The Brief

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

In 2019, first-year Gov. Gavin Newsom inherited a state flush with cash. With a $21.4 billion budget surplus to play with, an ambitious Newsom invested billions in affordable housing, child care and healthcare expansion while paying down the state’s debt and shoring up reserves.

The next governor won’t be that lucky.

When Newsom unveils his last spending plan as governor Friday, he will do so with the specter of a projected $18 billion deficit — the result of the state’s fast-growing spending, federal funding losses and heightened economic uncertainties under President Donald Trump’s administration.

The deficit could balloon to $35 billion annually in the next few years if state leaders don’t pursue long-term solutions, namely making sustainable revenue increases or cutting spending, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the nonpartisan fiscal adviser to lawmakers.

But neither will be appealing options to Newsom and legislative leaders this year.

They have repeatedly resisted increasing taxes on average Californians and high-income earners alike — a politically dicey pitch to make in a state with high tax rates and increasing revenue. Spending cuts are equally painful to swallow, especially for Democrats running for re-election in November who have fought to expand services, such as Medi-Cal, that may now be rolled back.

For Newsom, a lame-duck governor with presidential aspirations, there is even less incentive to address the state’s long-term budget health through major policy changes, political strategists say.

“It’s not an uncommon occurrence in California for a departing governor to leave a note on the new governor’s desk that they’ve got a budget deficit,” said longtime Democratic consultant Garry South.

But how Newsom tackles the structural deficit will almost certainly have implications for his expected presidential bid. State Republicans, such as Assemblymember David Tangipa of Fresno, are already blaming the budget problem on Newsom’s mismanagement. “A Newsom presidency would be a fiscal and governance disaster of historic proportions,” Tangipa wrote in a December op-ed.

It’s the fourth consecutive year in Newsom’s tenure that the state is projecting a deficit even as revenue grows. In the past, state Democratic leaders resorted to temporary fixes such as internal borrowing, deferring payments, one-time cuts and drawing from California’s rainy day fund to avoid cutting into the social safety net.

But that cushion is deflating: The state’s reserve stands at $14 billion, half its peak balance, after two years of withdrawals. State leaders have borrowed more than $20 billion from other state funds, debts that will come due in later years. Continuing to rely on those options would leave the state “undeniably less prepared” for an economic downturn, the LAO warned.

“Eventually you are going to run out of Band-aids,” said Steve Maviglio, a Democratic strategist who worked for then-Gov. Gray Davis during a massive budget deficit. Newsom "has used every trick in the book, and after a certain point, there’s nothing left.”

More healthcare cuts to come?

Newsom has not indicated whether he’ll consider cuts to Medi-Cal, the state’s primary health insurance program for low-income residents. But as the state’s most expensive program, it is an attractive target. More than half of the $200 billion program’s funding comes from the federal government.

Last year, as Newsom and legislators scrambled to close a $12 billion budget gap, they froze new Medi-Cal enrollment for undocumented immigrants, charged immigrant enrollees a $30 monthly premium and delayed cutting certain benefits. The cost of Medi-Cal has been rising faster than expected, forcing the state Legislature to allocate $6.2 billion midyear to prevent a shortfall.

The decision was contentious, with some healthcare advocates and Democratic lawmakers slamming their leaders for creating a “two-tiered healthcare system” that deemed immigrants less worthy of quality coverage.

“That was an incredibly disappointing backslide,” said Amanda McAllister-Wallner, executive director of Health Access California, which advocates for universal healthcare.

This year, Trump’s budget reduced the federal government’s share of funding to Medi-Cal, requiring the state to pay more to provide the same benefits. California is projected to spend at least $1.3 billion more to implement that change, a figure that could reach $5 billion by fiscal year 2029-30, the LAO estimated.

The Martin Luther King Community Hospital in Los Angeles.

(

Pablo Unzueta

/

CalMatters

)

Assemblymember Mia Bonta, an Oakland Democrat who chairs the Assembly Health Committee, said solving the state’s budget crunch shouldn’t come at the expense of health care.

“California needs its state and federal leaders to look for more innovative solutions to fill the gaps, make healthcare affordable, and keep our families healthy,” she said in a statement that did not offer specific alternatives.

Any cuts to Medi-Cal could bring political consequences for Democrats who often pride themselves on expanding social services. Rolling back Medi-Cal could hurt Newsom’s legacy, too, since it was under him that the state began offering Medi-Cal to immigrants.

“Democrats are the party of expanding healthcare,” Maviglio said. “To slash it goes against everything they stand for.”

McAllister-Wallner acknowledged she isn’t optimistic about the budget outlook. But she said she hopes the state finds new revenue through taxing corporations instead of making cuts to vulnerable populations.

If “we are addressing this through cuts only, and cuts to the most vulnerable, that’s … not the leadership that we are looking for,” she said.

State leaders could also walk back some of last year’s funding commitments in other areas. While state lawmakers negotiated $500 million for homelessness to counties and delayed it until next year, it is not guaranteed. Newsom, who has blamed the state’s homelessness problem on local governments, could withhold the money.

Newsom also promised last year he’d reach a deal with Bay Area transit advocates over state funding. But last month, in light of the budget shortfall, Newsom urged advocates to dip into previously allocated dollars to save the regional transit network, instead of a $750 million loan the advocates had requested.

Taxing the rich a nonstarter for Newsom

It’ll be hard to muster the political will in Sacramento to raise taxes.

Former Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, a Los Angeles Democrat running for state superintendent of public instruction, said he’s long supported higher taxes on industries that have “skated away from taxation for a long time.”

But even the most progressive Democrats in California have had little appetite to raise taxes, he said, because many represent affluent areas such as Silicon Valley where their wealthy donors live.

Even when the state faced a projected $56 billion deficit over two years in 2023, Rendon said Democrats were “shrugging” at the problem and pointing to the state’s reserves as a solution, which he said reflected a culture of reliance on the rainy day fund.

This year, Newsom has already spoken out against a proposed labor-backed wealth tax ballot measure, consistent with his past opposition to similar proposals.

The ballot measure, titled “The 2026 Billionaire Tax Act” and filed with the state attorney general’s office in October, seeks to tack a one-time 5% tax on those with a net worth of at least $1 billion and use the money to fund the state’s healthcare and education programs. The effort is led by the SEIU-UHW, a powerful labor union representing healthcare workers, and St. John’s Community Health, one of the largest nonprofit healthcare providers in Los Angeles County.

State. Sen. Roger Niello, a Roseville Republican and vice chair of the Senate Budget Committee, applauded Newsom’s opposition to the proposed tax increase.

“To have a situation where we have developed an increasing deficit in the face of an economy that is not in recession, and revenues are increasing, it would seem to be silly to solve that by further increasing revenue,” he said.

While taxing the rich is a popular Democratic talking point, backing a proposal like that could mean alienating the wealthy donors Newsom will likely rely on for his presidential run.

There would also be no political gain for Newsom in his last year to stabilize the state’s progressive tax structure, which heavily relies on high-income earners, despite him promising to do so when he took office.

“He’s going to make more enemies doing it than he would not doing it,” Maviglio said.

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

Something unusual is happening with only a few days remaining before the U.S. men's national team opens its World Cup campaign against Paraguay: Tickets for the match are not sold out.

Although numbers fluctuate regularly, FIFA's ticketing website still shows 132 tickets left to sell for a game that's set to take place in Los Angeles on Friday. Meanwhile, resale platforms such as StubHub and SeatGeek — and FIFA's own marketplace — also show thousands of tickets on sale.

The number is even higher for Canada's opening match against Bosnia Herzegovina in Toronto on the same day, with 226 tickets left in FIFA's website and a high number of tickets available in resale markets.

That's unusual for high-profile events such as the opening matches of the World Cup — traditionally among the hardest to get tickets in the tournament. This year will feature three hosts in the U.S., Canada and Mexico — but so far only Mexico's opening match against South Africa on Thursday looks to be virtually sold out.

Ticketing experts widely agree on the reason: the prices. FIFA dramatically jacked them up for the tournament — especially for high profile games. The most expensive regular seats for the U.S. opener against Paraguay are priced at $2,735 — more than the final cost for the 2022 World Cup final — while the cheapest are $1,120.

Even President Trump said he wouldn't pay those prices.

"I would certainly like to be there, but I wouldn't pay it either, to be honest with you," Trump told the New York Post in a recent interview.

The other two remaining games for the U.S. national have far fewer tickets available, given that prices are well below the ones for the opening match.

Prices have also fallen sharply

There are not only plenty of tickets left to sell — a number of them are also available below FIFA's face value. According to Ticketdata, which tracks prices across the resale platforms, the cheapest pair of tickets for the opening match for the U.S. and Canada was $951 as of Monday morning, while in FIFA's resale platform, tickets were available for as low as $690.

Other games across the 104-match tournament also still have many tickets left to sell — despite FIFA President Gianni Infantino's claim that every match is "already sold out." That's especially the case for lesser well known teams such as the Jordan against Algeria match, which still had hundreds of unsold seats in the FIFA's web site.

Demand for high-profile tickets such as Argentina and Portugal was far higher, however, with many of those games looking largely sold out.

Will the opening matches sell out?

Whether eventually the U.S. and Canada opening matches will sell out is hard to answer. Throughout the sales process, FIFA has closely guarded how many tickets it has actually sold and how many are left to sell, making it virtually impossible to gauge.

In addition, like other teams, FIFA could also sell tickets in other platforms including third-party ones such as SeatGeek, which can further obscure how many tickets are left to sell.

FIFA and organizers, however, are hoping for a surge in excitement that leads to a last-minute rush of sales for the opening matches as well as for those such as Jordan against Algeria that look far from being sold out.

Ben Shields, a senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management, says perceptions so far of the tournament have been shaped by how expensive tickets and travel has been for a tournament taking place across an entire continent.

That, he says, "does not seem to sit well with many."

But that could change.

"The hope or bet — for FIFA is that once the matches start — and the greatest players in the world compete for the most prestigious prize of them all, the sport as business lens will fade into the background and the World Cup will be seen and experienced as the enduring global institution that it is," Shields says. "We shall see."
Copyright 2026 NPR

Orange County’s top elected leaders on Tuesday are set to discuss what to do with $3.7 million recovered from the Andrew Do corruption scheme.

Do is now serving a five-year sentence in federal prison after he admitted to accepting bribes in exchange for awarding millions in tax dollars meant to feed needy seniors and people with disabilities in his district.

As part of the plea deal, Do acknowledged taking more than $800,000 in bribes through his two daughters, including a down payment on the house his youngest daughter Rhiannon Do later forfeited to resolve the criminal case. The scheme was first uncovered by LAist.

Federal officials recovered money from seized bank accounts and two properties connected to Do’s scheme — including the Tustin house his daughter bought.

The county Board of Supervisors is expected to publicly discuss plans for the recovered funds as they make decisions on the overall county budget at their meeting Tuesday. Public comment will also be taken.

What to do with the money?

Ahead of Tuesday’s discussion, Do’s successor said the funds should support residents of his former district who were deprived by Do and his alleged co-conspirators.

“For the past five years, every other district in Orange County has benefitted from the same community funds to support their cities, nonprofits, civic projects which strengthens their communities,” Supervisor Janet Nguyen wrote in a mass email to constituents last week. “However, our district went without because Do stole what belonged to our residents.”

“This money was stolen from the First District, and it must come back to the First District,” Nguyen added.

Nguyen was Do’s mentor and former boss more than a decade ago, before the two had a bitter falling out by 2016.

She encouraged residents of her district to send letters to the board and to speak during public comments.

Several county supervisors told LAist they supported a similar approach, one in which the recovered money goes to support the original intended recipients: seniors and people with disabilities in Do’s former district. Some supervisors have since advocated a broader view of how they’d want to use the money, noting that it was meant to address disruptions caused by the pandemic. Now that years have passed since the initial COVID-19 outbreak and lockdowns, some supervisors argue community needs have changed.

“We are so many years on, and the problems that money originally was to address (mostly Covid impacts) are now behind us, that I think we should have a discussion about how and where to spend it,” Supervisor Don Wagner told LAist via text message in March. “The budget is so tight and the needs so great across the county.”

Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento said he’d work toward a fair distribution of the funds to best serve residents, with a focus on current needs.

“We will definitely consider what areas of the County were harmed by Do’s scheme, but we must also remember that the funds were intended for relief efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic, a threat we are no longer facing,” he said in March. “We also need to consider addressing the current needs of residents with any dollars returned to the county.”

Millions more haven’t been recovered, at least yet

The amount of taxpayer money recovered so far is less than half of the $7.9 million Andrew Do admitted was diverted from specific meal contracts.

In a lawsuit seeking to recover funds, the county alleges the total amount lost in the scheme was even larger: $13.25 million. The county’s suit — scheduled for trial in November 2027 — covers all of the money Do gave to two nonprofits accused in the scheme, Viet America Society and Hand to Hand Relief Organization.

That leaves more than $4 million — and possibly much more — not yet recovered.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office noted they have an ongoing criminal case against Do’s alleged co-conspirator Peter Pham.

“Assuming we obtain a conviction in that matter, we would expect to seek restitution,” the spokesperson, Ciaran McEvoy, said.

Pham left the country on a flight to Taiwan in late 2024 and remains a fugitive, according to McEvoy. The case against him also includes charges against another alleged co-conspirator, Thanh Huong Nguyen, who led the Hand to Hand nonprofit.

Fans of the U.S. Men’s National Soccer Team swelled the stadium at the Great Park in Irvine on Monday to watch players practice for the first time since arriving at the training facility they’ll call home for the first round of the 2026 World Cup.

“Seeing them play right now… it was really cool to see how they play and how they practice,” said Mila Ran, who came with her mother from nearby Mission Viejo.

“This whole time she’s saying, 'I want to go shoot, I want to go play,'” said Mila’s mother, Farah Ran.

They were among about 6,000 people who won free entry to the practice in a lottery that received more than 30,000 entries, according to Irvine officials.

Fans got to the venue early.

(

Adolfo Guzman-Lopez

/

LAist

)

The team’s biggest stars — Christian Pulisic, Antonee Robinson and others — showed off their ball handling skills, honed over years of play on U.S. youth fields and overseas in professional leagues. Fans yelled, waved U.S. flags, held up homemade signs, and did the wave several times.

The U.S. Men's National Team at their only open-to-the-public practice session in Irvine.

(

Adolfo Guzman-Lopez

/

LAist

)

After the roughly 45-minute practice, some players walked to the sidelines to take selfies with fans and sign autographs.

The players know it’s going to take more than this, however, to live up to expectations during the World Cup.

US men's national team player Tim Ream signs an autograph for a fan.

(

Adolfo Guzman-Lopez

/

LAist

)

“To be in a position to train in front of these people today… is such a unique opportunity and one that none of us take for granted,” said backup goalie Matt Freese before the practice. “We’re working as hard as we can, as focused as we can to leave the next generation inspired."

The U.S. men’s team and their training staff will use the Great Park facility over the next several weeks as the team plays Paraguay on Friday, Australia on June 19, and Turkey on June 25 in group play at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood.

Jury selection began Monday for the trial of the man accused of igniting a fire that led to the deadly and destructive Palisades Fire, which killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of structures.

Jonathan Rinderknecht is charged with one count of destruction of property by means of fire, one count of arson affecting property used in interstate commerce and one count of setting timber afire. He could face up to 45 years in federal prison.

How we got here

Prosecutors allege Rinderknecht set brush alight near a popular hiking trail in the Santa Monica Mountains on New Year’s Day, starting the Lachman Fire. Firefighters initially thought they put out the fire, but it remained smouldering underground for several days. High winds then brought the embers to the surface, sparking the Palisades Fire, which burned more than 23,000 acres.

What prosecutors say

In a court filing in April, prosecutors allege Rinderknecht displayed “extreme anger, indignation, and frustration” because he had to spend New Year's Eve alone. After driving around for Uber, Rinderknecht hiked up a popular trail and set chaparral alight in a clearing, according to prosecutors.

“He then started calling 911 multiple times, hiked down the hill, and fled the area in his car before firefighters arrived. Defendant returned to the area after he saw fire trucks arriving and then took videos of the firefighting efforts,” prosecutors wrote.

The filing also states that Rinderknecht threatened to burn down his sister’s home.

Prosecutors are expected to argue that Rinderknecht started the smaller blaze knowing it could turn into a bigger inferno.

U.S. District Court Judge Anne Hwang has previously expressed the government’s position could confuse jurors.

What the defense says

Defense attorney Steve Haney previously told reporters that prosecutors were trying to blame Rinderknecht for a fire that started days before the Palisades Fire.

"Well what about what happened between Jan. 1 and Jan. 7?" he asked. "Jonathan wasn't out there with a fire hose putting that fire out at the Lachman location, the Fire Department was. So why are they blaming him for whatever the Fire Department didn't do?"