Ever been streaming a show or a movie and been jolted out of your entertainment reverie by an ad so loud it felt like it rattled the windows?

If California’s lawmakers have their way, those blaring commercials on streaming platforms might soon have the volume turned down.

A bill sailing through the Legislature with bipartisan support would prohibit online streaming services like Netflix and Hulu from cranking up the volume during commercials. The proposal would make the platforms comply with the same standards as a 15-year-old federal law that limits how loud traditional television and cable broadcasters can make their advertisements.

Senate Bill 576 hasn’t been a very tough sell for its author, Democratic Sen. Tom Umberg of Santa Ana, despite opposition from California’s influential entertainment industry.

“This is the most popular bill I’ve introduced this year,” Umberg said in an interview with CalMatters.

Case in point: Every senator who was present that day voted for the bill when Umberg brought it to the Senate floor in late May. Umberg appealed to their annoyance.

“I’m guessing that all of you have been annoyed when you’re … streaming television, and a commercial comes on and it is exponentially louder than the other shows,” Umberg told his colleagues.

He glanced around the chamber. “You see heads nodding aye.”

President Barack Obama signed the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act in 2010, which gave the Federal Communications Commission authority to issue rules ensuring that the average volume of TV commercials does not exceed the volume of the programming they accompany, according to the bill’s analysis. It notes that streaming services were still nascent at the time. Members of Congress have since tried to add streaming platforms to the law, but two 2023 federal bills didn’t get hearings.

Umberg’s bill aims to make streaming services in California follow the same rules despite Congress not yet taking action.

But would it be legal for California to do so?

UC Berkeley Law Professor Tejas Narechania told CalMatters that federal courts have ruled “that the California Legislature could enact consumer protections aimed at California residents, even if they affected out-of-state content providers.”

Narechania cited a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of a California deaf-rights organization that sued CNN for violating state law by failing to put closed captioning on videos it had on its website.

Umberg: Don’t wake the baby!

While a significant amount of legislation comes to lawmakers through lobbyists pitching their proposals, this one came to Umberg from a baby. Well, the baby’s parents anyway.

He said his legislative director, Zach Keller, has an infant daughter named Samantha Rose. The baby had finally settled down to sleep and her parents, in turn, settled down to relax and watch a show when an ad came on so loud it woke the baby.

“Her father, at the behest of the baby’s mother, brought a bill idea to me,” Umberg said. “I thought, ‘That’s a good bill idea,’ so we introduced it.”

The plight of parents with sleeping babies hasn’t been enough to ward off opposition to the bill from California’s entertainment industry, including the Motion Picture Association of America. It has donated at least $204,000 to lawmakers since 2015, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database.

Opponents, including the Streaming Innovation Alliance, argue that the proposal would be difficult for streaming services to implement.

Streaming service ads don’t work the same way as commercials at cable and television networks, Melissa Patack, a representative for the Motion Picture Association, told the Assembly’s Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee last month.

“When you choose a program on your streaming service, you’re actually calling up a digital file and advertising is paired up with that in real time,” she said. “The streaming platform may not be able to control the loudness of a particular ad.”

Patack added that the streaming industry has done “a significant amount of work” already to “address loudness issues and develop best practices to match the loudness of ads with programming.”

Umberg isn’t buying it.

“I have a great deal of faith in the entertainment industry, in the technology that they both currently use and are developing, that if they can make ads louder, they can make them less loud,” he said.

Umberg’s bill now moves to the Assembly floor where Umberg is again likely to appeal to lawmakers’ desire for streamers not to wake up more babies such as Samantha Rose.

If the Medical Board of California has its way, you could be treated by a doctor wrestling with substance abuse and never know it.

Assembly Bill 408 would keep details about addicted doctors under wraps as long as those doctors voluntarily enter a new, confidential diversion program that the bill would allow the Medical Board to create.

That’s in stark contrast to what happens now: Drug-abusing doctors are disciplined in proceedings that are made public. This approach came into being several years ago after the Medical Board’s last confidential diversion system was deemed an utter failure and patients were harmed at the hands of struggling doctors.

What could be the justification for this about-face?

Getting help

“When our physicians struggle with substance use disorders, it is in the best interest of both patients and physicians to support them in seeking out help,” Assemblymember Marc Berman, D-Menlo Park, said in an analysis of the bill he has authored.

The bill, he added, “builds off California’s longstanding efforts to destigmatize seeking treatment for substance use disorders…. Today, physicians struggling with substance use disorders can feel pressure to hide their condition and often never get the help they need. The creation of this program will help healthcare providers get the care they need, which will better protect patients in the end.”

The bill is fundamentally about patient safety, Berman said.

“(A)ll physicians deserve to recover and move forward with renewed resiliency and establishing a program would enable (the Medical Board of California) to prevent patient harm by connecting impaired or at-risk physicians with treatment before issues arise,” according to the analysis.

Doctors and other healthcare professionals are often hesitant to seek help thanks to stigma, confidentiality concerns and fears that they’ll ruin their careers, supporters argue. This reluctance can lead to “untreated or inadequately addressed conditions.”

The Medical Board’s mission is to protect consumers “and, too often, we first learn about a dangerous physician after their patient has been hurt,” said its statement of support.

“This legislation takes a proactive approach to prevent patient harm by providing a confidential pathway for physicians and other providers to seek care and treatment early, before they become unsafe to practice medicine.”

Avoiding accountability

Ha! respond consumer advocates, who couldn’t disagree more vehemently.

“The bill would allow doctors to seek treatment to avoid discipline even if they were impaired on the job,” said the group in Consumer Watchdog in opposition.

“For example: A San Francisco doctor suspected of stealing drugs from her hospital was recently arrested after she was found passed out in an operating room shortly after she was scheduled to participate in a toddler’s surgery. Under AB 408, the Board could send that doctor into diversion instead of the disciplinary investigation, treatment oversight and consequences for relapse that are all mandatory under current law. The bill does not require reporting of a positive drug test to the Board, so the doctor could continue treating patients while keeping diversion program violations secret and place patients in harm’s way.”

Another opponent of AB 408, the Consumer Protection Policy Center at the University of San Diego School of Law, takes a more dollars and cents approach.

“In light of the vacant staff positions and current budget concerns, it is a mystery how the Board will have dedicated staff to oversee this program,” it said.

“Without proper oversight, this program fails to address the previous program failures that led to catastrophic patient harm.”

The Medical Board’s attention and resources would be better focused on transparency, accountability and timely enforcement improvements to ensure meaningful consumer protection, the Center said.

The Consumer Attorneys of California points out that AB 408 does include two “important and commendable provisions:” It retains existing disclosure requirements for doctors who enter the program after allegations of patient harm or misconduct, and it mandates reporting of doctors believed to have a condition impacting their ability to practice safely.

“These are steps in the right direction, but they do not outweigh the risks created by the lack of enforcement clarity and the rollback of uniform standards,” the group said.

In a sobering assessment, a Senate analysis states simply, “Patient and public protection is lacking.”

This bill made it all the way through the Assembly and is now under consideration in the Senate. Have thoughts to share with your legislators? Find out how to contact them at https://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/.

Immigration policy has been a contentious and complicated task for lawmakers for several years — that’s not new.

But in recent weeks, with the federal government ramping up immigration enforcement operations across the country, including in Southern California, the challenge is underscored even more.

On Wednesday, July 2, a cohort of Republicans and Democrats who make up the bipartisan California Problem Solvers Caucus in Sacramento, though, said there are several core principles they agree on when it comes to immigration.

Undocumented immigrants and DACA recipients, they said during an event outside the statehouse, “have contributed greatly to California’s culture and economy for decades.” And many undocumented immigrants are long-term residents of their California communities who work essential jobs and could contribute even more if they were granted legal status, they said.

A pathway to legal status should exist for undocumented workers who are not threats to public safety, they said.

And due process “is a foundational value of our democracy,” they said.

But the legislators also agreed that a secure border is crucial to combating drug and human trafficking and strengthening the country’s national security.

Assemblymembers Laurie Davies, R-Laguna Niguel; Diane Dixon, R-Newport Beach; and Blanca Pacheco, D-Downey, are part of the California Problem Solvers Caucus.

The legislators said they are working in tandem with the congressional Problem Solvers Caucus to advocate for their shared immigration principles.

“For too long, federal inaction has left our communities in limbo,” said Assemblymember David Alvarez, D-San Diego. “These principles lay the groundwork for real solutions — securing the border, honoring due process and providing a path to legal status for those who have earned it. It’s time for Washington to do its job.”

“These bipartisan principles strike a balance between securing the border and recognizing the value that hardworking immigrants bring to our economy,” said Assemblymember Josh Hoover, R-Folsom. “California can’t solve this alone — Washington must lead.”

The group’s press conference came after a handful of Republican legislators, including Davies and Dixon, sent President Donald Trump a letter, urging him to focus his administration’s immigration enforcement efforts on targeting “violent criminals” rather than “non-violent migrants.”

A White House spokesperson, in response, said the Trump administration is focused on those who pose a threat to public safety.

“President Trump remains committed to carrying out the largest mass deportation operation in history by removing dangerous, violent criminal illegal aliens from American communities and targeting the sanctuary cities that provide safe harbor to criminal illegals,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in an email.

In other news

• Assemblymember Avelino Valencia is behind a bill to prohibit online games that use “dual currency” to imitate casino-style betting. These are games that use virtual coins — which in turn, can be cashed in for real money or prizes — to play online casino-like games, according to the Anaheim Democrat’s office.

“We cannot look the other way while these platforms exploit legal gray areas,” said Valencia. “These operations undermine the voter-approved framework that affirms tribal governments’ sovereign right to conduct gaming in California.”

This bill is in the Senate.

• An agreement was reached between legislators and the governor last week to delay implementation of a law mandating that large group health care plans provide coverage for infertility care, including IVF. It was slated to go into effect on July 1 but has been pushed back six months, to the start of 2026.

“As someone who would have to rely on access to fertility treatments for my own family-building, I understand the disappointment with a delay of coverage,” Sen. Caroline Menjivar said. “I know how frustrating another six months is, both emotionally and financially, for folks who are counting the days until they can welcome a child.”

“Our state has never mandated infertility health care coverage, so I hope Californians can be patient with us a little longer as we get this right for its implementation now in January 2026,” she said, noting people should check with their health plans directly because some employers may still have already elected to include this coverage.

These bills come amid growing concerns — from communities in Los Angeles and Orange counties to those in the Inland Empire — that a number of supposed agents in plain clothes are arresting undocumented immigrants, sowing uncertainty among both detainees and witnesses who can’t tell if the individuals are legitimate law enforcement officers.

And without identification, supporters of these bills say, the agents can’t be held accountable for any inappropriate actions.

Federal officials, meanwhile, say masks worn by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and other members of federal law enforcement are for their protection.

At the end of the day, one big question is whether regulations related to mask wearing and identification will even pass legal muster.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, said lawmakers would have a stronger case to make if their bills target law enforcement at all levels — be it local, state or federal — as opposed to just singling out federal agents.

If the bills only applied to federal agents, Chemerinsky said, “it’s likely unconstitutional because the state can’t target the federal government for regulation. But if it applies to all police in the state, then I think there’s no argument that it’s constitutional.”

What have state legislators proposed?

In the California Legislature, there is a bill to ban all law enforcement from covering their faces while conducting operations in California. SB 627 was introduced by state Sens. Scott Wiener and Jesse Arreguín, two Bay Area Democrats, as well as Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, a Pasadena Democrat.

The bill would not apply to undercover agents or those wearing surgical or N95 respirators for health reasons, masks to protect against smoke exposure during wildfire emergencies or certain tactical gear.

Another bill, also introduced by Pérez and Wiener, would require local, state and federal law enforcement agents in California to display their name or badge number on their uniforms. Exceptions would be made for those working undercover.

SB 805, intended to crack down on people impersonating law enforcement officers, would also allow law enforcement to request that someone claiming to be a government employee show identification when there is probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a crime.

Last week, Huntington Park police arrested a man suspected of impersonating a federal immigration agent. The man had a prior arrest record related to human smuggling, the Huntington Park police chief said at the time, though he did not provide further details.

Pérez said police initially thought the suspect’s car belonged to law enforcement until they ran the license plate.

“If actual law enforcement struggles to distinguish between real agents and dangerous criminals, then the general public has little chance of knowing who to trust without greater disclosure of law enforcement identification,” she said.

Earlier this year, police in North Carolina arrested a man for allegedly pretending to be a law enforcement officer. According to local news accounts, the victim told police the man kidnapped then raped her, threatening to deport her unless she had sex with him. She told police the man had a business card with a badge on it.

What is being suggested in Congress?

Similar legislation has been introduced at the federal level — where Republicans control both houses, in contrast to the Democratic supermajority in Sacramento.

The “No Anonymity in Immigration Enforcement Act” from Democratic New York Rep. Nydia Velázquez — and co-sponsored by 13 other Democratic House members, including Reps. Laura Friedman and Luz Rivas of L.A. County and Raul Ruiz of Riverside County — would also restrict face coverings for federal agents.

That bill states that, unless exempted, an agent carrying out an enforcement operation in the U.S. may not wear a face covering but must wear a garment with their name and ICE affiliation clearly displayed.

During a news conference this week, Friedman said reports of impersonations are “striking terror” in communities.

Speakers at the event said local law enforcement officers are required to show more identification, which helps with transparency and accountability if someone feels an officer has crossed the line or broken a law.

Requiring law enforcement to identify themselves builds trust between such officers and the public, they said. They added that federal agents should be held to the same standards.

“When agents are masked and anonymous, you cannot have accountability. That’s not how democracy works. That’s not how our country works,” Friedman said.

What are federal officials saying?

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin criticized attempts to outlaw officers from wearing masks “to protect themselves from being doxed and targeted by known and suspected terrorist sympathizers.”

ICE agents are facing a more than 400% increase in assaults, and individuals are launching websites to reveal ICE officers’ identities, McLaughlin said in a statement. She said the federal government will prosecute those who provide personally identifiable information online about ICE agents “to the fullest extent of the law.”

“The men and women of ICE put their lives on the line every day to arrest violent criminal illegal aliens to protect and defend the lives of American citizens,” McLaughlin said.

Rhetoric comparing ICE agents to secret police “is contributing to the surge in assaults of ICE officers through their repeated vilification and demonization of ICE,” she added.

ICE Acting Director Todd Lyon had a similar take.

“I’m sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks, but I’m not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line, their family on the line because people don’t like what immigration enforcement is,” he said at a news conference last month.

On the question of whether the proposed bills prohibiting masks or requiring IDs for federal agents are constitutional, Chemerinsky, the UC Berkeley law school dean, likened it to a stop sign put up by local officials. Federal agents generally would still have to obey that stop sign, he said.

“They have to follow general law. Unless it can be shown the law puts a significant burden on federal activity, the general law applies to the federal government,” Chemerinsky said. “The question would be, ‘Does it put a significant burden on federal activity to say that the officers can’t wear masks?’”

“My instinct is no, that it doesn’t,” he said.

That said, Chemerinsky said it is foreseeable that the federal government would seek to challenge such regulations should they become law.

Will any of these bills pass?

The state bills, should they come up for votes, would be decided by a supermajority Democratic legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has not shied from criticizing President Donald Trump or his administration for immigration and mass deportation policies.

Meanwhile, the Democratic-led federal bill would have to gain enough support in a GOP-controlled Congress, raising questions about its chances of passing.

On Tuesday, Rep. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana, introduced amendments to the budget bill that Congress is considering.

One amendment would have prohibited ICE and other law enforcement agents engaged in border security or immigration enforcement from wearing face coverings. Another would have required them to provide identification and display or wear the official insignia or uniform for the agency that they represent.

Rep. Dave Min, D-Irvine, filed a similar amendment.

Spokespeople for Correa and Min said the submitted amendments were never voted on and blamed Republicans who control the House for not putting the items up for a vote.

On the other hand, Congress recently passed a resolution condemning the “violent riots” that have broken out in and around Los Angeles in recent weeks by protesters who oppose the ongoing ICE immigration enforcement actions. That resolution was led by Republican Rep. Young Kim, who represents parts of Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, along with the rest of California’s Republican House delegation.

The resolution expressed “gratitude” to responding law enforcement officers. It listed local law enforcement agencies as well as ICE “for keeping … communities safe in the face of danger.”

“Peaceful protests are a constitutional right, but vandalism, looting, violence and other crimes are not,” Kim said. The resolution, she added, is meant to “support law and order as our communities see unrest enabled by California’s soft-on-crime policies.”

SCNG writer Kaitlyn Schallhorn contributed to this report.

Led by Sen. Suzette Martinez Valladares, whose district includes Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, the legislators said they support “efforts to identify, detain and deport violent criminals” who are in the U.S. illegally.

But they also said recent raids targeting violent criminals have swept up non-criminal migrants as well.

“Unfortunately, the recent ICE workplace raids on farms, at construction sites, and in restaurants and hotels, have led to unintended consequences that are harming the communities we represent and the businesses that employ our constituents,” they said in the letter to President Donald Trump.

“We have heard from employers in our districts that recent ICE raids are not only targeting undocumented workers, but also creating widespread fear among other employees, including those with legal immigration status. This fear is driving vital workers out of critical industries, taking California’s affordability crisis and making it even worse for our constituents.”

The six Republicans also asked for the Trump administration to modernize the country’s immigration process to allow for a pathway to legal status for non-criminal undocumented immigrants who have “longstanding ties to our communities.”

And they want Trump to expand temporary visa programs for agricultural and temporary workers so more legal workers can come to the U.S. and employers can more easily get vital workers, they said.

“America needs a system that reflects both compassion and lawfulness — one that upholds sovereignty while recognizing the reality on the ground,” they said. “The last president to successfully tackle this issue was Ronald Reagan nearly 40 years ago, and it is long past time to modernize our immigration policies.”

Aside from Valladares, the letter was signed by Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones of San Diego and Sen. Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, whose district includes Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Orange County Assemblymembers Laurie Davies of Laguna Niguel and Diane Dixon of Newport Beach, as well as Assemblymember Heath Flora of Ripon also signed on.

“We are now urging the administration to prioritize public safety, while advancing immigration and visa policies that strengthen our economy, secure our borders and keep our communities safe,” Valladares said.

The Trump administration has ratcheted up federal immigration enforcement efforts across the country, but particularly in Southern California, in recent weeks.

Videos have shown masked federal agents, without warning to even local police, getting out of unmarked or lightly marked cars and swiftly detaining people. There have been reports of asylum seekers being arrested while appearing at routine court hearings and U.S. citizens being detained during enforcement operations.

Large-scale protests have broken out around Southern California as a result — which led to Trump deploying the military and federalized National Guard troops to Los Angeles. Gov. Gavin Newsom is challenging that action in federal court, where attorneys for the Trump administration have defended the move, saying the National Guard is needed to protect federal buildings and agents in Los Angeles amid “ongoing violence.” Without the Guard, they’ve argued, properties and people would be at risk.

A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the six Republicans’ letter Monday afternoon.

But while most of the letter urged change from the White House, it also criticized laws and policies championed by California’s Democratic supermajority.

California, the letter said, is “hurting” due to overregulation, rising costs and a labor market that is “strangling” businesses.

“The Latino community in particular has borne the brunt of many of the state’s far-left policies that, instead of serving them, only protect criminals and eliminate opportunity,” the legislators said.

Dixon, meanwhile, said she toured the southern border last year and alleged that California’s sanctuary policies — which limit resources from assisting federal immigration enforcement officers and efforts — have turned the state “into a magnet for illegal migration.”

“We are still facing the consequences of becoming a sanctuary state, which has led to countless illegal migrant criminals becoming repeat offenders of our legal system,” Dixon said. “Additionally, I have major concerns about the illegal fentanyl coming across the border and killing Americans, and the horrific crimes being committed related to human trafficking.”

Davies echoed those sentiments, saying, “for far too long, previous administrations have allowed unchecked illegal immigration to explode.”

“Commonsense immigration reform is quite simple: Deport those with criminal records and find a pathway to citizenship for those who have become productive members of their communities,” Davies said. “If we want our region secure, that involves securing our border. This will help us combat drug and human trafficking operations.”

“It’s time to leave party labels at the door and begin action on much-needed reform,” said Davies.

One law that won’t be going into effect as planned, though: state-mandated insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization. Legislators pushed the start date for that law — which requires state-regulated health insurance plans to cover IVF and other infertility treatments — six months, to Jan. 1, 2026.

• Also see: California colleges can now pay athletes directly. Why taxpayers may foot some of the bill

But other changes — from workplace protections for household domestic workers to how short-term rentals must warn guests about potential cleaning charges — are poised to take root on Tuesday. Read on for a look at five of them.

CARE Court changes

An update to the new court program meant to help people with severe mental health conditions is coming on Tuesday.

Courts will now have to keep the original petitioner updated on proceedings, including if a case is dismissed or postponed. (An exception is carved out in the law in the event that a court determines this could be detrimental to the treatment or well-being of the person in the program.)

The governor signed the landmark mental health care law in 2022, effectively establishing a pathway for family members, first responders, social workers and other authorized adults to petition a court to enroll a person with a severe mental illness into a CARE program. That program is meant to help people find treatments for severe mental health or substance abuse disorders, housing and other supportive services.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed this CARE Act update, spearheaded by Sen. Tom Umberg, D-Santa Ana, into law in September.

Lids for alcoholic drinks

Establishments with a “Type 48” license to serve beer, wine or distilled spirits must now provide a lid with a customer’s drink upon request. The establishment may charge a “reasonable” fee for the lid.

The purpose of the law, which will be effect at least until Jan. 1, 2027, is to reduce the chance of someone spiking another person’s drink, with the hope that this in turn will prevent sexual assaults and rapes.

Last year, as AB 2375 was making its way through the legislative process, Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, called his bill “a commonsense measure to deter perpetrators from attempting to commit these crimes,” and reported that the bill had strong bipartisan support.

Protections for household domestic workers

California’s occupational safety protections law is expanded to include household domestic service workers, including those who work on a permanent or temporary basis or during an emergency.

A fact sheet for the bill said domestic workers are “amongst one of the most vulnerable and unprotected categories of workers” and many experience indecent working conditions and are considered to be part of a disadvantaged group, such as immigrants who experience language barriers.

“Domestic workers are often put at severe risk of injury and illness, especially when public health emergencies and climate disasters strike,” said Sen. María Elena Durazo, D-Los Angeles. “These workers provide front-line care to California’s most vulnerable, like seniors and people with compromised immune systems, yet they often remain without any health and safety protection.”

The law does exempt domestic workers whose services are publicly funded, employees in family daycare homes and those who are privately employed in a home to provide services like cooking, caregiving and housecleaning.

These changes bring California’s law in line with that set at the federal level, the bill noted.

Short-term rental fees

Short-term rental property owners and platforms, such as Airbnb and VRBO hosts, must disclose upfront what cleaning tasks guests must complete when they leave to avoid paying a fee or penalty.

The new law is laid out in AB 2202, championed by former Assemblymember Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood.

“Transparency helps California’s consumers make informed choices when it comes to short-term vacation rentals,” Rendon said last year. “By requiring that short-term vacation rentals disclose requested cleaning duties in advance, we can ensure customers have the information they need to make a truly informed choice about their short-term vacation rentals.”

Subscription cancelations

It will be easier now for consumers to cancel their unwanted subscription or service, due to AB 2863, which requires businesses to provide one or more ways for a cancellation before it automatically renews.

In addition, a customer must be able to cancel using the same method they used to enroll in the first place — or the same medium the customer is accustomed to using to interact with the business, including in person or by telephone, mail or email. So if a person enrolled online, the company must provide an online click-to-cancel option to make it easy for consumers to easily unsubscribe.

“At a time when too many in our community are struggling, unwanted subscription renewals can really add up. AB 2863 is the most comprehensive ‘Click to Cancel’ legislation in the nation,  ensuring Californians can cancel unwanted automatic subscription renewals just as easily as they signed up — with just a click or two,” Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo, D-Chatsworth, who authored the bill, said last year after it was signed into law.

“California is setting a model for the nation on protecting consumers from unnecessary charges — giving them more control over their finances and helping to ensure fair business practices, providing a win for both consumers and small businesses.”

Kirby joins former NFL player Chris Kluwe and Huntington Beach Councilmember Gracey Van Der Mark, who have already declared their candidacies for the open seat in 2026.

Kirby grew up in Riverside County and spent 12 years as a U.S. Coast Guard petty officer. After leaving the Coast Guard in 2023, he founded Krieger Gaming, a veteran and first responders nonprofit that aims to connect people experiencing mental health problems or facing isolation to come together through video games.

“One of my deep passions is mental health and actually getting people the help they need,” Kirby, a Huntington Beach resident, said.

Kirby recently earned a bachelor’s degree in science and environmental science from the American Military University. But in mid-June — after watching the military intervention during the protests in L.A. and growing unhappy with what he called the Trump administration’s “misuse of power” — Kirby said he decided to run for office.

“Prior to that, I had no interest in being a politician,” Kirby said. “But I feel like this is going to be the best way for me to actually push forward ideas that I believe are going to benefit all Californians, not just picking sides or playing party politics.”

Kirby, who is running as a Democrat, said he has always been unaffiliated with a political party, but running as an independent would pit him against both parties. He said his voting behavior and platform mostly align with the Democratic Party.

His priority focus is protecting individual and constitutional rights, especially the freedom of speech and the importance of giving everyday citizens a voice, he said. Kirby also wants to improve the problem of homelessness in the 72nd Assembly District.

“We have all of these things that we’re not actually solving, we’re just moving them around from place to place,” Kirby said.

In addition to focusing on mental health and protecting the coastlines and water systems, Kirby said he wants to invite the people affected by state legislation into the lawmaking process itself.

“I want to start a program that I want to push forward to the state of California, where we peer review all of our documents,” Kirby said. “It should be peer reviewed by people that it affects.”

The 72nd Assembly District spans from Seal Beach to Laguna Beach and juts inland to include  Aliso Viejo, Lake Forest and Laguna Woods. Assemblymember Diane Dixon, R-Newport Beach, is running for a spot on the Orange County Board of Supervisors.

Like Kirby, Kluwe — a former player for the Minnesota Vikings — is also a first-time candidate. He announced his bid for election after his recent arrest during a Huntington Beach City Council meeting regarding the installation of a plaque with a MAGA acrostic outside the city library.

Van Der Mark was the first to announce her campaign for the open Assembly seat. She sits on the Huntington Beach City Council and previously served one year as the city’s mayor.

That’s the goal Sen. Catherine Blakespear has set to get every unsheltered and homeless person off the streets with her bill meant to increase temporary housing options.

SB 16 from Blakespear, a Democrat who represents communities in southern Orange County, which she calls “ambitious,” underwent some revisions last week.

It would require cities and counties that receive funding from the state’s Homeless, Housing, Assistance and Prevention grant program to provide a five-year plan to get to functional zero for street homelessness. Those plans would need to include “very specific and concrete” details for interim housing and other solutions, Blakespear said.

“The idea behind that is we’re spending a lot of money on homelessness and it’s going in a lot of different directions, but the most devastating is our street homelessness crisis,” said Blakespear. “Those are the people who are suffering and dying on our streets, and we need to be working with urgency to address that particular program.”

Orange County’s 2024 point in time count — a process that occurs every two years to help determine the number of people who are homeless — determined 4,173 people were living on the streets. An additional 3,149 were considered homeless but sheltered.

That count was a 28% increase from 2022.

Getting people off the street is in line with what constituents want, Blakespear said, but it hasn’t been prioritized by the state legislature in terms of policies of funding.

So part of the focus with SB 16 is recognizing that permanent housing — with or without supportive services — is extremely time-consuming and costly to build, Blakespear said, and a greater focus needs to be on interim housing.

Blakespear considers her bill to be an accountability measure because it requires very specific information from cities and counties, and it also lays out clear roles and responsibilities for counties and cities.

She said she’s been “extremely frustrated” in her 12 years in elected office — Blakespear has served in the state legislature since 2023; she previously served as Encinitas’ mayor and on its city council — wth the lack of progress to get people off the streets.

Her bill, she said, “requires rethinking some things that have been our fixed pillars” when it comes to addressing homelessness.

“I think we need to open our minds and our understanding to say that if somebody is able to sleep inside with a pillow and a bathroom and a sink to wash their hands, that is housing, that is substantially better than the street,” said Blakespear. “We should be OK funding that and feel good about the fact that someone is inside.”

In addition to requiring plans and setting responsibilities, SB 16 also would provide cities and counties with Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) credit for interim housing units for the acutely low-income category and provide nonprofits with a welfare tax exemption for using their own land for interim housing.

According to Blakespear’s office, interim housing can be constructed for as low as $50,000 a unit for municipalities versus $650,000 for a permanent housing unit.

The bill is scheduled for a hearing before the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee on Wednesday, July 2.

In other news

• The Senate last week unanimously passed a resolution from Sen. Steven Choi, R-Irvine, commemorating the 75th anniversary of the Korean War.

“On this solemn anniversary, we recommit ourselves to the cause of peace, the pursuit of reunification and the duty to remember,” Choi said in a statement. “We will continue to honor our veterans, educate future generations and work toward a future in which no Korean child grows up in the shadow of war.”

• The Assembly Business and Professions Committee gave the OK to a bill meant to expand access for animals to get health services. From Sen. Dave Cortese, D-Silicon Valley, the bill permits registered veterinary technicians to conduct vaccine and parasite control appointments in many animal shelters.

Assemblymember Phillip Chen, R-Yorba Linda, is a member of that committee and voted in favor of the bill.

The legislature forwarded the spending plan to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who signed it on Friday evening, June 27.

But the governor also made clear that adoption of the budget would be contingent on legislators sending him a plan that would make it easier to build housing in the state. The legislature has until Monday to send along the housing construction bill to the governor, with the new fiscal year starting on Tuesday.

Faced with a $12 billion deficit, state officials relied on a combination of cost-cutting measures, borrowing and the use of reserve funds in putting together the 2025-26 budget.

Below, we highlight just a few areas of the budget that will impact Southern Californians — from health care, transportation and public safety to support for Hollywood’s entertainment industry and firefighters.

Medi-Cal

Under the budget agreement, individuals 19 and older with “unsatisfactory immigration status” would no longer be allowed to enroll in Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid, beginning in January.

Current Medi-Cal enrollees can remain on the state’s health insurance plan for low-income people, but those 19 or older with “unsatisfactory immigration status” would lose dental coverage starting in July 2026.

In addition, undocumented individuals ages 19 to 59 would have to pay $30 a month in premiums starting in July 2027. Newsom previously proposed charging $100 a month to adults without legal status enrolled in Medi-Cal, beginning in 2027.

A number of Democrats opposed the governor’s plan to make changes to Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented immigrants when he proposed it in May. But Newsom and Democratic legislative leaders ultimately agreed to a budget that included some changes.

Democratic state Sen. María Elena Durazo of Los Angeles broke with her party, though, and voted “no” on the health care changes, calling them a betrayal of immigrant communities.

California last year extended health care benefits to all low-income adults, regardless of immigration status. But more people signed up than anticipated, costing the state billions more than anticipated.

Funding for firefighters

The budget appropriates $39 million in the upcoming fiscal year and $78 million in subsequent years to transition seasonal Cal Fire firefighters to year-round employees, as called for under SB 581, the Fight for Firefighters Act championed by state Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg.

“Wildfire season is 365 days per year. We need a modern-day staffing plan that makes CalFire full-time, too, and we’re doing just that with the state budget,” McGuire said.

The Senate leader said California will transition 760 nine-month seasonal firefighters to full-time positions next year, with more to come in future years. In addition, the state has plans to hire thousands of new firefighters in future years.

“Bottom line: This investment will save lives and make our state more wildfire safe,” McGuire said.

The budget also includes $10 million to pay for increased wages for incarcerated firefighters.

Although AB 247, a bill by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, D-Los Angeles, to increase pay for incarcerated firefighters, still needs final approval from the legislature, funding for it has been included in the budget in anticipation of the bill’s passage.

Currently, incarcerated firefighters working through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Conservation (Fire) Camp Program earn $5.80 to $10.24 per day, plus an extra $1 per hour when responding to an active emergency. That amounts to $29.80 a day during an active emergency for someone at the lowest end of the pay scale.

AB 247 would increase these firefighters’ pay to the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour while assigned to an active fire incident. The hourly wage rate would be updated annually.

A previous version of the bill called for paying incarcerated firefighters $19 an hour, but was later revised down. The latest bill version passed out of the Assembly earlier this month and is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Public Safety Committee on July 8.

Public safety

The budget agreement will provide $100 million to help implement Proposition 36, a tough-on-crime initiative that voters overwhelmingly approved last year. The measure makes shoplifting a felony for repeat offenders, increases penalties for certain drug charges and gives judges the authority to order people with multiple drug charges into treatment.

Advocates of the measure, which include sheriffs, district attorneys and probation officers, said the amount budgeted isn’t enough. Some have estimated it would cost about $400 million for the first year of the program.

Assemblymember Diane Dixon, R-Newport Beach, criticized the budget for failing to fully fund Proposition 36.

“The supermajority Democrats continue to prioritize funding for wasteful and never-ending multi-billion-dollar pie in the sky items like the high speed rail and Medi-Cal for undocumented immigrants,” she said in a statement, adding that it “does nothing to reduce rising gas prices for Californians” nor “adequately address the basic needs of Californians.”

Transportation

Legislative leaders negotiated with Newsom to drop his initial plan to cut $1.85 billion in transportation funding, restoring $1.1 billion back into the budget.

That includes approximately $326.2 million for various LA Metro projects and $44.8 million to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority for projects to enhance its Inland Empire-Orange County and San Bernardino lines, according to figures provided by Eli Lipmen, executive director of Move LA, an organization that advocates for public transit.

In addition, the restored funding meant that approximately $196.6 million earmarked for various transportation projects within Anaheim and Irvine, and another $40.5 million previously awarded to the Riverside County Transportation Commission, were saved from the chopping block, according to the figures Lipmen shared.

The restoration of transportation funds was a major win for transit advocates.

In March, Assemblymember Mark González, D-Los Angeles, along with state Sen. Jesse Arreguín, D-Berkeley, had requested $2 billion in flexible funding over the next two fiscal years to address the operating shortfalls of transit agencies throughout the state.

At the time, González and other Assembly members sent a letter emphasizing the importance of continuing to invest in transit-related infrastructure as the greater L.A. region prepares to host the World Cup in 2026 and the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2028.

In addition to the restored $1.1 billion, the state will provide a $750 million interest-free loan to prop up transit agencies in the Bay Area while legislators and transit advocates work on a future ballot measure calling for a regional tax to fund the area’s public transit systems, said Stefan Elgstrand, a spokesperson for Arreguín.

Although no such loan was extended to LA Metro, Elgstrand said the Southern California transit agency could seek other loan opportunities.

Lipmen, meanwhile, said the push for funding to enhance transportation services ahead of the Olympics will be fought another day.

“We still need funding for the Olympics. … (LA) Metro is still stuck in a very bad position. That’s definitely still an issue, but it’s being pushed to next year,” said Lipmen, referring to future budget talks.

Film and television tax credit

California’s investment in its film and television tax credit program will more than double in the new fiscal year, an idea which Newsom had been pitching since last fall.

State officials, as well as local officials in and around Los Angeles who support bumping up the allocation from $330 million to $750 million, say it’s critical for California to modernize this tax credit program to remain competitive with other states and countries where shooting a show or movie is cheaper.

A number of film crews and production companies have relocated out of California in recent years. Advocates say these relocations have hurt not only the Hollywood industry but have also resulted in lost economic activity that has negatively impacted local economies more broadly.

Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur, D-Hollywood, lead author of a bill to expand the film and television tax credit program, on Friday called the move a “historic investment” in the creative economy and for working families and small businesses.

“We’re not just restarting production — we’re rewriting the script to put workers back at the center of California’s entertainment future,” he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

While President Donald Trump’s administration was making life “incredibly difficult” for Californians with ICE raids, tariffs and federal spending cuts, Assembly Democrats have “delivered a budget that protects California,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said in a statement.

“It cuts red tape to build more housing faster — because housing is the foundation of affordability and opportunity,” Rivas said. “It preserves critical investments in health care, women’s health, education and public safety. And it honors our commitment not to raise taxes on families, workers or small businesses.”

Republican State Sen. Roger Niello, vice chair of the senate budget and fiscal review committee, said Democrats “categorically” excluded members of his party from budget negotiations this year, and are ignoring the state’s long-term “structural deficit” with a budget agreement that doesn’t make enough cuts.

“They have said that they hope for a miracle in revenues,” Niello told Bay Area News Group, “and I’ve said that a budget that’s passed on hope is a budget that’s in trouble.”

California lawmakers overspent on a major expansion of health care coverage to immigrants living in the country without legal status, and with President Donald Trump’s tariffs, the trade-reliant state’s leaders were expecting a $12 billion budget deficit. That could climb as high as $24 billion in the years to come, according to state lawmakers.

However, the budget deal announced earlier this week pares back the extension of Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid, to immigrants living without legal status in California. The expanded benefits were a priority for Democrats last year, when the state became one of the first in the U.S. to make all immigrants without legal status eligible for the low-income health care program.

In his proposed May budget revision, Newsom called for steeper cuts to Medi-Cal coverage for such immigrants, including a $100 monthly premium.

Those cost savings were softened in this week’s deal. Starting in 2027, most of those immigrants with coverage will be charged a $30 monthly premium. But the state will still pause new enrollment of those adult immigrants starting in 2026. And Medi-Cal will no longer cover dentist visits for those immigrants already on the public health plan.

The Legislature’s influential Latino Caucus had reportedly opposed the rollback. A spokesperson for caucus leader Sen. Lena Gonzalez did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

The budget agreement comes with a catch: it hinges on the ability of lawmakers to pass substantial reforms to the California Environmental Quality Act by Monday night — a priority for Newsom this session. Lawmakers were advancing legislation to do so on Friday, setting up a potential showdown. CEQA has paralyzed housing and infrastructure construction in the Bay Area and beyond.

Democrats who control the Legislature are balancing the budget with a combination of money transfers, reserves and deferred payments. The deal taps more than $7 billion from the state’s rainy day fund — 40% of that fund — and $6.5 billion from other reserves. It also transfers about $1.3 billion combined to the state’s general fund from the state’s key cap-and-trade climate program and a climate spending bond that voters approved last year.

With those reductions, the state will spend $228 billion from the general fund in the next year. That’s up from $212 billion in general fund spending during the current budget cycle and $223 billion the year prior, when California faced a whopping $68 billion deficit.

Housing and homelessness

After Newsom initially proposed not extending funding for a program that helps cities and counties combat homelessness — angering many local officials — he agreed to set aside $500 million toward the effort. However, that still only amounts to half the $1 billion the program received last year.

Additionally, the budget agreement keeps $620 million in loans and grants for affordable housing construction that Newsom had originally put on the chopping block.

Another negotiating point was funding for Proposition 36, a tough-on-crime ballot measure that voters overwhelmingly approved in November. Newsom opposed the measure and declined to include funding for it in his May budget proposal. But the latest agreement includes $100 million to support the new law, with money going to drug treatment and county courts. Still, some local officials maintain it’s not enough.

Climate and environment

To help fill the budget deficit, Newsom and lawmakers agreed to shift some funding from Proposition 4, a $10 billion climate bond approved by state voters in November, and from the proceeds of the state’s cap-and-trade climate auctions, to “back fill” environmental and wildfire expenses normally funded by the state’s general fund.

But the budget agreement still leaves several major environmental issues undecided, including Newsom’s plans to streamline approval for a $20 billion tunnel under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to make it easier to move water from Northern California to Southern California. It’s a contentious plan. Newsom could still strike a separate deal before the end of the legislative session on Sept. 12 to speed the project, which has been proposed for decades.

The budget deal also defers action on the cap-and-trade program, which requires factories, power plants and other large emitters of greenhouse gases to buy permits for each ton they emit. It generates $3 billion to $5 billion a year for the state and is set to expire in 2030. There is an ongoing debate in Sacramento between the administration, lawmakers and interest groups over how much of that money should fund high speed rail, forest thinning to reduce wildfires, or programs that benefit people living in urban areas, including efforts to reduce heat illness and other types of air pollution.

The budget agreement does not reauthorize the cap-and-trade program and leaves many of those questions unanswered for later in the session or next year.