The Brief

Gov. Gavin Newsom is in his populism era.

He started the year vowing to stop corporate investors from buying up large tracts of single-family homes, a desire shared by both socialists and President Donald Trump.

Last month, after he was unable to keep a proposal to tax California billionaires from appearing on voters’ ballots, he tried to get ahead of the debate by pitching nationwide higher taxes on the wealthy.

Last week, he spoke to a crowd of national Latino policymakers about the need to “democratize our economy” in the face of artificial intelligence-driven job losses.

Newsom’s populist appeals come as he prepares to leave office and looks toward an expected 2028 presidential campaign in which widespread anxiety about wealth inequality and the effects of AI on the economy will feature prominently.

“The old bargain is dead, and AI is going to finish it off,” he said last week in Los Angeles, of the concept that Americans could support families with working-class jobs. “We need to wake up to that foundational reality.”

The posture is new territory for Newsom, who is not a natural populist and who maintains his longstanding relationships with wealthy tech donors who have railed against the proposed billionaire tax, Proposition 40.

As governor, he’s kept his image as a liberal who favors progressive income taxes and expanding the social safety net without teetering too far into the overtly redistributive politics of democratic socialists. He eschewed most new tax proposals and stood by several state corporate tax benefits that progressives have longed to scrap.

By focusing on AI-driven inequality now, Newsom is choosing a popular issue to define his expected 2028 run. But it’s not yet clear whether voters will buy his solution.

“Newsom is balancing two pressures,” said Kevin Liao, a Democratic strategist who worked on billionaire Tom Steyer’s “tax the rich” gubernatorial campaign this year. “There’s a desire to meet the demands of his constituents and the current appetite to be against billionaires, and to address the massive wealth inequality in the state and the country, with the cold political reality that much of his career and presumably his future ambitions have also been built on the financial support from a lot of wealthy folks in Silicon Valley.”

Four tax measures on the California ballot

Even as he adopts a more progressive posture while appearing in other states, Newsom is walking a fine line back home, where his vocal opposition to California’s billionaire tax proposal could confuse voters staring at multiple tax measures on the November ballot.

Proposition 3, sponsored by the California Teachers Association, is also a tax on the rich: It would make permanent the state’s higher income tax rates for the top 2% of earners. That money goes into the state general fund, 40% of which pays for schools.

Voters approved those rates temporarily in 2012 at the behest of then-Gov. Jerry Brown, and extended them again in 2016. If they expire as planned in 2030, the state stands to lose between $5 and $15 billion a year in revenue.

Early polling shows that measure is popular, but CTA President David Goldberg acknowledged it will be tricky to campaign in favor of it with another tax on the ballot. The union opposes the billionaire tax because it would not send the same proportion of its revenues to schools, instead prioritizing healthcare.

A large banner hangs at a campaign event for a proposed billionaire tax in Los Angeles on Feb. 18, 2026.

(

Jae C. Hong

/

AP Photo

)

Voters will also be asked to weigh in on three other tax-related ballot measures: two backed by tech billionaires designed to undercut the billionaire tax, and one by an anti-tax advocacy group that would make it harder for cities to raise local taxes.

“It’s always hard when you have a bunch of things” on the ballot, Goldberg said. “It is going to mean that we have to really go out there and make the case for this.”

Asked whether his opposition to Prop. 40 could hinder public support for Prop. 3, Newsom told reporters recently: “I hope that’s not the case. … It’s a legitimate question.”

How Newsom wants to be seen

For years, Newsom has defended California on Fox News and on social media against a national reputation that it is over taxed, often arguing that lower- and middle-income families pay more in taxes to live in states like Florida and Texas. The basis of his claim is a study from the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy that found Florida and Texas rely heavily on property and sales taxes, which effectively take a greater share of those households’ earnings than those of the wealthiest. The states do not tax personal income.

“He taxes low-income workers more than we tax millionaires and billionaires in the state of California,” Newsom said of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, during a 2023 debate hosted by Fox’s Sean Hannity.

Critics say those arguments don’t take into account the lower costs of goods and property in other states.

“California is a high-tax state,” said Jared Walczak, a senior fellow at the right-leaning Tax Foundation. “A state like California can get away with higher rates than some other states because the state has so much to offer. … It doesn’t mean there isn’t a tipping point.”

Now nearing the end of his term, Newsom is touting all the progressive programs California’s tax system has made possible, including universal school meals and subsidized child care.

At the same time, Newsom often chides more left-wing colleagues in the Legislature “not to be profligate” with public spending. He touts that he’s never raised taxes in his eight years as governor, though critics may quibble over limiting businesses’ tax deductions or a law he signed this month raising a tax on health insurance plans.

When Democratic lawmakers pushed to raise new revenue in the face of budget deficits the last three years, he quickly quashed the idea.

“We have among the highest tax rates in the United States of America for high-wage earners, we have among the highest tax rates … for corporate taxes,” he said in 2024. “I feel strongly that we have to live within our means.”

This year, some Democrats insisted on a proposal to tax corporations whose workers earn so little that they qualify for public healthcare; Newsom would agree only for the state to study the idea.

‘He’s never banged this drum’ 

He’s taken a similar stance with the state billionaire tax. Along with a cadre of Democratic allies like Planned Parenthood, he argues that billionaires could easily move their assets to another state — as some, like Google co-founder Sergey Brin, have done with their homes and businesses. Early polling shows a slim majority of Californians support the measure.

Newsom pressured SEIU United Healthcare Workers West to drop the measure in exchange for concessions, but when he didn’t succeed, he pivoted to proposing his own federal billionaire’s tax, taking a page from progressives like Elizabeth Warren.

He’s calling for a minimum tax rate on anyone making more than $100 million, undoing corporate tax cuts that President Trump and Congress approved in 2017, boosting inheritance taxes and closing loopholes used by the wealthy to borrow from unrealized capital gains without paying income taxes.

Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference in Hayward on March 2, 2026.

(

Manuel Orbegozo

/

CalMatters

)

Without getting into details, he also said he supports the idea of a public fund using AI-derived wealth to support displaced workers.

Rob Stutzman, a Sacramento Republican strategist, said Newsom risks being seen as inauthentic in a primary campaign.

“He’s never banged this drum … he’s a big spender but not a big taxer,” Stutzman said. “This whole jiu-jitsu he has to do to oppose the (billionaire) tax in his state and then support it federally, it doesn’t sound as authentic as others might sound on the soapbox at the Iowa State Fair.”

Voters are anxious about AI

The call for sharing wealth also opens doors for anti-tax attacks from the right, which is eager to link a wide swath of Democratic policies to communism.

“Most Democrats have the foresight to tie their tax hikes to a far-left policy, but Newsom just wants to take your money because he wants to take your money,” Republican National Committee spokesperson Nicholas Poche said in an emailed statement, criticizing Newsom for trying to “have it both ways with progressives and establishment Democrats.”

But political strategists agree that framing tax proposals as a response to AI anxiety is appealing across the ideological spectrum.

“A wealth tax is more simplistic and falling along ideological lines,” Liao said. “If we’re talking about broad societal change, it is much more than wealth redistribution. It is something that’s going to touch every single person.”

More than half of Americans worry the technology will leave someone in their household jobless; a growing sense of precarity has seized workers from customer service representatives to Silicon Valley’s own elites. Meanwhile, the upcoming public offerings of AI companies like OpenAI and Anthropic are expected to turbocharge the nation’s already unequal distribution of wealth. The top 10% of the country owns nearly 70% of its wealth, and the bottom half own just 2.5%.

Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, known as a moderate Democrat, is floating more aggressive regulations on the technology as he weighs a run for president and is open to basic income payments for displaced workers. Progressive standard-bearer U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders is proposing a national sovereign wealth fund paid for with a 50% tax on AI companies that would directly pay Americans, making the nation essentially a part owner of AI.

Even Vice President J.D. Vance is considering the issue, telling a podcaster last month that his biggest concern about AI is not mass unemployment but the breakup of “social harmony” that comes with increasing inequality.

“If you make rich people way richer, you are going to have significant problems,” he said. “That is one of the consequences that I see from AI.”

He added that Trump is generally supportive of Sanders’ idea, though the president also has developed cozy ties with many tech leaders during his second term.

But many progressives are holding their applause for Newsom for now. Lorena Gonzalez, leader of the California Labor Federation, said she’s pleased he is taking on AI-driven inequality, but unions still want the state to curb AI in workplaces and stop mass displacement of workers. Newsom has been reluctant to back aggressive regulation or bans on the technology.

Flanked by labor leaders in important presidential primary states earlier this year, Gonzalez warned the governor that unions could withhold their political support if Newsom does not rein in use of the technology.

“It’s not enough to say, ‘I feel your pain,’” Gonzalez said. “We don’t think that catastrophic job loss is inevitable.”

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

Richard Foreman's home is stranded in the middle of the beach.

The stairs were ripped away by waves years ago, so there's no way in or out anymore. The house is 20 feet into the air, on stilts that were designed to protect it from hurricane storm surge. But there haven't been any big storms recently, just the rising ocean eating away at the sand year after year.

Just six years ago, the house was still a popular vacation rental in Rodanthe, North Carolina. Like many beachfront houses, it had a nickname: Sea 'n Delight. Today, the name is gone, and the house is uninhabitable. At low tide, the Atlantic Ocean laps at what used to be the driveway. At high tide, the ocean runs beneath the entire house.

(

National Park Service

)

Foreman knows it will collapse eventually. Four neighboring homes have fallen into the ocean in the last two years. And more than 100 homes on North Carolina's barrier islands are at risk from erosion and sea level rise in the next decade, according to the National Park Service, which manages the area as part of Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

At least half a dozen of those houses are in imminent danger. In June, a high tide coupled with large waves was enough to bring down another house.

Yet there is no plan to remove most of the threatened houses or to empty them of personal belongings, because of perverse incentives created by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Bill King, the president of the North Carolina Beach Buggy Association, has traveled to Washington, D.C., to push for federal rule changes that he thinks could save homes from collapsing in coastal North Carolina.

(

Ryan Kellman

/

NPR

)

FEMA provides most residential flood insurance in the United States. The agency will pay homeowners after a house collapses, but not before. That means owners stand to lose tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars by tearing down a doomed house before the ocean takes it.

"The homeowner is incentivized to wait for collapse and get a payout," says John Ryan-Henry, a policy analyst at the Coastal States Organization, a nonprofit that advocates on behalf of coastal state governments, including those along the Great Lakes.

And when homes collapse, they pollute the water and leave wreckage on the shore.

"Unfortunately, there's a lot of debris that comes with these collapses," says Lisa Sharrard, a longtime flood insurance agent in North Carolina who previously served as the chair of the Association of State Floodplain Managers, which is the trade group representing state flood-policy officials. "It leaves a legacy of hazard on the beach. It's almost impossible to get everything."

The National Park Service says it collected more than 480 tons of home debris from the area in the last 18 months alone, some of which washed miles down the North Carolina coast.

As sea level rise accelerates erosion around the U.S., there is growing alarm among waterfront homeowners, local officials and even members of Congress. Here, a damaged porch hangs precariously over the sand on the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

(

Ryan Kellman

/

NPR

)

Foreman's stranded house hasn't been emptied out.

"It looked like we had just left for dinner. I mean, everything is still in there," says Foreman. The couches, the refrigerator, every steak knife and beach towel — it's all waiting to fall into the ocean.

"If they would settle with me for the insurance, I would have it torn down tomorrow," he says.

As sea level rise from climate change accelerates erosion around the country, there is growing alarm among waterfront homeowners, local officials and even members of Congress. More than 30 homes have fallen into the sea in coastal North Carolina alone since 2020. Neighborhoods in Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Illinois, Virginia and California are facing similar threats. Just last week, erosion exacerbated by a storm caused catastrophic damage to multiple homes in Southern California.

"People should not have to wait for their home to collapse into the water before they can get help," says Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine. "That is just not a smart way to deal with the reality of climate change."

FEMA says it cannot change the rules for threatened properties unless Congress amends the laws that govern the National Flood Insurance Program. Such a bill was introduced by a bipartisan group of lawmakers in 2025, but it is stalled in the House of Representatives.

FEMA did not respond to questions from NPR about the cost to taxpayers of letting homes collapse.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency provides most residential flood insurance in the United States. The agency will pay homeowners after a house collapses, but not before.

(

Ryan Kellman

/

NPR

)

Plenty of warning, but no good option

Erosion is an inescapable problem for waterfront communities. Waves remove sand and rock from some areas and deposit them in others.

Climate change is accelerating that natural erosion unevenly. Although global warming affects the entire planet, sea levels are rising more quickly in some regions because of ocean currents and the complex dynamics of melting glaciers and ice caps. Some of the fastest sea level rise in the world is occurring on the East Coast of the United States.

Coastal areas are constantly changing. Barrier islands, like the ones that form the Outer Banks of North Carolina, are particularly prone to erosion, as the ocean removes sand from some areas and deposits it in others. Even stable-seeming dunes can disappear as the ocean shapes the land.

(

Ryan Kellman

/

NPR

)

In North Carolina, where thousands of homes sit on narrow, sandy barrier islands, sea levels are rising faster than the global average, and the rate is accelerating.

Rising seas exacerbate the erosion that usually happens on barrier islands, says Reide Corbett, a climate scientist at East Carolina University. In the last six years, hundreds of feet of beach have disappeared in Dare County, N.C., the current epicenter of erosion-related home collapses in the United States.

"There is no way to maintain homes where they currently are," Corbett says. He has delivered the same message directly to county residents at multiple public meetings in recent years. "The only solution is to back off that front line."

Clarke Lattimore, 8, looks out the window of his family's beach house in Buxton, N.C., in May. His great-grandfather built the house behind two rows of dunes. Now, it is threatened by the ocean.

(

Ryan Kellman

/

NPR

)

But removing homes from the front line is expensive. Tearing down a house costs at least $30,000, according to local contractors, and the price tag is even higher if the house is very large or difficult to access. The other option is to move homes farther away from the water, which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Most homeowners do not have that kind of money. Many of the at-risk properties in Dare County are vacation homes, and their owners rely on rental income to pay for the mortgage, taxes and insurance. As the ocean encroaches, many houses get damaged and become uninhabitable, saddling owners with high bills and no income at the very moment they need cash to prevent their homes from collapsing.

Michael McDaniel is in that situation with his house in Buxton, N.C., nicknamed the Sea Star. He purchased it for about $500,000 in 2011, when he retired from the Navy. He planned to eventually move there full time with his wife.

When he bought the house, about 250 feet of dune were between the front porch and the Atlantic. For years, the house seemed like a good investment. The property value rose and hit nearly $1 million just two years ago. But the beach eroded, and today the home is uninhabitable.

McDaniel says he can't afford to move the house, which would be his first choice, or to demolish it. The house has a flood insurance policy that will pay out $250,000 if it collapses, plus up to $100,000 for lost belongings.

"If it's teetering, you've got to sit and wait for it to fall in the ocean," he says.

Foreman, whose house is stranded in the middle of the Rodanthe beach, is in a similar bind.

Extra sand has bought extra time for the owners of homes damaged by waves in recent years in Dare County, but the long-term problem of beach erosion persists.

(

Ryan Kellman

/

NPR

)

"Environmentally, it would be far better if they would allow me to tear it down on a beautiful day where all the debris is in one spot," he says. "But by requiring the waiting game for it to fall, it's going to fall in a storm, and it's going to be scattered for miles."

Taxpayers are on the hook for increasingly expensive cleanups. Federal and county governments together estimate that they have spent more than half a million dollars cleaning up debris in coastal North Carolina since 2020. Those figures do not account for the economic costs of closed beaches and polluted ecosystems.

County officials say they are frustrated by the federal government's approach.

"If there are waves breaking under the house, that's clearly threatened," says Dare County Manager Robert Outten. "It's money they're going to spend either way. It's cheaper to tear it down."

Their frustration is even greater because they say the federal government created a solution to the problem nearly 40 years ago — and then killed it.

Homes in Buxton were originally built behind multiple rows of dunes. Today, those dunes are gone.

(

Ryan Kellman

/

NPR

)

The solution that Congress hated

In the mid-1980s, Congress stepped in to help homeowners with threatened homes.

The result was called the Upton-Jones Amendment to the National Flood Insurance Program. The law, named for lawmakers from the erosion hot spots of Michigan and North Carolina, allowed homeowners to access flood insurance payouts before a home fell, to pay for demolishing it or moving it.

The law took effect in 1988, and homeowners immediately started using it to get their houses out of harm's way, according to partial claims records obtained from FEMA through a public records request and analyzed by NPR. More than 400 homes in 27 states were demolished or moved under the policy.

People fish off the pier in Avon, North Carolina.

(

Ryan Kellman

/

NPR

)

But Congress was not happy with the results.

The goal was to avoid having houses fall into the water. But in a series of congressional hearings, experts told lawmakers that some property owners were purposely waiting to remove their houses.

"They have chosen to repair the building as it stands, get another season's rent and then look toward the possibility of demolition at a later date," explained Spencer Rogers, who managed Upton-Jones claims for North Carolina, at a June 1990 congressional hearing. "There is no particular incentive that I can see for any early action."

Lawmakers and FEMA officials expressed frustration that there was no penalty for such inaction. The longer the owner of a doomed home delayed, the more likely it was that the home would be damaged by waves or storms, leading to an expensive insurance claim. And if the house fell before the owner removed it, they could still collect their full flood insurance payout.

"People should not have to wait for their home to collapse into the water before they can get help," says Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine. Here, homes in Buxton stand over the waves in May.

(

Ryan Kellman

/

NPR

)

"Policyholder benefits come at the government's expense," said then-Rep. Doug Bereuter of Nebraska at another 1990 hearing about Upton-Jones.

Lawmakers were also concerned that the policy could bankrupt the National Flood Insurance Program if every eligible home took advantage of it. After years of debate about whether Upton-Jones could be fixed, Congress repealed it altogether in 1994.

Now, Congress is considering reinstating a version of the same policy.

Under pressure from homeowners and local governments, a bipartisan group of lawmakers last year proposed resurrecting a version of the Upton-Jones law.

"For some homeowners in vulnerable coastal areas, relocation or demolition may be the safest and most practical option," says Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, one of the bill's co-sponsors. She says the bill "is about giving people that option before disaster strikes, not after everything is already lost."

The new bill attempts to address some of the problems identified in Upton-Jones back in the 1990s. If a homeowner fails to remove their threatened house before it collapses, they may not get their full insurance payout. And the process for determining whether a house is in imminent danger from erosion is simplified.

But the bill has not gotten enough support to move forward. The Trump administration's efforts to slash FEMA's workforce and budget have made it harder for popular bipartisan efforts to reform the agency to find traction in Congress.

Brian Harris runs the Buxton Civic Association in Buxton. In recent years, he has been pushing the state and federal governments to change rules that make it difficult to protect waterfront homes and to remove them before they collapse.

(

Ryan Kellman

/

NPR

)

FEMA never analyzed the full cost of Upton-Jones

Upton-Jones retains its reputation as a failed and expensive program three decades after it was repealed. But it's unclear how accurate that reputation is, because FEMA never conducted a full analysis of its cost-effectiveness. "There was never a really robust postmortem," says Ryan-Henry, of the Coastal States Organization.

FEMA's complete data on flood insurance claims are private, making it impossible to know how Upton-Jones ultimately compares with other federal programs for removing threatened homes.

But narrower claims data obtained by NPR through a public records request offers a clue. Adjusted for inflation, the average cost to demolish a home was roughly the same as the cost of a federal home buyout, in which the government purchases repeatedly damaged homes in flood zones at market value and pays to demolish them.

In higher-cost areas, Upton-Jones could even be cheaper. The proposed program would cap payouts at $250,000, while the separate, existing buyout program pays full market value. More than 90% of the homes that have fallen in Dare County since 2020 were assessed above $250,000.

Without long-term solutions available, many local and state governments are relying on expensive alternatives such as beach nourishment and seawalls.

Removing homes before they collapse costs tens of thousands of dollars. A bill pending in Congress would let homeowners access money through their flood insurance policies to help foot that bill.

(

Ryan Kellman

/

NPR

)

In Maine, a project is underway to build a jetty to slow erosion near houses in the threatened community of Camp Ellis in the town of Saco. And Dare County, N.C., has two multimillion-dollar projects underway: an $8.6 million jetty repair and a roughly $15 million beach nourishment project that will pump more than 2 million cubic yards of sand in front of the most threatened houses. The sand from the last beach nourishment in the area lasted less than three years.

"Beach nourishment is temporary," says Corbett, the climate scientist at East Carolina University. "You're buying sand to buy time. You can't simply buy time and not plan for what is next."

And not every neighborhood is getting sand or other protections. At this rate, Richard Foreman doesn't see a path to either protecting or removing his stranded house in North Carolina. "Which leads you to believe they're really just hoping [the homes] will fall instead," Foreman says. "It's nuts. It's absolutely nuts."

Additional editing by Neela Banerjee. Molly Enking of Maine Public, along with Sarah Knight and Katie Daugert of NPR, contributed reporting.
Copyright 2026 NPR

The brown bears in Katmai National Park and Preserve in Alaska, famous for embiggening themselves by feasting on salmon in the park's scenic Brooks River, are ready for their annual closeup. The 2026 Fat Bear Week bracket came out on Friday, kicking off a competition to determine which bear has worked hardest to pack on pounds for hibernation.

Officials say fans should look out for signs of a generational shift, reflecting the vitality of Katmai's ecosystem. And this year's bracket features 16 bears, up from 12 in recent years.

"There are more cubs at Brooks Camp this year than have been seen in a long time," Park Superintendent Mark Sturm said in a news release.

"A new generation of fat bears is taking shape, and they're off to a strong start," Sturm added, saying his team is eager to see how the young bears develop and fit in.

New contenders this year include Bear 89, a male known as "Backpack." His nickname originated after an injury he had as a cub forced him to ride around on his mother's back, according to the park's website. Another male competitor is 151 Walker, one of the most dominant bears on the river.

This year's single-elimination tournament begins on Tuesday, Sept. 22, when public voting starts. Voting pauses over the weekend, before a new champion is crowned on Sept. 29.

Viewers can follow the Katmai bears' exploits on webcams from Brooks River on Explore.org. The brown bears and cubs fill TV screens and computer monitors with fishing, eating and inter-ursine drama, giving humans a much-needed break from thinking about AI, midterm elections and the economy.

Instead, they can ponder the chances that last year's winner, the immense Bear 32 nicknamed "Chunk," might again be dubbed the fattest bear of them all. Weighing in at over 1,200 pounds, Chunk won over voters last year by chowing down despite suffering a broken jaw and even finding time to play with younger bears. It was a redemption story of sorts, coming a year after Chunk was villainized by some after killing a cub belonging to Grazer, the 2024 champion.

Individual bears have differing priorities, Katmai National Park Ranger Sarah Bruce said in an online chat unveiling the bracket. For example, she noted that many single adult females must help their cubs get enough calories.

"When you're voting, consider the challenges of a bear's life," Bruce said. "Trust your gut and go with whatever you think the fattest bear is."

This has been a record-setting year for cubs, said former Katmai ranger Mike Fitz, resident naturalist at webcam company Explore.org. He says 37 cubs were counted at Brooks River. Several cubs are included with their mothers in this year's bracket, such as Bear 806, which adopted an older cub along with raising her own cub from this spring. Bruce also noted the importance of resilience, describing how Bear 909 has prepared for hibernation after losing both of her cubs this year.

Before-and-after photos of the bears highlight the stunning transformation they undergo each year, after emerging gaunt and bony in the spring and bulking up from as little as 600 pounds for an adult male in the summer up to more than 1,000 pounds in the fall.

The bears endure a condition called hyperphagia, feeding a relentless hunger so they can pack on fat they'll need to survive the coming winter. The park uses Fat Bear Week to teach the public and students about brown bears, sockeye salmon and their ecosystem. Some 2,200 bears are estimated to live in Katmai National Park and Preserve's 4.2 million acres.

Interest in Fat Bear Week, which began in 2014, is international: For last year's contest, people cast more than 1.7 million votes from more than 100 countries, according to the park.
Copyright 2026 NPR

When President Trump talks about accomplishments of his second term, he often mentions the deals he's struck with pharmaceutical companies to lower drug prices.

"We went from the highest prescription drug prices, by far, anywhere in the world, to the lowest prescription drug prices anywhere in the world," Trump said during his remarks at the midterm Republican National Convention in Dallas on Sept 10. "And that alone should get us a big victory in our midterms that are coming up."

Last year on Sept. 30, the president and his health officials gathered in the Oval Office to announce a major agreement with Pfizer — the first of what he said would be a series of deals with pharmaceutical companies. Eventually, the White House said 26 companies signed agreements, but they have not been made public.

Trump refers to these agreements as "most favored nation" deals, meant to bring U.S. drug prices in line with what other wealthy countries pay for drugs.

The most buzzed-about part of the first announcement was the creation of TrumpRx, a website for consumers to find discounts on some drugs if they choose not to use their health insurance. But, as NPR has reported, the drugs available are limited, and most consumers will get a better price if they just use their insurance and pay the copay.

But Trump's announcement also included another promise, for the low-income and disabled Americans who are covered by Medicaid:

"Today Pfizer is committing to offer all of their prescription medications to Medicaid," he said on Sept. 30, 2025. "And it will be at the most favored nation prices. It's gonna have a huge impact on bringing Medicaid costs down like nothing else."

And Trump said he expected other drug companies would do the same.

Medicaid covers 66 million Americans, and its net spending on prescription drugs grew by 46% between 2019 and 2024, costing taxpayers $46 billion dollars that year, according to the nonpartisan health policy research group KFF.

But turning Trump's promises into an operational program has been difficult. A year later, that effort has been plagued by uncertainties, delays and a general lack of transparency.

The pilot program relies on voluntary participation, by both drug companies and individual states, which means the number of drugs that will be discounted, and the number of patients who will have access to those prices, could be lower than what Trump originally promised.

Companies might not offer all of their drugs

Because the administration has refused to release the actual pharmaceutical agreements, it's not clear if participating companies have to offer Medicaid most-favored nation discounts for all their drugs.

NPR reached out to Pfizer and 16 other major drug companies that struck pricing deals with the Trump Administration over the past year. None would confirm to NPR that all of their drugs would be discounted in Medicaid, or say exactly which ones would be discounted.

Gilead told NPR it is working with states to make "selected covered products available," including drugs that treat hepatitis C, hepatitis B and HIV.

Sanofi said it would make the discounted pricing available for "certain wholly owned medicines that treat diabetes, cardiovascular and neurological conditions, and cancer."

Eli Lilly said it didn't have a final list but expected "many" of its medicines to be part of the pilot program at a discount. It said "any" of its "eligible covered outpatient drugs " could be selected — except for its GLP-1 medicines that are part of another pilot program in Medicare. 

Genentech would only say that "certain medicines" would be a part of the Medicaid program.

Two companies told NPR the terms of the Medicaid agreements were confidential.

The federal regulatory agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, wouldn't tell NPR how many of each company's drugs would get Medicaid discounts either.

This fact that companies aren't discounting all of their drugs as part of this pilot program is worrisome, said Dr. Thomas Hwang of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. It makes it easier for companies to game the system, he said

"Companies have every incentive to cherry-pick [for this program] the products for which they already give Medicaid the best discounts and for which the international price may not be that much lower," Hwang said. In other words, the companies might publicly get credit for discounts that are actually negligible.

"So there would be an incentive for companies to try to limit their liability and pay less to Medicaid," Hwang explained. "That gaming is what worries me about this backsliding over the past months — from the initial messaging that all drugs will be offered from participating manufacturers, and now to maybe only certain drugs will be offered."

The discounts will be offered through the states

Even if pharmaceutical companies do end up offering lower prices on a wide range of products, those new prices won't simply take effect nationwide. Instead, the discount program is being set up as a voluntary pilot. That means every state has to decide whether to opt-in, and then agree to certain conditions.

The pilot is called the Generous model. And the ramp-up has been slow. Deadlines for drug companies and states to sign up were originally set for the spring and summer, but they've been pushed back.

"It's always a bad sign when you keep pushing back your deadline," said Ameet Sarpatwari, a professor of population medicine at Harvard, and a drug policy researcher.

Why states might hesitate to commit

Even though the aim of the Generous pilot program is lower drug prices, a state that signs up could be exposing itself to some financial risks.

The federal government splits the cost of Medicaid with the states. In most states, Medicaid is the biggest part of the state budget, after education.

But unlike the federal government, states have to balance their budgets every year, according to Jack Rollins, who directs federal policy at the National Association of Medicaid Directors.

Even if a prescription drug is expected to save money on projected health care costs over many years, a state Medicaid program might not have enough budgeted to pay for every patient who needs the drug in a given year.

"Everything in Medicaid is going to be a trade-off," he said. "There's no silver bullet to the drug costs that we're navigating."

State budget managers already try to control Medicaid costs using various coverage rules for drugs with high price tags.

For example, some drugs might require a doctor to submit a "prior authorization" request to the state Medicaid program. Another rule is to require patients to try cheaper drugs first, to manage their condition, before trying a more expensive brand.

But in the Generous pilot program, states would have to toss out their own coverage criteria and accept a standardized system, if they want the negotiated price.

That would mean states that previously had some coverage limitations on certain drugs might be forced to offer unfettered access, says Sarpatwari.

"Then all of a sudden your state Medicaid plans might be spending a whole lot more because a whole lot more people might be getting the drugs," he says.

The deadline for states to apply was Sept. 10, and all 50 states applied, according to the White House. California officials previously told NPR they would apply, but as a means to see more details before committing. States have until September 30 to finalize and sign binding agreements, and according to CMS, 40 of them and Puerto Rico have done that.

Copyright 2026 NPR

In the '90s, Guadalupe Rosales was a teenager in Los Angeles, part of the party crew scene. She remembers it as beautiful and empowering — but that’s not what she saw years later when she searched for stories about the scene online.

“I noticed that anything that was about Latino culture, '90s culture in L.A. specifically, [focused on] gang violence, everything that was mostly criminalizing,” Rosales said.

Rosales’ new memoir, East of the River: A Memoir of Los Angeles Girlhood, is her effort to correct the absence of personal histories of people who were a key part of that scene.

The book is part historical archive, and part personal narrative. It’s also a log of her efforts to bring the scene to life for people in the 21st century, using her training as an artist and a scholar, three decades after the scene’s heyday.

Street Beat magazine documented the California party crew scene in the '90s.

(

Courtesy Adolfo Guzman-Lopez collection

)

Rosales's artistic work today is in demand. Her most recent solo show was "Tzahualli: Mi memoria en tu reflejo" in 2025 at the Palm Springs Art Museum. The Broad acquired a piece by Rosales that it's including in a group show titled "Has the myth been shattered" opening in November.

Her pieces are in the collections of the Whitney Museum, the Hammer, LACMA and others. Rosales has taught at UCLA and UC Riverside.

She brings that sensibility to the book. “I really wanted to think about something that could live on hundreds of years from now, something that could be studied, something that could feel empowering, especially for women,” she said.

A recent photo of artist and scholar Guadalupe Rosales.

(

Fabian Guerrero

/

Courtesy Penguin Random House

)

The new memoir, East of the River: A Memoir of Los Angeles Girlhood is about the 1990s party crew scene in L.A.

(

Courtesy Penguin Random House

)

The party crew scene in a nutshell

The ‘90s party crew scene was a multi-faceted movement that involved mostly Latino youth in Southern California. The center of the phenomenon was the party, which could take place in small backyards or large empty warehouses.

Photos from the scene.

(

Courtesy Adolfo Guzman-Lopez collection

)

The music was variations of underground techno far from the pop mainstream. DJs played and mixed records on analog turntables, from people like DJ Irene and DJ Attack.

The scene also generated a lot of business activity. Partygoers paid entrance fees, and for alcohol, party organizers paid venues to hold the party and for the DJs to keep people dancing.

It was common to go out with the same group of people. The groups came up with names for their crews, such as Chicanos With Pride, Firme Hinas, Aztek Nation, Frek Show Tribe, Hispanics Causing Panic, and Playerz Cauzin’ Pleazure, among many, many others.

It was all covered by Street Beat, an independent publication loaded with photos of party crews and parties, while individuals honed graphic design styles for the fliers used to promote each party.

Fashion was another essential component of the scene.

Photos from Street Beat magazine in 1992 show the party crew scene in Southern California.

(

Courtesy Adolfo Guzman-Lopez collection

)

In the book, Rosales describes the mesmerized feeling she had when she saw her first house party. She was about 13 years old and watched the young women show off their style through the window of her house in East L.A.

“They wore tank tops and baggy pants with puffed-out front pockets or overalls. Their sneakers — Adidas or Converse Chuck Taylors,” she said. “Two of the girls wore oversized shirts that hung loosely on their frames, and they had short hair like Demi Moore in the movie Ghost. The others wore their hair longer, styled in that wet, wavy look that was so popular, half pulled up with a clip. One took out a travel-size Aqua Net hairspray and mousse, then scrunched up her hair with one hand while spraying her hair with the other.”

The style and dance moves wowed her, she said, but what captivated her then, and to this day, was these young women’s confidence in who they were. It was magnetic, pointed her in a direction she wanted to go.

A photo of Guadalupe Rosales on her 15th birthday, her quinceañera.

(

Guadalupe Rosales collection

/

Courtesy Penguin Random House

)

The stories

For photos, Rosales drew on her online archive Veteranas and Rucas, (which roughly translates as “experienced ladies and broads“) which she’d kept going through the years, a repository of her own photos from the scene, and other photos from the time, largely from women. She began the project while earning an MFA at The School of the Art Institute of Chicago.

A photo from Guadalupe Rosales' collection of 1990s ephemera.

(

Credit: Guadalupe Rosales collection

/

Courtesy Penguin Random House

)

The book includes CD covers from popular bands at the time, Dr. Dre and Eazy-E, as well as photos of youth at protests against Prop. 187, the anti-immigrant California ballot measure.

“Youth culture exists for everyone. It might look different depending on where you live and who you are. And for us, as teenagers, we're living in that moment,” she said.

In the book Rosales connects a student walkout at her high school in Montebello with memories of her mother taking her and her sister to protests years before.

“Being an adult, working on this book, being an artist is also about reflecting back and also learning a lot of things that I wasn't aware of,” she said.

East of the River: A Memoir of Los Angeles Girlhood is published by One World, an imprint of Penguin Random House and is available Sept. 8.