owning a gun for 10 years if they're convicted of stripping a gun of its serial number information that law enforcement officers use to track weapons.

“Imposing a 10-year blanket prohibition on Second Amendment rights for such misdemeanors goes beyond what is necessary for public safety,” the California Rifle and Pistol Association wrote in an opposition letter.

And with Newsom’s signing of Assembly Bill 1743, cities and universities in California can request data from the state Department of Justice on weapons recovered during criminal investigations. A supporter of the legislation, Brady United to End Gun Violence, argued that by allowing academics to look up the serial numbers of the guns, research can be strengthened on how weapons find their way from manufacturers to crime scenes. “Are the guns coming from in state? Are they coming from a specific county? Are they coming from nearby or far away? Are they coming from a specific dealer?” the Brady organization asked.

But this bill too was opposed by guns rights groups, including the rifle and pistol association. It wrote that the legislation “poses significant risks to the privacy and safety of California's law-abiding gun owners and could be weaponized to advance anti-gun agendas.”

That agenda seems to be well signalled by California’s political leaders. After signing the bills, Newsom said he “couldn't be more proud of California's continued bold leadership on gun violence prevention.”

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

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday signed two pieces of legislation aimed at increasing accountability and protections for communities in the aftermath of the Lineage warehouse fire.

One bill by Assemblymember Mark González, AB 817, prevents the city and county of Los Angeles from issuing new building permits to cold storage facilities like Lineage unless the company maintains a contingency fund, or insurance, that can support residents in states of emergency.

The other bill by state Sen. María Elena Durazo, SB 716, increases fines for violations of local ordinances when companies pose a risk to health and safety. If the violation results from a state or federal disaster declaration, fines can reach up to $50,000 per violation.

The fire on June 17 blanketed the LA region with thick smoke for days and led to a monthslong cleanup of 88 million pounds of rotting food. Residents dealt with putrid odors, toxins in the air, an infestation of flies and rats.

“Boyle Heights showed us the lasting impact a major facility emergency can have on a community. These laws strengthen the tools, resources and accountability needed to protect residents and help communities respond when emergencies happen,” Newsom said in a statement.

The laws will be in effect locally and will expand statewide until July 1, 2028.

Earlier this month, Lineage Chief Executive Officer Greg Lehmkuhl told Boyle Heights Beat and The LA Local that the company has not decided whether to rebuild its Boyle Heights warehouse.

“We haven’t even come close to making a decision or determination there,” Lehmkuhl said. “We’re still focused on holding the right people accountable here and making sure that we’re continuing to support the community.”

The CEO’s comments about the uncertainty surrounding a rebuild come after permit applications were filed in late July to restore the warehouse in Boyle Heights. Lineage described it as a repair permit that’s typical when a building is significantly damaged, adding it was filed by the building’s owner via a contractor.

The post Newsom signs new safety laws aimed at accountability after the Lineage fire appeared first on LA Local.

California officials say they will not use a federal database pushed by the Trump administration to check voter eligibility. That’s after the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way last week for states to use it.

The Trump administration wants states to use its controversial data system, Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements — or SAVE — to check citizenship status on voter rolls.

The system has faced criticism for mistakenly flagging some eligible voters as noncitizens.

California says nothing is changing despite the SCOTUS ruling. California Secretary of State Shirley Weber told LAist’s AirTalk that the system has had “a number of errors.”

“We did not find the list valid for us and as a result decided some while ago we would not use it,” Weber said. “And as a result, Californians can feel secure that they're not going to be run through some other list in terms of trying to determine who will vote and who will not.”

The Trump administration announced Monday it's scaling back how fuel efficient American carmakers need to make their fleets.

The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards set average fuel economy levels for carmakers. The revised rules, which were finalized Monday, will now require carmakers to make their new passenger car and truck fleets up to 1% more fuel efficient each year, aiming for an average of 34.9 miles to the gallon in model year 2031.

This is down from Biden-era rules, which required an annual 2% increase in fuel efficiency with a goal of most vehicles getting, on average, 50.4 miles to the gallon by 2031.

The rationale: affordability. Administration officials argue that fuel efficiency technology is expensive, and has helped to drive up the cost of vehicles. They estimate that scaling back the standards will shave about $1,300 off the sticker prices of new cars.

"This administration is delivering relief to families and reviving the beating heart of American manufacturing," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy in an online statement announcing the change.

President Trump weighed in over the weekend on Truth Social: "These new Standards will take the waste out of building cars in America. That means LOWER PRICES, saving families thousands on a new, beautiful, and safe car."

Climate advocates and auto industry observers say the rules change is another step in the Trump administration's efforts to roll back Biden-era climate policies — including cutting the federal tax credit for electric vehicle buyers, delaying federal dollars for a nationwide EV charging program, and striking down federal waivers that let California set its own strict pollution regulations.

In a statement emailed to NPR, Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Transport Campaign at the Center for Biological Diversity, wrote that rolling back the standards would increase gasoline usage and pollution, "costing consumers at the pump and at the doctor's office."

"Trump is tanking sensible mileage standards at the worst possible time for consumers, who're getting hit with sky-high prices at the pump," he continued.

According to AAA, the national average price for gasoline today is close to $4.50 a gallon, and for diesel, a gallon is hovering close to $6.50, just short of last week's record high.

Easing CAFE standards will hinder the industry's realignment toward more fuel-efficient and electric vehicles, said economist Sue Helper, who studies the auto industry at Case Western Reserve University. "It's very bad in the long term, because it slows progress," she said. "Then we make our auto companies less competitive. We give them less practice in making the cars that both Americans will want in the future and that the rest of the world will want." After all, American carmakers hope to continue selling their cars in foreign markets that may have stricter emissions standards. And a future presidential administration could change the rules again.

A legacy of the 1970s oil shock

CAFE standards have been part of the auto industry for decades. In 1975, during that decade's great oil supply shock, Congress enacted rules that encouraged carmakers to make their fleets more fuel-efficient in an effort to reduce Americans' dependency on the Middle East for oil.

Since then, the national conversation about fuel efficiency has changed; the U.S. is now the world's largest oil producer, and many regulatory changes have instead been driven by concerns about climate change. Since the early 2010s, the fuel efficiency requirements for passenger cars and light trucks have consistently risen.

In practice, the Biden-era standards meant carmakers needed to make electric vehicles to balance out their gas guzzlers — otherwise they were subject to a fine.

But the Trump administration dropped that penalty last July as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, effectively defanging the Biden-era CAFE standards. In December, the White House proposed scaling them back altogether. Soon after, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) opened a period of public comment.

In its final rule announcing the change, NHTSA also said it's eliminating the ability of carmakers to trade credits among themselves for making electric vehicles — a part of the Biden-era CAFE Standards that Republicans often criticized. This rule allowed automakers to buy credits from EV manufacturers to offset making less fuel-efficient vehicles. This helped them meet their CAFE targets.

Will easing CAFE standards make cars more affordable?

In announcing the new change, the administration said lowering the CAFE standards will make cars cheaper.

"Instead of allowing manufacturers to design and produce vehicles they believe their customers will want and need, while spreading real-world fuel economy improvements across their fleets, the system has increasingly led manufacturers to try to fit square vehicle pegs in round classification holes to force the adoption of technologies that do not meet the demands of American families," stated NHTSA in the final rule. "All of this adds inefficiency and cost — pushing even more consumers out of an already unaffordable new car market."

"It's true that the price of new cars has gone up quite a lot," says Helper at Case Western. But she contends that much of that is not because of fuel economy standards. Instead, she says, it's because vehicles have gotten larger, they've faced tariffs and supply chain issues in recent years, and they are often loaded with extras like infotainment systems.

A Consumer Reports analysis from 2023 found that between model years 2003 and 2021, vehicles got about 30% more fuel efficient, but attributed the rise in prices to an industrywide shift toward expensive SUVs, rather than from using more fuel-efficient technologies.

And when it comes to the monthly costs of a new car, there are external factors beyond a carmaker's control — like the cost of an auto loan, which is affected both by the Federal Reserve's benchmark lending rate and by an individual buyer's credit score.

"One of the cruxes of vehicle affordability right now is the average monthly payment getting jacked up, because interest rates are so high," says Ellen Hughes-Cromwick, who spent much of her career as Ford's chief global economist and now studies clean energy as a senior visiting fellow at the center-left Third Way think tank.

Plus, a cut in the sticker price might eventually be offset by spending on gas. If vehicles are less fuel efficient, that means drivers will need to fill up at the pump more often — which is especially salient in a year of high gas prices due to the war in Iran.

Will carmakers still make fuel-efficient vehicles? 

For now, American carmakers are stuck in a kind of jam.

On the one hand, Helper said, a rules change that makes it easier for them to sell trucks and SUVs is "good in the short-term, because they make a lot of profits making these giant vehicles," though they are not as popular outside of the U.S.

This new move "allows the U.S. more of a playground in this protected little Galapagos of an ecosystem where no one else is wanting to compete," Helper continued.

But the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group representing car and light-truck manufacturers that sell vehicles to the U.S. and that includes automakers such as Ford, General Motors and Stellantis, praised the move. "We're still reviewing the final rule, but NHTSA made the right call to better align fuel economy standards with the law and current market conditions," said John Bozzella, president and CEO of the alliance, in an emailed statement to NPR.

"The standards finalized under the previous administration effectively required a switchover to electric vehicles that was out of step with market realities and customer demand. Today's final rule is an appropriate course correction," he continued.

But in the long term, the CAFE standards change risks hindering American carmakers in a global industry, said Hughes-Cromwick. " The future of the industry is all about the transition to electric vehicles," she said. "The rest of the world is marching on in this transition to EVs. We have a very powerful competitor in terms of the Chinese electric vehicle industry."

And automakers may have other reasons not to shift gears too quickly on fuel efficiency: The administration's latest move could face legal challenges, which could take a while to work their way through the courts. Or a future administration could put more aggressive fuel economy standards back in place. For companies that need to make decisions years in advance, to decide which models to build, or which factories to design, the easiest course to keep might be the one they're already on.

Copyright 2026 NPR

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

Angela Chang says the sticker shock never gets easier. Clients call her Southern California health insurance brokerage in disbelief, asking how much their insurance costs will jump again.

A hospital bill would hurt far worse, she tells them. But Chang, chief strategy officer at KCAL Insurance, also knows there's only so much left in people's pockets, especially with food and gas prices rising too.

In hard times, people want reassurance, Chang said. “I think that the general public would like to see our next governor … find a way for Californians to be able to remain covered affordably,” she said.

Nearly two in three Californians worry about unexpected medical bills, and six in 10 report they or a family member skipped care due to cost, according to a California Health Care Foundation survey. As Californians drown in medical debt and worry about losing coverage, the two candidates running for governor have given voters little indication of how they’d help.

Democrat Xavier Becerra says he wants everyone to be insured, but hasn’t spelled out how he’d pay for it. Republican Steve Hilton wants to overhaul the system, but can’t say how much it’ll cost or save consumers and the state.

Becerra has pitched himself as California’s next “healthcare governor” but did not make himself available for an interview for this story. He has also repeatedly refused appeals from the media and consumer interest groups to lay out substantive policy positions. As a result, much of what we know about his plan is drawn from his campaign's own published materials rather than any direct response to questions. Becerra instead sticks to broad talking points — working toward universal coverage, prioritizing primary care, eliminating “administrative waste” — without offering much detail about how they’ll happen.

Hilton unveiled his own plan, the "Working Class Healthcare Guarantee," only last week — proposing greater price transparency alongside plans that likely would flounder in the state’s Democratic-controlled Legislature, including replacing part of Medi-Cal, the insurance program for low-income people, with personal health spending accounts.

Gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton speaks to a crowd of supporters at his watch party at The Waterfront Beach Resort in Huntington Beach on June 2, 2026.

(

Jules Hotz

/

CalMatters

)

“They (voters) want a clear vision for how you're going to help,” said Rachel Linn Gish, with the consumer advocacy group Health Access California, describing what she heard this summer at a series of healthcare affordability town halls in communities with particularly high health costs, including Santa Barbara, Salinas and Gilroy.

The stakes are urgent. California workers pay some of the highest premiums in the country, and many will see another spike during this fall’s open enrollment. Meanwhile millions of people who get free and low-cost care through Medi-Cal are expected to lose coverage as major federal rule changes go into effect on Jan. 1, regardless of who succeeds Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“Healthcare almost has to be like one of the first things that you [the governor] are tackling,” Gish said.

Becerra’s record

Becerra likes to tout his wins — as California’s attorney general he helped defend the Affordable Care Act against federal lawsuits. He also secured a major antitrust settlement against Sutter Health, which his office accused of using its market power to drive up prices.

But with greater experience comes greater expectations. Advocates and health researchers say they’d like to hear Becerra talk more specifically about how he’d tackle one of the key drivers of surging health costs: hospital prices. That’s one thing they’ll be watching for when Becerra and Hilton debate Wednesday on CNN.

“There's plenty of blame to go around” for expensive healthcare, said Miranda Dietz, director of the Health Care Program at the UC Berkeley Labor Center. But hospital costs make up the largest share of premium spending – about 40 cents of every premium dollar.

“To fix the underlying cause of the affordability problem, I think is going to take really sustained effort and continued focus,” Dietz said.

Becerra’s policy agenda promises to “center affordability in every decision.” In it he says he’ll work closely with employers and other health purchasers to figure out ways to bring down premiums and out-of-pocket costs. He promotes ideas such as prioritizing screenings and primary care to keep people away from more expensive emergency care that results in larger bills. He also wants to expand on Newsom-era programs to bring down the cost of popular but expensive prescription drugs.

Perhaps his boldest promise is to continue covering every Californian affected by budget cuts and changes to Medicaid brought on by the federal spending plan that Congress passed last year. Becerra has not explained how he would pay to keep people covered. The price is steep: State officials project the federal health cuts could cost California up to $30 billion annually.

In August, when asked by reporters how he could promise continued coverage at such a high price tag, Becerra said: “Because I know how much we misspend in the health system, and because you and I know that we can't leave people without healthcare, because if we do, not only will they get sicker, but it will cost you and me as taxpayers even more when they finally do access care.”

Some of that money may come from his promises to crack down on fraud and abuse in the Medi-Cal program through a special task force. But it’s unclear how soon that work would result in savings and how much — the same vagueness advocates are criticizing elsewhere in his agenda.

Becerra’s campaign has raised over $33 million, including major contributions from the healthcare industry. A health insurer (Blue Shield of California), a clinic system (AltaMed), a drug manufacturer (Genentech), several physician associations, and individual hospital executives have each donated the maximum $78,400 to Becerra’s campaign, according to CalMatters analysis of campaign finance data. Four branches of a group that lobbies for nursing homes have donated $313,000 combined.

Political strategists say the industry’s backing of Becerra is expected. The latest Berkeley IGS Poll shows the Democrat receiving 58% of the support from likely voters and Hilton receiving 33%.

Hilton’s campaign has raised more than $21 million, but campaign finance records show no significant organized contributions from the healthcare industry.

Hilton’s ‘healthcare guarantee’

Hilton crafted his plan, he says, in response to what he hears from voters. “I call it the Working Class Healthcare Guarantee because those are the people who are really, really screwed by what's going on right now,” he told CalMatters.

Among his ideas, Hilton wants hospitals, physician offices, and pharmacies to show patients prices before providing nonemergency care. Some of that information is already gathered today, but Hilton says he will put together one website where patients and employers can make comparisons.

For California’s lowest-income earners, Hilton is proposing replacing part of their Medi-Cal coverage with health spending accounts of $8,000 to $10,000 a year. He’d keep people’s regular coverage in place for emergency care.

That is a substantial proposal attached to a very large population: roughly a third of Californians — more than 13 million people — are enrolled in Medi-Cal. Asked how much this would cost or save the state, Hilton couldn't say. He framed the goal instead as giving people more control in choosing their doctors and reducing bureaucracy in the program.

Some states, like Arkansas, have experimented with health spending accounts. Arkansas officials found the program administratively burdensome and discontinued it.

Hilton also wants to reduce the number of people who rely on Medi-Cal, in part by making the individual marketplace, or Covered California, more affordable. He’d do that by establishing what’s known as a “reinsurance” program — insurance for insurers — that would help pay for the most expensive claims and keep those costs from driving up premiums for everybody else. It’s an idea Vice President J.D. Vance has also previously promoted.

States such as Alaska have reported some success in keeping premium increases down. But researchers have also found that premium savings weren’t always significant enough to make a difference for consumers.

One of the few ideas where Becerra and Hilton overlap is in their support for making and negotiating lower cost medications. Through its CalRx program – a signature Newsom program – California has started to distribute $55 insulin. It also distributes albuterol inhalers and naloxone.

Hilton says expanding on that program is a good idea. “I think we should do more of it.”

Whether any of this reaches voters

Political strategists say how much detail either candidate provides may matter less than party affiliation come November. Becerra's lead over Hilton, 25 points in the most recent Berkeley IGS survey, has widened.

"Someone like Hilton could have some amazing policy positions, but he still has a lot of problems just because of the atmospherics of being a Republican in a Democratic state," said Andrew Acosta, a Democratic political strategist.

As the frontrunner, Becerra may feel less pressure to provide more details about his policy agenda, Acosta said. Instead, he can point to Washington. "The beauty of the world we live in for Democrats is they can just point to Donald Trump and say, 'Look at all the chaos he's caused.' It is a little bit of a get-out-of-jail-free card for Becerra."

That dynamic is exactly what worries advocates like Gish, who say vagueness shouldn't be cost-free for either candidate given how many Californians are struggling right now. Both campaigns' unanswered questions will need real answers well before either man is sworn in.

“Let's be clear and honest as Californians about what we want and what we value,” Gish said. “We need to make policy decisions that actually help people now.”

Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.

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