The Brief

One candidate wants to suspend a host of state environmental policies that boost the price of gas. Another wants to suspend the 61 cent-a-gallon state gas tax.

Amid a spike in gas prices fueled by President Donald Trump’s war in Iran, at least two Democratic contenders for California governor are capitalizing on the moment to push for policies they say would give drivers a break.

Recent proposals from former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan reflect how Democrats are trying to use rising gas prices, a potent election-year issue, to distinguish themselves as prioritizing the cost of living.

Their Republican opponents have been saying the same for months.

Villaraigosa is calling for a moratorium on a variety of state greenhouse-gas reduction rules that he called “failed policies.” They include carbon emissions limits at refineries, standards to reduce carbon in fuels and other rules he blames for forcing refineries to close. Such policies collectively add about 50 cents to the price of each gallon of gas, state estimates show.

Villaraigosa has received several campaign donations from the fossil fuel industry, including from Chevron, Marathon, the state’s largest oil and gas producer California Resources Corporation, and executives of two Kern County drilling companies.

Mahan supports temporarily suspending the state gas tax, but in an interview said he wouldn’t rule out also curbing some of the state’s refinery regulations.

Both candidates are lower-polling moderates, and their proposals are similar to ideas the two top-polling Republican candidates have been pushing.

Republican Steve Hilton has promised to lower the price of gas to $3 a gallon statewide by cutting the gas tax in half and eliminating policies that reduce emissions. Chad Bianco would do away with the gas tax altogether. Both Republicans would expand in-state oil drilling and keep refineries open, a goal Villaraigosa and Mahan also share.

Top-polling Democratic candidates Katie Porter, Tom Steyer and Eric Swalwell have not weighed in on what they would do to mitigate gas prices. Steyer and Swalwell on Tuesday night both dismissed the proposals of Villaraigosa and Mahan as unserious. Steyer's spokesperson Danni Wang said he would rather focus on making "sure oil companies aren’t reaping excess profits" while Swalwell's spokesperson Micah Beasley said he would prioritize keeping refineries' fuel inventories stable as the state transitions to clean energy. Porter's campaign did not respond to inquiries.

Democratic strategist Andrew Acosta said the ideas from Villaraigosa and Mahan could help the moderate Democrats boost their campaigns’ affordability bona fides, but he questioned whether they will make a difference in a crowded race in which voters are not yet paying much attention.

The latest polling shows Mahan and Villaraigosa tied with just 3% of likely voters’ support, but a quarter of those surveyed remain undecided on a candidate. Both have been dwarfed in ad spending by self-funding billionaire candidate Steyer, and Acosta said the gas proposals won’t gain traction if the candidates don’t spend big to promote them on TV.

“It could be a ploy, or good politics. Will anyone hear it? I don’t know,” Acosta said of the gas proposals. “It’s a little harder to get anyone’s attention just on the race itself, let alone this issue.”

Why are California's gas prices so high?

As candidates blame taxes and climate rules for high gas prices, experts point to a more complicated, less politically convenient reality: The recent spike is largely driven by a global oil shock tied to the war with Iran, not state policy.

Nevertheless the war increases a deeper vulnerability for California, where gas prices climbed above $5.50 a gallon Tuesday compared to nearly $3.80 nationally: As refinery capacity declines and reliance on imports grows, global disruptions can trigger higher prices in California than anywhere else.

“The current increase is almost entirely due to global oil markets,” said Paasha Mahdavi, a UC Santa Barbara political science professor and energy policy expert. “The problem, though … is that our starting point is so much higher than nationally.”

State analyses show California’s higher gas prices come not only from taxes and climate programs but also a large remaining “mystery surcharge,” an unexplained markup oil companies add to gasoline prices.

That unexplained premium averaged about 41 cents per gallon between 2015 and 2024, costing drivers an estimated $59 billion, according to the state’s petroleum market watchdog.

“Gas prices are much higher in California for reasons that have to do with the market for refined gasoline,” said Michael Wara, a Stanford legal scholar who focuses on climate. “It's something that is in the control of the industry.”

The oil industry blames California policies.

Prices “are higher in California because of taxes and compliance costs, but also because state policies have driven refineries and crude production out, said Jim Stanley, a spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Association, in a written statement.

Stanley declined to comment on Villaraigosa’s proposal for a regulatory moratorium.

Villaraigosa’s call to “overhaul” the state’s air resources board and for “an immediate moratorium on costly regulations overburdening California refineries” is a familiar refrain.

The air board’s climate programs — including the low carbon fuel standard and the state’s cap-and-trade program, recently rebranded as cap-and-invest — have faced repeated political and industry pushback, especially as regulators consider updates that could affect refinery costs.

Those climate policies raise fuel costs but have also generated billions for clean energy and transportation programs.

California's air board has faced mounting criticism over both programs — the fuel standard drew opposition from Republicans, the oil industry, and even environmental justice advocates when it was revised in 2024, and this year oil companies, some Democratic lawmakers and Villaraigosa have warned that tightening cap-and-trade rules could accelerate refinery closures.

A touchy political issue 

An even easier target in campaign promises is the gas tax, which lawmakers voted to raise in 2017.

It has risen by 20 cents per gallon since then, to 61 cents, and generates nearly $8 billion a year — the vast majority of state funding for highway and road repairs.

It’s also been a touchy issue for Democrats, especially in swing districts.

Porter, running as a Democrat to flip a GOP-held Orange County congressional seat in 2018, backed a failed Republican-led ballot measure to repeal that gas tax increase and ran ads declaring that “I oppose higher gas taxes.”

The move cost her a labor endorsement — unions generally support the tax because the revenue pays for projects their members work on — but it helped her head off claims that she supported the hike as she ran as an economic progressive.

Two Democratic lawmakers have lost their seats to Republicans in recent years after criticism about the gas tax.

Now Mahan, a Democrat, is pitching a gas tax holiday. He suggested that it last for the “duration of the war,” with a ballpark goal of keeping average prices below $5 a gallon.

“I would leave it to the experts in Sacramento to set that limit, but I think something around $5 is reasonable,” he said.

Asked how he would pay for road and highway repairs in the meantime, Mahan said he would find other funding elsewhere in the state budget.

Ryan Cummings, chief of staff at the Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research, said he’s skeptical a suspension would save drivers because it’s possible gas companies would pocket some of the savings.

But he also warned against any governor removing the tax without providing alternative funding for road maintenance; reinstating a tax in the future would be seen as raising the price of gas by 60 cents a gallon at once.

If history is any guide, voters would likely balk at that: In 2003, facing a recall, then-Gov. Gray Davis tried to reinstate a vehicle license fee that the state had lowered for years. Opponent Arnold Schwarzenegger leapt to attack him for tripling the “car tax,” a move that observers agree helped him oust Davis.

“Taking the gas tax off is an easy thing to do,” Cummings said. “Putting it back on is extraordinarily difficult — and essential.”

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

The Los Angeles Police Department has completed its investigation into the killing of Keith Porter Jr., 43, and presented its findings to the District Attorney’s Office, according to a statement from the District Attorney’s Office. Federal officials have said Brian Palacios, the off-duty ICE officer who shot and killed Porter on New Year’s Eve in L.A. was acting in self-defense.

Where things stand

In an emailed statement to LAist, a spokesperson for the District Attorney’s office said:

“The Los Angeles Police Department has presented this case to our office, and it is currently under review. Our experienced prosecutors will conduct a thorough analysis of all the facts and evidence to determine if we are able to prove a crime occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the complexity of that process, it is difficult to predict a timeline for completion, and cases like this can take several months or more to resolve.”

What federal officials say

According to statements from federal officials, Palacios was off duty the night of the shooting. Federal officials and Palacios’ attorney have said he was acting in self-defense when he shot and killed Porter.

He was not named at the time. His identity became public through court record in an unrelated custody dispute.

In a statement released to the L.A. Times shortly after the shooting, Tricia McLaughlin, at the time a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, said that Palacios had “bravely responded to an active shooter situation at his apartment complex” and was “forced to defensively use his weapon and exchanged gunfire with the shooter.”

Police said a rifle was recovered at the scene. Porter’s friends have said he was shooting a rifle into the air to celebrate the new year.

Why Porter’s family is pursuing a civil claim

Jamal Tooson, the attorney representing Porter's family, said he has witness testimony contradicting federal officials’ allegation that Porter and Palacios exchanged gunfire. He’s representing Porter’s family in a tort claim against the federal government.

The claim letter sent to the federal government says that Porter was “attempting to peacefully return to his residence” when he was killed. The letter claims Palacios did not personally observe Porter firing a weapon, and that he failed to use de-escalation tactics before opening fire. “The use of deadly force was unjustified, unreasonable and without legal cause,” the letter reads.

Tooson said he expects the federal government to reject the Porter family's tort claim. At which point, the family will pursue a civil claim, Tooson said.

Palacios on administrative duty

Authorities previously have said Palacios is still employed by ICE, and court records responding to the restraining order show he has recently been placed on administrative duty. ICE officials did not respond to questions about his current status.

Despite multiple efforts to put reforms on the November ballot, Los Angeles voters will not get to decide whether to roll back the city’s controversial “mansion tax” on apartment buildings.

The L.A. City Council voted 14-0 to shelve a proposed ballot measure on Wednesday, the final day to send proposals to the city’s voters in the upcoming general election.

The decision comes almost a week after a separate, statewide measure seeking to kill the tax — and other “mansion taxes” across California — was pulled from the November ballot.

Advocates for reform said the council is failing to confront declines in new housing development, which they blame on Measure ULA.

“The City Council unfortunately is still not living in reality with respect to what ULA has done to our apartment and commercial building market,” said Mott Smith, a USC adjunct professor of real estate and a board member of the Council of Infill Builders. “They're kind of living in denial.”

Supporters of the tax said keeping new exemptions for apartment developers off the ballot was the right decision.

Joe Donlin, director of the United to House L.A. coalition, said L.A. voters approved the tax in 2022 because they wanted to raise money for affordable housing and tenant aid programs.

“Voters should feel confident that what they passed is working,” Donlin said. “Of course there are big real estate interests who would prefer not to pay a real estate transfer tax. They're going to continue to try to convince the public that they should get a tax break.”

The measure that didn’t make it to the ballot

The City Council’s sidelined ballot measure would have asked L.A. voters to cancel the tax on new apartment buildings within the first 10 years of their construction.

Reform proponents with Mend It, Don’t End It — a coalition of business leaders, affordable housing developers and labor groups — said in a letter to the council ahead of Wednesday’s meeting, “If adopted by voters, these amendments would help build more housing and ensure Measure ULA is delivering on its promise to increase affordability and reduce homelessness.”

Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, who proposed putting the 10-year exemption on the ballot, along with Councilmember Tim McOsker, chided her colleagues for letting the measure die.

“If we think the fight is over, we’re kidding ourselves,” Yaroslavsky said. “The pressure behind ULA reform is not going to go away, because the valid concerns from people who build housing are not going away. We will keep finding ourselves back here if we don’t show courage, get ahead of it and make a reform we and housing builders can live with.”

A recent analysis from the L.A. Housing Department concluded the 10-year exemption would have made only minimal changes to the city’s housing landscape. City housing officials estimated the exemption would have reduced Measure ULA revenue by about 5% while boosting new apartment development by about 5%, or around 330 units per year.

Why a ‘mansion tax’ applies to apartments

The council’s decision to keep changes off the ballot comes after years of heated debate about Measure ULA’s impact on the L.A. real estate market.

It’s known as the “mansion tax” because it applies to sales of single-family homes priced at $5.3 million or more. The tax rate starts at 4% and rises to 5.5% on properties selling for $10.6 million or more.

However, critics say the “mansion tax” moniker was always misleading, because it also applies to sales of industrial and commercial properties, including apartment buildings.

Supporters of the tax have long said they oppose sending the policy back to voters. They endorsed the decision of an earlier city council committee, which voted against putting changes on the ballot.

However, L.A. voters will see a separate, narrowly tailored “mansion tax” measure on the November ballot. The council voted 13-1 to ask voters to cancel the tax on Pacific Palisades homeowners who sell their properties within five years of the Palisades Fire.

Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Palisades, said exempting fire victims is the right thing to do.

“They’re not selling because they want to,” she said. “They’re selling because they have already lost everything and there’s nothing left. Putting this tax on these folks who are trying to recover and reckoning with the fact that some of them just aren’t coming home is unspeakably cruel.”

The fight is over for now, but maybe not for long

Since taking effect in April 2023, the tax has raised more than $1.2 billion for affordable housing construction and programs aimed at helping struggling tenants stay housed. Some of that money has been held up due to strict limits on how funding can be spent, as well as the L.A. City Attorney’s ongoing opposition to tenant aid funding plans.

Economists have published studies concluding the tax has driven down new housing development relative to other parts of L.A. County. A recent RAND study also found the tax has cut into revenue raised by other local property taxes and development fees, reducing funding for schools, parks and other government services by about $452 million.

Meanwhile, Measure ULA supporters dispute conclusions about the tax slowing down housing growth. They say hundreds of affordable apartments have already opened or begun construction, thousands more are set to be built or preserved, and tenants have received tens of millions of dollars in rent relief and income support.

Previous efforts to lower or eliminate the tax on new apartment buildings have all stalled. The most dramatic development came last week, when last-minute negotiations in the California legislature convinced an anti-tax group to pull a statewide November ballot measure that would have asked voters to kill Measure ULA and “mansion taxes” in other parts of the state.

That Sacramento deal did not include cuts to L.A.’s “mansion tax,” as many in the real estate industry were hoping to see. Instead, state lawmakers agreed to put a separate measure on the November ballot, Proposition 43, which will ask Californians to make it harder to pass new special taxes by increasing the voter approval threshold to two-thirds, up from a simple majority.

Close to 58% of L.A. voters approved Measure ULA in November 2022, when it first appeared on the ballot. Though efforts to eliminate or scale back the tax via the November ballot are now officially dead, Mott Smith said future ballot fights remain likely.

“Already, everybody is gearing up for the 2028 election,” Smith said. “We're going to be living with another two years of pain in the real estate market, and Los Angeles will continue to lag behind the rest of the country and the rest of the state in terms of housing production.”

For many Los Angeles college students, public transit is often the cheapest and sometimes the only way to get to campus as gas and other costs rise. But using buses and trains can come with a price beyond the fare.

Metro offers free passes for students at participating K-12 schools and community colleges, while some universities offer discounted transit passes for their students. However, college students who rely on transit have to leave for class hours early to avoid being late, weigh safety concerns, stretch already tight budgets and miss out on college life, students told CalMatters.

Late buses, early alarms

For some students, using transit means getting ready and leaving long before class starts. Makeda Webb wakes up at 6 a.m. in her apartment in Willowbrook, more than five hours before her first class at Cal State Dominguez Hills, less than 5 miles away in Carson.

On most mornings, the psychology major competes with her brother and grandfather, who has dementia, for their one shared bathroom. Even though her earliest class starts at 11:30 a.m., Webb leaves home by 8:30 a.m. because her commute usually takes 40 minutes and unreliable buses have made her late before. Some professors have even threatened to drop her from their classes if she kept arriving late, so she doesn't take any risks.

"The bus is constantly late or breaking down," Webb said. "You have to wait another hour for the next bus. … (It) makes me late for school, so I have to leave extremely early to make sure I'm on time."

She doesn't have a car, so despite delays, taking the bus is cheaper for her than paying for gas and other driving costs. Her university offers Metro U-Pass, which allows participating university students to take unlimited bus and train rides for the semester for a flat fee. For spring 2026, the pass cost $67.50.

Her commute gets worse at the end of the day. When Webb takes the bus in the evening after class and extracurriculars, frequent stops and unruly passengers stretch the trip to close to an hour.

"Even though I only live (half an hour) away by bus, it takes double that to get there because the bus driver has to stop the bus or … something stupid is going on, like chaos, which makes it take forever," Webb said.

Webb walks home at night after getting off the bus at a stop near her home. “It’s not always enjoyable, especially with the type of people that get on the bus. We have a lot of drug addicts, we have a lot of people who do crazy types of stuff on the bus,” she said.

(

Martin Romero

/

CalMatters

)

For women, the train comes with risks 

Victoria Imo, a graduate student studying social work at the University of Southern California, has a car but often takes the Metro A Line, transferring to the E Line to get to campus. She uses her U-Pass to avoid the high cost of gas and parking.

Imo's U-Pass is covered by USC's mandatory transportation fee, which costs $146 for the spring semester. That is cheaper than filling her tank multiple times, which she said can cost up to $60 each time, or buying a parking permit, which can cost up to $585 per semester before added fees.

But saving money means she has to take extra precautions. Because of safety concerns on the train, Imo thinks carefully about where she sits, often near other women, and avoids using her iPad or laptop, opting to read instead. She wears a mask and sometimes headphones without music to avoid unwanted interactions.

In the past, Imo carried pepper spray and a Taser – the latter of which she previously set off to deter an unruly man who was "yelling behind me while I was walking up the stairs," she said. She activated the Taser so it crackled really loudly while she walked to her car.

Metro contracts with the Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles Sheriff's Department for law enforcement across its systems. The agency also has transit ambassadors to complement officers, report issues and connect passengers with resources. Still, Imo said she has not reported any safety concerns because she's so used to them.

"I haven't gone out of my way to give any feedback, because at this point, I feel like this is just what the train system is," Imo said. "It seems like everyone's used to it."

Imo walks down the stairs at the Sierra Madre Metro Station in Pasadena to catch a train to campus.

(

Martin Romero

/

CalMatters

)

Gina Medrano, a psychology student at Santa Monica College, described similar concerns. She has her own car, but gas prices have pushed her to use her GoPass to take the train from the Atlantic Station in East Los Angeles to her school.

She carries pepper spray, avoids wearing headphones and switches train cars if anyone makes her feel uncomfortable. After witnessing a near-fatal incident, Medrano said boarding a Metro train makes her feel uneasy.

"This lady started hitting a man on the train," she said. "After she kicked the door of the train while it was running … she jumped out of the train … and it was right in front of me. I had to call my mom to come pick me up, because I just couldn't handle what I'd just seen."

Medrano said the incident was one of several disturbing things she's seen on the train. She regularly sees things that make her question her safety and wonder why there isn't more enforcement.

"It's kind of normal to see needles and unsightly things on the train," she said. "There's not really a lot of enforcement or safety. I don't really feel safe on it."

For some, police presence sets off alarms

Zak Nirenberg, an electrical construction and maintenance major at Los Angeles Trade-Technical College, said their biggest safety concern is not other Metro riders, but Los Angeles Police Department officers.

"They're intimidating," Nirenberg said. "Most of the time they're on the (train), they're looking for someone to harass or actively harassing someone."

Zak Nirenberg rides the Metro train from Grand/LATTC Station in Los Angeles to Pico Station in downtown Los Angeles on April 30, 2026. They said their biggest safety concern is not other Metro riders but Los Angeles Police Department officers.

(

Martin Romero

/

CalMatters

)

Norma Eisenman, a spokesperson for the LAPD, declined to comment on Nirenberg and others' concerns about officers' presence during fare inspections. The department directed CalMatters to file public records requests for documents about LAPD protocols.

Metro says safety is improving

Metro says it's making progress on safety, pointing to recent declines in violent crime and nonviolent offenses. The agency attributed those declines to increased visible uniformed personnel, fare enforcement and partnerships with behavioral health organizations on its transit system.

In a February Metro media release, Maya Pogoda, a spokesperson for the agency, wrote that violent crime fell 6.7% in 2025 from the year before. She added that crimes involving trespassing, narcotics and weapons decreased 33%.

Metro also announced the Department of Public Safety Dashboard, which publishes safety and security data submitted by law enforcement agencies and shows a more complicated history. According to the dashboard, after Metro resumed bus fare collection following a pandemic pause, trespassing reports, which include fare evasion, rose nearly 1,200%, from 126 in 2022 to 1,635 in 2023. In 2024, the number more than doubled to about 4,500.

Arrests also rose sharply, with LAPD and sheriff's department arrests increasing by 81% in 2023 to about 5,000, then nearly doubling to about 10,000 in 2024. Since 2020, the top two crime types reported on Metro have been trespassing and battery.

Pogoda wrote that the agency is trying to address safety through a mix of law enforcement and public services aimed at addressing homelessness, addiction and untreated mental illness. These efforts will all be coordinated through Metro’s new Department of Public Safety.

Los Angeles Police Department officers conduct fare inspections on a Metro train at Grand/LATTC Station in Los Angeles on April 30, 2026. According to Metro, officers conducted more than 116,000 train boardings and about 500,000 TAP card inspections in 2025 alone.

(

Martin Romero

/

CalMatters

)

Student passes help, but gaps remain

Even Metro programs meant to make public transit more affordable for students don’t remove every cost barrier. For some, the upfront cost of even a discounted pass can still be out of reach.

Stephanie Verdugo, a sociology major at Cal State LA, lives in on-campus housing and relies on Metro buses to run errands and, previously, to get to work. She said her university sells a U-Pass to students for about $100 a semester, but even as a frequent transit rider, Verdugo said she couldn't afford the upfront cost.

"I always had a very tight budget … so I could never actually buy (the U-Pass)," she said. "I would just have to pay the regular way."

Still, even while paying Metro's regular $1.75 fare for bus or train rides, Verdugo said using public transit has saved her money. That is partly because the agency's fare-capping system limits how much regular fare riders can spend to no more than $5 each day and $18 each week before rides are free.

"I don't pay a lot of money considering how much I travel on the bus," Verdugo said. "As a person who was traveling every single day for a month straight, I only spent like a maximum of $80, which, to me, is really good."

For Nirenberg, the Los Angeles Trade-Technical College student, the GoPass saves them a lot of money on gas and parking.

"(It's) not just for school, but for life in general. I don't pay for parking anywhere," they said. "I don't have to worry about finding parking. It's fantastic."

‘I've never been to a college party’ — when transit derails social life

Beyond getting to class, transit can also shape how much of college life students get to experience. Julian Levy, a political science student at Occidental College, lives in on-campus housing and relies on public transit to visit his family and get around Los Angeles. Without a car, Levy said, participating in college life off campus means planning around transit schedules, deciding whether a trip is worth the time and often leaving early to get back on time.

"I remember just feeling so frustrated … just because I didn't have a car," Levy said. "I had to leave early from (a friend's birthday party) because of the time I would have to spend on the much slower public transit system."

One trip to an Occidental soccer game at Chapman University in Orange made Levy reconsider taking transit to away games. He had taken Metro and Metrolink to get there without any issues, but after the game, one of the few trains back was canceled. A second train eventually came, but only after Levy waited about two and a half hours on the platform. He ended up getting back to campus after midnight.

"I remember thinking after that, 'Do I really want to rely on public transit?'" Levy said. "I've always been able to get where I've needed to go, but I've definitely reconsidered whether something is worth the risk of getting stranded somewhere."

For many students CalMatters spoke to, public transit can be unpredictable, crowded and unsafe. Still, it remains the most affordable, and sometimes the only, way for students to reach campus and make attending college possible at all.

"I'm a low-income student, I've never been to a college party. … I don't have the money, I don't have the time," said Webb, the Cal State Dominguez Hills student. "I have not gotten the full (college experience), but I'm still thankful, though. At least there's an option."

Martin Romero is a contributor with the College Journalism Network, a collaboration between CalMatters and student journalists from across California. CalMatters higher education coverage is supported by a grant from the College Futures Foundation.

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

After months of pushing back on the Trump administration’s attempt to stop youth gender-affirming care nationally, California is establishing its own safety net for vulnerable patients and families.

California approved $26 million in one-time funding aimed at protecting access to health care for transgender youth in the state’s budget package for its 2026-27 fiscal year. It also includes $30 million earmarked for providers of reproductive and transition-related care.

This was welcome news to many LGBTQ+ advocates, families with trans youth, and health care providers. Over the last year, many California families with trans youth have either seen their providers stop youth gender-affirming care or announce plans to do so.

About the funding

The one-time fund will be distributed to health care providers across the state through targeted grants. The money will give providers “meaningful resources” to continue and expand their gender-affirming care offerings, according to TransFamily Support Services, one of the organizations that lobbied for the bill.

Advocacy organizations say the fund will expand the network of trans youth health care providers and insulate the provider network from federal funding cuts.

Meanwhile, the $30 million fund for uncompensated care will help providers deal with funding gaps due to cuts to Medi-Cal and other federal programs.

Newsom’s approval followed months of back-and-forth as California looked to balance its finances after years of shortfalls. Newsom’s initial version of the budget did not include the gender-affirming care fund. The legislature then added it back, and it stayed in the final version.

The budget also includes other provisions aimed at helping California’s struggling health care industry, like delaying cuts to Medi-Cal. Newsom has also approved similar funds to protect reproductive health care and abortion access this year.

The response

Trans advocacy organizations celebrated the news this week.

“This historic investment will help keep care accessible, support the providers doing this lifesaving work, and remind trans young people that California will not abandon them,” Kathy Moehlig, TransFamily Support Services’ director, said in a statement.

Many advocates highlighted the importance of this fund during a critical moment for trans health care.

“We must continue to work together to ensure the well-being, health, and autonomy of all people in our state,” Bamby Salcedo, president and CEO of the L.A.- based TransLatin@ Coalition, said in a statement.

The current threats

As the Trump administration continues to restrict trans youth health care nationally, hospitals and health care providers are seeing the federal government try a new tactic to obtain records of trans youth patients: criminal subpoenas.

“It's a worrying tactic that indicates that there might be future efforts to try to criminalize trans healthcare,” said attorney Megan Noor of Transgender Law Center.

In California, Stanford Children’s Hospital received one such subpoena, which led patient families to sue the federal government. Attorney General Rob Bonta was one of 19 attorneys general who filed an amicus brief supporting the lawsuit on the grounds of states' rights, which Noor said can be part of a “symbiotic relationship” between states fighting against federal policy and the people affected by drastic policy shifts coming from Washington, D.C.

A round of administrative subpoenas issued by the Department of Justice last year was largely blocked.

Meanwhile, Rady Children’s Health, the parent company of Children’s Hospital of Orange County and Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, will continue offering gender-affirming care to youth under 19 at least until January while a state lawsuit filed by Bonta plays out.