The Brief

With former president Donald Trump set to return to the White House, state and local leaders in California say they’re determined to use their political office to resist his policies.

But what has Trump proposed to do on key issues facing Californians like housing, the environment, health care and the border? And what could local leaders do in overwhelmingly Democratic cities like Los Angeles to thwart his campaign promises?

LAist interviewed experts on these topics to get a sense of what’s in store for L.A.

The border and immigration

Trump made mass deportations a centerpiece of his campaign, and promised on his first day in office to close the U.S. border with Mexico and restrict migrants from seeking asylum.

Those policies, if carried out, have the potential to profoundly disrupt daily life in L.A. County, where one-in-three residents are immigrants and 8% lack legal authorization, according to USC Dornsife’s 2024 State of Immigrants report.

“We can expect Trump's approach to the border to include policies and practices that intentionally seek to foment chaos,” said Monika Langarica with the UCLA School of Law’s Center for the Immigration Law and Policy.

But Langarica said California has already enacted local policies to limit cooperation between federal immigration officials and local law enforcement, who would need to play a crucial role in scaling up deportation efforts to meet Trump’s goals.

Deportations of millions of migrants would be unlikely to happen right away. Such a large-scale effort could first require massive government spending and coordination.

Trump’s former senior advisor Stephen Miller has said mass deportation could involve building staging grounds near the border. And Trump has said he would rely on local police to work with the federal government’s 6,000 Enforcement and Removal officers.

“In California there are already important protections built in,” she said. “There is a lot more that can be done by way of state policies to further limit the ability of the federal government to come in and seek to collude with local law enforcement agencies to seek to carry out these so-called mass deportation plans.”

Niels Frenzen, director of USC’s Gould School of Law Immigration Clinic, said Trump could also try to end a program that extends authorization to live and work in the U.S. to those who arrived in the country illegally as children. About 64,000 people in the L.A. area currently have authorization under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program.

Under Trump’s first administration, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked his efforts to dismantle the program.

Another possibility: California officials who resist Trump’s immigration policies could find themselves threatened with losing federal resources, Frenzen said.

“In Trump campaign rallies, he said if Newsom doesn't get in line, the federal government is not going to provide FEMA assistance for wildfire recovery,” Frenzen said. “Then it's just a question of, does the state have the political and the financial capability of resisting those pressures from the federal government?”

Housing affordability

Deportation has also been a cornerstone of Trump’s message on housing affordability, with the former president saying expelling immigrants would free up more housing and reduce costs for others.

But housing analysts in California say the more likely outcome from such efforts could be ballooning construction budgets that translate into steeper rents.

“[Deportations] will cause massive pain and hardship for the people who are affected. And a lot of the folks getting deported are actually critical for housing supply,” said Ben Metcalf, managing director of the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley. “Most of the [construction] workforce these days is being made up of immigrants, including many who may not have all their citizenship or legal documentation perfected."

Trump’s plans to raise tariffs could also cause the cost of imported homebuilding materials, such as lumber and steel, to spike, Metcalf added.

“One could imagine 20% tariffs massively raising the cost and decreasing the availability of the materials that are needed to build homes,” he said. “Those would be huge drags, I think, on forward supply in California.”

LGBTQ+ communities

Trump repeatedly took aim at LGBTQ+ communities on the campaign trail, airing ads that disparagingly said Vice President Kamala Harris’ positions on issues affecting transgender people showed she was for “they/them” while he was for “you.”

Elana Redfield, federal policy director at the Williams Institute, said California has maintained an affirming policy environment, and she expected that to continue under state law.

“What we might see in California is that LGBT people would retain many of the same rights that they have enjoyed under the Biden administration, or any administration,” she said. “But what would happen is we would expect some significant conflict with the federal government.”

For example, in education, California has a number of laws protecting LGBTQ+ students’ rights to participate in sports and use gender-affirming restrooms. Redfield said those aren’t directly threatened by a Trump administration.

“The federal government, under a conservative administration, might narrowly define Title IX and prohibit, for example, the inclusion of trans youth in sports that match their gender identity, or prohibit schools from allowing trans youth to use bathrooms that match their gender identity,” Redfield said. “The main result there is the risk of losing funding.”

Reproductive rights

In the 2022 mid-term election, about two-thirds of California voters decided to guarantee the right to an abortion and contraception in the state’s constitution following a U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

Proposition 1 inserted language into the state constitution saying, “the state shall not deny or interfere with an individual's reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.”

But with conservatives soon to control the White House, the Supreme Court and potentially both houses of Congress, could the federal government override California’s protections? That’s unlikely. Even abortion opponents say they are not expecting big changes in the state.

“California already has such strong protections for the abortion industry that a Trump administration would not change anything, really,” said Mary Rose Short, the director of outreach for California Right to Life. “There is a lot of talk about, what if Trump signed a national abortion ban, or something like that. But that would require that to be presented to him by a majority of the states. And that is not feasible in the next four years.”

Jodi Hicks, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said in a written statement on Trump’s victory, “Planned Parenthood health centers in California will continue to be open for any person seeking care — even for those who do not call California home — and we will fight like hell to ensure it stays that way.”

Environmental protection 

During Trump’s first term in office, climate goals became a central point of contention between the federal government and California, which often leads the U.S. on environmental standards.

Trump took aim at the state’s ability to set stronger tailpipe emission limits for cars back in 2019. A federal court decision earlier this year upheld California’s right to set these standards.

Julia Stein with the UCLA School of Law’s Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment said these disputes could come roaring back with Trump returning to power.

“California will need to think of creative ways to continue to regulate in that space without a federal partner,” Stein said.

Stein added that the world is at a critical tipping point for addressing climate change, and other countries around the world will be looking to see what happens in the U.S.

“California kind of stepped up to fill that void last time,” Stein said. “Being able to make progress on these issues is incredibly important, and to be seen as a strong leader globally — not just domestically — on these issues is also hugely important.”

Health care costs

Trump has talked about lowering the expenses Americans face when seeking medical care and prescription drugs, but has not provided specifics on his health care policy priorities. During the presidential debate in September he said he had “concepts of a plan.”

Trump has said recently that he won’t try to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which a majority of Americans rate favorably, according to recent polling data.

His administration will face a decision next year on whether to back an extension of enhanced premium subsidies for ACA insurance plans. Those expanded subsidies were passed under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, and will come up for renewal next year.

Geoffrey Joyce, health policy director at USC’s Schaeffer Center, said getting rid of the subsidies would mean big changes locally.

“It would have a huge effect on California,” Joyce said. “Anytime you cut subsidies, you make it less attractive. More people would decide not to get insurance.”

A divided Los Angeles Unified School District Board voted 4-3 Tuesday to issue preliminary layoff notices to more than 3,000 employees, as part of a reduction-in-force plan to reduce the budget after several years of spending more money than it brings in.

Even as California is poised to fund schools at record-high levels, Los Angeles Unified and other districts have grappled with increased costs. For example, LAUSD hired more staff to support students during the pandemic, and now the federal relief dollars that initially funded those positions are gone.

For the past two years, the district has relied on reserves to backfill a multi-billion-dollar deficit. The district projects a deficit of $877 million next school year, about 14% of the 2026-2027 budget.

Who’s being cut?

LAUSD staff estimate the proposed cuts impact less than 1% of the district’s more than 83,000 member workforce.

Notices would go out to:

• 2,600 certificated and classified contract management employees and certificated administrators. 
• 657 central office and centrally funded classified positions. More than a third of these are IT technicians, by far the largest group.
• The plan also calls for reduced hours and pay for several dozen positions.

District leaders have emphasized that an employee who receives a RIF notice will not necessarily be cut.

What's next?

The reduction in force vote is the first step in a monthslong process that could result in layoffs for a still-to-be-determined number of positions because impacted employees may be moved to other positions. Staff said the board would vote to finalize any un-rescinded layoff notices in May or June.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

About 15% of California households lack access to high-speed internet, according to the latest report from UC Riverside. Researchers pointed to affordability as one of the biggest barriers to closing the persistent digital divide.

Edward Helderop, associate director at UCR’s Center for Geospatial Sciences and report author, told LAist that the findings weren't surprising.

“A lot of American households and California households don't have high-speed internet available at home,” Helderop said. “It's sort of just an unfortunate reality that that's the case for the state of California.”

What does the report say? 

Nearly one in seven households in California doesn’t have reliable internet access, according to the report. The biggest barrier continues to be affordability. Even in urban areas, like Los Angeles, where broadband internet is more widely available, the average monthly cost can range from $70 to $80 per month.

But in rural areas, broadband internet is still widely unavailable because of a lack of infrastructure investments from private companies. Only two-thirds of rural households have broadband access at home.

“This digital divide represents not just a technological failure, but a profound barrier to economic opportunity, educational advancement, and civic participation that undermines California’s potential for shared prosperity,” the report states.

Experts also call for mandatory broadband data transparency — internet providers should be required to publicly disclose their service speeds, pricing, reliability metrics and coverage areas.

“Private telecom companies administering the service, they're under no obligation to maintain publicly available data sets in the same way that you might get with other utilities,” Helderop said. “There are issues with the fact that the advertised speeds don't really match up with the actual speeds that people experience at home.”

Researchers also recommend that broadband providers be regulated as utilities, like water and power, monitoring rates, quality and service obligations.

“When we regulate something like a utility, it comes with a few regulations that we take for granted,” Helderop said. “Something like a universal service obligation, in which the utility … their primary motive is to provide universal service, so to provide the service to every household in California.”

As a public utility, officials could ensure that providers are offering the same type of service to every household in the state, as well as regulate rates.

Why it matters 

Norma Fernandez, CEO at Everyone On, said access to affordable, high-speed internet is a basic necessity.

"Still, too many families, particularly those in under-resourced communities, predominantly of color, are still left out,” Fernandez said. “Expanding reliable connectivity means addressing affordability, investing in community-centered solutions, and ensuring that digital access is part of every policy conversation."

Digital equity advocates say they see the need from local families every day, but available data doesn’t reflect that.

“On the maps, families appear to live in ‘connected’ neighborhoods, but in reality, they still can’t afford to get online because the monopoly provider’s plans are unaffordable,” Natalie Gonzalez, director at Digital Equity Los Angeles. “The provider-reported broadband maps don’t match what residents experience on the ground, and that gap has real consequences.”

In L.A., for example, hundreds of thousands of households lack reliable internet, but only a fraction qualify for public funding because available data says they’re already served, Gonzalez added.

“Public investment alone doesn’t guarantee equity if the underlying data is flawed,” Gonzalez said. “When the only data regulators have come from the providers themselves, the providers end up defining reality. Communities are then forced to prove they’re disconnected, without access to the same information the companies use to claim coverage.”

Cristal Mojica, digital equity expert at the Michelson Center for Public Policy, said pricing data is intentionally obscured.

“It makes it harder for people to shop around between internet plans,” Mojica told LAist. “It makes it really challenging for our state legislators to be effective and make effective decisions around affordability when they have to try to dig around for that information themselves.”

What’s next? 

California has already invested $6 billion for broadband –called the “Middle-Mile” project –through Senate Bill 156. The 2021 law is the largest state investment in broadband in U.S. history to get more people online.

Helderop explained that broadband investments are typically made possible through grants or loans to private telecom companies, making the state’s investment critical.

“It's the first time that any state, or any government in the United States, is taking it upon themselves to build and then own the infrastructure at the end of it,” Helderop said. “I would say that's probably the primary reason that we don't have universal broadband available to households in the United States right now.”

When completed, the “Middle-Mile” project will open markets to new providers and reduce monopolies, Helderop added.

Playboy founder Hugh Hefner’s widow, Crystal Hefner, is raising the alarm over her late husband’s foundation collecting about 3,000 of his personal scrapbooks and his diary, which she says contain thousands of nude images of women, some of whom might have been minors at the time the photos were taken.

In a press conference Tuesday, Hefner and her attorney, Gloria Allred, announced they’ve filed regulatory complaints with California and Illinois attorneys general, asking them to investigate the foundation’s handling of the scrapbooks. The complaints were filed to both attorneys general because the foundation is registered to do business in California but incorporated in Illinois.

“I believe they include women and possibly girls who never agreed to lifelong possession of their naked images and who have no transparency into where their photos are, how they’re being stored or what will happen to them next,” Hefner said.

She added the diary includes names of women he slept with, notes of sexual acts and other explicit details.

Hefner said she was asked to resign from her position as CEO and president of the Hugh M. Hefner Foundation on Monday after raising concerns about the materials. She said after she declined to resign, she was removed from her role.

She said she was told the scrapbooks may be in a storage facility in California. Allred says they were informed that the foundation plans to digitize them, but it’s unclear what it plans to do with them.

“This is not archival preservation. This is not history. This is control. I am deeply worried about these images getting out,” Hefner said. “Artificial intelligence, deepfakes, digital scanning, online marketplaces and data breaches means that once images leave secure custody, the harm is irreversible. A single security failure could devastate thousands of lives.”

In addition to asking for an investigation into the foundation’s handling of the materials, it also asks the attorneys general to take appropriate actions to secure those images.

LAist has reached out to the Hugh M. Hefner Foundation for comment.