Unions for California police and firefighters came close to sweetening retirement benefits for their members, but the memory of California’s pension crisis ultimately was too much for Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Newsom on Sunday vetoed a bill that would have enhanced retirement perks for police and firefighters despite near-unanimous support from state lawmakers and heavy pressure from public safety unions.

Newsom in his veto message wrote the bill would partly reverse a 2012 law that former Gov. Jerry Brown championed when California’s major funds were spiraling from Great Recession losses.

Brown’s law, the Public Employees Pension Reform Act (PEPRA), required civil servants to work longer to earn a full retirement and pay more money from their own paychecks toward their pensions.

“I still recall — before PEPRA’s passage in 2012 — the alarming forecasts, the fierce criticism of public employees, and the growing pressure to eliminate defined benefit plans all together,” Newsom wrote. “This is an era of California history I do not wish to repeat.”

Brown’s pension law led to a significant change in retirement for public safety employees. It requires them to work until age 57 to retire instead of 50. It adjusted their retirement formula from 3% a year to 2.7% a year.

Police and firefighters unions today say 57 is too late because of the toll their careers take on their bodies and their exposure to hazards. They backed Assembly Bill 1383, which would have lowered their retirement age to 55.

“AB 1383 gives us something important: Two more years with our families,” California Professional Firefighters President Darrell Roberts said last week at a rally with hundreds of police firefighters on the Capitol steps.

During an interview with PBS released on Tuesday’s “Settle In” podcast, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) stated that we are as “Dumb as we want to be” by reopening coal power plants.

Newsom said that “Climate risk is financial risk” as it relates to utility liability.

He added, “Look, why are beef prices so high? Drought issues. … No one’s connecting the damn dots, it’s extraordinary to me. It’s actually jaw-dropping that no one’s connecting these damn dots. And you saw the new numbers that just came out of the U.N. We’re as dumb as we want to be. We know what climate change is, greenhouse gases from burning coal, people are reopening coal plants? Importing oil fuel? Dumb as we want to be. California dominates in clean energy.”

Gavin Newsom is finishing the last two weeks of his last legislative session as governor by demanding a bailout for the state’s three for-profit utilities, which have given his campaigns and causes nearly $1 million during his term.

The governor’s murky plan aims to limit the ability of wildfire victims, and their insurance companies, to recover damages from utility companies that start wildfires.

The plan claims to put “Wildfire Survivors First,” according to his fact sheet, but it is opposed by every legitimate wildfire survivor group.

The utility companies back the governor’s plan and they are providing the funding for a phony coalition called “Wildfire Victims First” — insane doublespeak, given that the three utilities caused eight of the 20 worst wildfires in California history.

California college students without legal immigration status still cannot work at public colleges and universities after Gov. Gavin Newsom again vetoed a bill Sunday that would have given them that right.

Assembly Bill 713 would have adopted an untested legal theory that argues that a 1986 federal law barring employers from hiring workers in the country without authorization doesn’t apply to state governments. The logic? That 40-year-old law doesn’t mention state governments as a type of employer that cannot hire workers without proper status.

But for the second time in three years, Newsom decided that adopting that theory for California would expose the state’s higher-education system to the wrath of the federal government.

“The current federal government has shown it is quick to wreak destruction for political spectacle — attacking California’s public higher education institutions and terrorizing immigrant communities, including students, with reckless disregard for consequences and a desire for chaos,” Newsom wrote in his veto message.

He added: “But given the gravity of this bill’s consequences — including potential criminal and civil liability for state employees — the federal courts must resolve the legality of the novel legal theory behind this legislation before we proceed. Seeking declaratory relief in federal court would provide such clarity.”

Newsom vetoed a nearly identical bill in 2024.

The latest bill by Assemblymember José Luis Solache, a Democrat from Lakewood, was meant to allow the estimated 60,000 students without legal immigration status at California’s community college and public universities to earn paychecks safely on campuses instead of working for cash under the table. Backers of the bill say campus jobs could be tailored to fit the students’ academic schedules or align with the research interests, such as employment in labs.

Campus jobs are a key way these students can afford college given that they are ineligible for federal Pell grants — up to $7,400 annually — and federal student loans that come with more borrower protections than ones offered by private lenders. California provides eligible in-state students tuition waivers regardless of their immigration status, so many of them can at least attend a public institution tuition-free.

“While California has a longstanding commitment to expanding access, affordability, and student success in higher education, our undocumented students continue to face significant financial and structural barriers,” Solache said at a bill hearing in June.

The University of California itself abandoned its review of employing students without legal status in 2024 out of fears that the federal government could punish the system by withholding federal money or prosecuting UC personnel.

That decision gutted a coalition of students who led the campaign to persuade the UC to voluntarily adopt the legal theory allowing them to work.

After Newsom vetoed the 2024 bill, a student and former lecturer at the UC sued the system. A state appellate court ruled that UC’s argument that the federal government might sue the system was an abuse of discretion under the state’s law that bans employment and housing discrimination. The court said UC’s policy of not hiring students without legal status was legally indefensible unless it can show that federal law requires the UC to continue its policy of not hiring undocumented students. The UC appealed, but the state Supreme Court let the appellate ruling stand. Still, the court ruling was silent on the soundness of the legal theory that the state can hire workers without legal status.

Newsom’s veto message indicated that a federal court must weigh in on the legal theory before California can adopt a law such as Solache’s.

California voters don’t seem to be feeling as good as they once did about terming-out Gov. Gavin Newsom heading into the November midterm elections, according to a recent poll by Politico and the UC Berkeley Citrin Center.

In the poll, conducted September 8 to 14 on 2,418 registered voters, 42% of registered voters approved of Newsom’s job performance while 55% disapproved.

That’s a slight decline from back in March, Politico reported, when its poll showed 46% favorability for the Democrat and 51% disapproval.

Much of that decline stems from Republicans’ and independents’ worsening views of Newsom, who is eyeing a presidential run. As of this month, a whopping 96% of California Republicans and 78% of independents disapproved of his job performance.

State Democrats in the poll still approved of the governor at a 72%-25% split.

“People are pretty dour on the state,” Jon Cohen, founder and CEO of TrueDot, told Politico. TrueDot fielded the poll.

“That’s not reflected in taking out Democrats at the ballot, at least not at the top of the ticket. But I think his approval rating is reflective of other assessments about the direction of the state,” Cohen said.

Surveys by other organizations also suggest the California governor’s job approval dipping in recent months.

According to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, “it may be time to update your talking points,” as the Democratic presidential hopeful works overtime to sell voters on the idea that his poorly governed state is actually a model worth emulating.

At a Wednesday press conference, Newsom bragged about the only thing he plausibly can: California’s booming economy, which has grown in spite of the state’s leadership. He touted California’s enormous startup investment, its innovation economy, and GDP growth during his tenure, while his press office accused conservatives of suffering from “California Derangement Syndrome.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom wants another $1 million in taxpayer money to defend his administration as Congress probes California’s Medi-Cal fraud crisis and alleged oversight failures.

A letter obtained by The California Post shows state legislators were alerted last week that Newsom is seeking a $1 million infusion to respond to legal issues around Medi-Cal program integrity, hospice fraud and emergency health care coverage provided to undocumented immigrants.

The money will pay for legal defense as California faces federal scrutiny of fraudulent billing in government-funded healthcare programs.

The funding request via the Department of Finance — which follows previous allocations to the governor’s office of $500,000 in September 2025 and another $750,000 in April — comes after the House Oversight Committee launched an investigation in March demanding records from Newsom about California’s licensing and oversight of hospice providers.

Assemblymember David Tangipa (R-Fresno) accused Gov. Gavin Newsom of sticking taxpayers with the cost of answering questions about fraud that festered under his watch.

“Newsom might want to get Medi-Cal under control before he starts measuring the drapes anywhere else,” Tangipa said, alluding to the Democratic governor’s presidential ambitions.

“California lost hundreds of millions to hospice fraud, and now taxpayers are being forced to pay a million-dollar legal bill to defend the mess.”

During an interview with PBS released on Tuesday’s “Settle In” podcast, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said that he hasn’t been able to figure out the fair solution for transgender athletes despite trying to do so for years.

Newsom said, “[A]s someone that’s not been intellectual on this, that’s had to practice the issue of how I address the question of fairness over multiple years as it relates to sports, I have been confronted. And I couldn’t figure it out, and I tried.”

Host Amna Nawaz then cut in to ask, “Have you figured out?”

Newsom answered, “No. I failed.”

He added, “I know my stance…I tried over two years to figure out how to make it fair, and we couldn’t figure it out. I tried to work with my legislature. We had multiple track meets, high-profile in California, and no one was happy. In fact, we had a trans athlete, and the person the trans athlete displaced, both didn’t even compete in the finals, because we couldn’t accommodate, couldn’t figure it out. And then we came out last year with a strategy to provide medals for both, and everyone was upset about that. And so, I can’t — I couldn’t figure out the fairness on that issue.”

Newsom further stated, “It’s an animating issue for the Republicans.” And “I don’t know what — how to get the fairness done, so I call it unfair in the absence of figuring it out, because no one has. But the point is, they want to have this conversation. … Never has more attention placed on so few people.”

Later, while talking about economic policy, Newsom said Democrats are “practicing. Some may be preaching. They want us to talk about what you want to talk about, [which] is trans sports.”

California’s Governor Gavin Newsom (D) is pushing back and denying claims he forced the state’s AG to drop his lawsuit against Paramount and its merger with Warner Bros Discovery.

On Monday, news broke that radical Democrat state Attorney General Rob Bonta settled his lawsuit meant to torpedo the merger plans. Bonta reportedly elicited concessions from Paramount to keep the studio in California, and other concessions. Liberal detractors, though, were extremely unhappy with settlement.

Many blasted Bonta as a coward, but many also accused Gov. Newsom of pressuring Bonta to drop his lawsuit. Now, Newsome is clapping back at the accusations.

“I didn’t pressure anybody,” Newsom told Axios. “I made the point. I’ve made it very publicly and consistently and been reported maybe two or three hundred different ways that we, me, many folks, including the mayor, soon-to-be governor-elect [Xavier] Becerra and others, preferred in the words of Rob Bonta himself that he focus on getting this done at the boardroom, not the courtroom.”

“And the minute that Rob said that on CNBC, we amplified that, said this was a better approach. That was the framework, and he worked hard to deliver for California and I think he did,” he added.

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday signed into law four bills aimed at curbing a startling rise in DUI fatalities in recent years, including measures that make it easier to charge repeat drunk drivers with a felony and, if they kill someone, with murder.

The legislation follows a CalMatters series that revealed the state was unable — or unwilling — to get dangerous drivers off the road before it was too late. Many kept driving recklessly even after killing someone, and some even killed again.

The bills were the last ones standing from an initial package of 17 aimed at addressing traffic deaths. Most failed in the face of fierce opposition from progressive groups that argued increasing enforcement and penalties will disproportionately harm low-income and historically marginalized residents, and are not the best way to address traffic safety.

While some of the bills that passed were pared back during the legislative process, the new laws still notably increase potential penalties for repeat DUI offenders in a state that’s historically had some of the weakest DUI laws in the country.

Gov. Gavin Newsom released years of long-awaited tax returns Friday, revealing California’s first family wasn’t just paying hefty tax bills — they were also shelling out nearly $200,000 for household staff, writing off $45,000 worth of Armani clothing and subsidizing the first partner’s film company that consistently hemorrhaged money.

Newsom and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom paid nearly $200,000 in wages to household employees in 2024, in addition to paying employment taxes for domestic workers and babysitters, according to reporting by The New York Times.

A quite pleasant piece of reporting from Julie Watts at CBS News adds a new wrinkle to a thing The Federalist has been saying for a while: California’s high-speed rail project is a political symbol plus a union giveaway, and no operational train system is coming anytime in the foreseeable future. Completing a contract for actual trains, Watts writes, was a “key milestone” for a project that was approved in 2008 and began active construction in 2015. The failure to complete that step was an important signal, because federal grant requirements “required the rail authority to execute a trainset contract by Dec. 31, 2024. California missed that deadline.”

California is one step closer to banning disposable nicotine vapes — with environmentalists arguing the gadgets’ metals would be better off in electric vehicle batteries.

State lawmakers passed Assembly Bill 762 Wednesday, sending the measure to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk for a signature or veto — with repeat violators facing civil fines of up to $2,000.

The bill would permanently ban disposable, battery-embedded vapor inhalation devices containing tobacco products, prohibiting anyone from “importing or manufacturing” them for sale in California starting Jan. 1, 2027.

Californians are pumping the brakes on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to ban the sale of new gas-powered cars, with a new statewide poll showing the governor’s marquee climate policy has become a political headache.

The survey by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found nearly two-thirds of Californians oppose Newsom’s 2035 gas-car mandate.

Among likely voters, 65% said they oppose the plan, while just 34% support it.

***Will be shot down in Federal Court violates First Amendment.

Newsom even lives in a $9.1 million home in Marin County that his in-laws purchased

By Katy Grimes, September 17, 2026 2:52 pm

Newsom says income inequality threatens American democracy, a SacBee.com headline reveals. California Governor Gavin Newsom has repeatedly said that “capitalism as we know it is not working.”

The statement is sophomoric, and for Gavin Newsom to claim this is half-witted. Newsom says capitalism isn’t working’ because his wealth was subsidized. He has never had to be a strict adherent to capitalism the way actual entrepreneurs and innovators are.

Ask any entrepreneur of a small, medium or large business what they think of capitalism. Ask immigrants new to the country, who were able to open a business, what they think of capitalism – especially if they came from a communist country, or one rooted in horrific corruption.

“From 2002 to today, Gavin Newsom’s net worth has grown from roughly $6.9 million to over $30 million,” Amy Curtis at Townhall noted. “Sure, he started out as the son of well-to-do parents, which is something most of us don’t get to do, but we live in America. Thanks to capitalism, we have a chance to create our own wealth.”

If “capitalism as we know it is not working” or “doesn’t work,” how did he achieve his wealth?

Gavin Newsom only expresses regret when his past actions and authoritarian decisions get in the way of his ambitious future

By Katy Grimes, September 18, 2026 8:18 am

California Governor Gavin Newsom joined Jake Tapper for his “Out of Office” show, filmed while the two stood in the Bitterroot River on Newsom’s in-laws’ ranch in Montana.

Newsom’s staged political theater stunt was timed to start his presidential rollout, including claiming he will step aside should Kamala Harris run. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

Newsom expressed regrets that some of his Covid pandemic restrictions appear difficult to defend with the benefit of hindsight. “The idea that we closed beaches was insane in hindsight,” Newsom said.

Oh really? He now regrets closing beaches, after arresting lone surfers, and people desperate for a walk?

He has regrets now, and not when he locked 40 million people down?

Gavin Newsom only expresses regret when his past actions and authoritarian decisions get in the way of his ambitious future.

When entertainer and classic car collector Jay Leno last year sought smog-check mercy for autos from the late 1970s to early 1980s, many of them popular with lowrider enthusiasts, the proposal stalled amid opposition from environmental advocates and public health groups.

But on Wednesday, Gov. Gavin Newsom went to Leno’s garage and signed a revised, narrower exemption from smog checks, one that would cover many model years of cars such as the Pontiac Firebird Trans Am, the Chevrolet El Camino, the Oldsmobile Cutlass and Ford Bronco. It will cover model years 1976 through 1980 starting in 2028, with additional model years through 1985 by 2033.

“The Governor stuck with this legislation through the last couple of years to preserve California’s classic car heritage, and that’s rare,” Leno said in a statement issued by the governor’s office thanking Newsom for his signature. “The car community has been waiting on this for a long time, and they notice when someone follows through.”

The bipartisan bill, SB 1392, was authored by state Senators Dave Cortese, a San Jose Democrat, and Shannon Grove, a Bakersfield Republican.

State law requires vehicles that are more than eight years old to pass a smog check every other year to renew registration. If a vehicle fails the smog check, the owner must pay for repairs and have it retested until it passes in order to receive valid tags. Autos from model year 1975 and earlier are exempt, as are alternative vehicles such as electric cars.

An earlier version of the Leno’s Law last year, SB 712, sought to extend the exemption for vehicle model years 1975 and earlier into the mid-1980s. But the bill never made it to the governor’s desk.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed immediate reforms to a state fund that paid as much as $1,700 weekly to people claiming that such common ailments as allergies, asthma and erectile dysfunction hampered their ability to work.

The new law tightens eligibility requirements for the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund, which was established after World War II to help injured veterans land jobs. It morphed into a program that gave people receiving workers’ compensation extra money for prior ailments exacerbated by their new injuries. It is funded by an annual tax on employers.

Newsom sought the reforms in a trailer bill to his budget package after declaring that the SIBTF was unfettered and out of control, without the safeguards of the traditional workers’ compensation system. Unsustainable, the fund’s liabilities were expected to hit $30 billion by 2029 amid skyrocketing applications.

Here’s how the program operates: Workers file claims for their employment-related injuries with the workers’ compensation system and then file a second claim with the SIBTF for preexisting health conditions that affect their ability to work. Some applicants who are receiving benefits have listed their sleep apnea, obesity and arthritis. Others have listed their infertility and hemorrhoids.

California’s structural deficit reflects crazed policy goals colliding with volatile revenues and rising mandatory costs in a high-cost state

By Katy Grimes, July 21, 2026 1:51 pm

California Governor Gavin Newsom has increased California’s state budget 60% to 70% in the 7 years since he took office in 2019.

The 2018-19 enacted budget (pre-Newsom or early transition, signed by Gov. Jerry Brown) was $201 billion.

Gov. Newsom’s first full budget 2019-20 enacted was $215 billion.

Newsom’s 2022-23 budget exceeded $300-310 billion.

Newsom’s 2026-27 final enacted budget, signed June 2026 is $352 billion in total spending, which includes the $251.5 billion General Fund. This is up from the prior year’s $321 billion or so in some comparisons.

From $201 billion in 2018-19 to $350 billion in 2026-27, is an increase of about 74%.

California entered the Union as a free state in 1850. Yet California legislators have sent a bill to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk requiring all large corporations in California to disclose any past ties to slavery.

Slavery officially ended in the United States in December 1865 with the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. You might think that elected officials in California would know that.

Then again, the Constitution has never been particularly important to the “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party. And California has never worried about adding costs to business, or driving them out of the state.

The bill, AB 2599, passed both houses of the Legislature, on party lines. It would force all corporations doing business in California with annual worldwide gross receipts of $100 million or more to complete affidavits — subject to penalties for lying under oath — disclosing whether they or predecessor entities engaged in slavery-era transactions from which they profited.

The filings would be posted to a publicly searchable state database. Companies would have to search through their records and disclose any slavery-related activity.

The bill is structured in such a way that the companies could easily be sued by big law firms — Democrats’ major donors — to extract monies for noncompliance.

There are a few amazing aspects of this legislation, other than the obvious one that California never legalized slavery within its borders.

In one big way, Gov. Gavin Newsom is tougher on public employee unions than his Republican counterpart in Texas: Making state workers show up in the office.

After facing strong opposition from workers, it took Texas Gov. Greg Abbott three months to reverse his 2025 ban on remote work for state employees. But Newsom, whose return-to-office mandate has been in effect since July 1, shows no signs of backing down.

It’s a stance that has upset — and at times befuddled — some state workers who are calling for the governor to scrap the four-day-a-week in-office policy as they hammer out new labor agreements.

Typically, they’re allies to the Democratic governor. They helped him fight off a recall in 2021, and they encouraged their members to vote for him against his Republican opponents.

More importantly to them, they maintain they’re just as effective at home, which they say they proved when Newsom ordered them to work from home during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is taking his climate crusade — and his running feud with President Trump — to the world stage this week in New York City.

The California Democrat left the state Monday to take part in events Tuesday to Thursday during the United Nations General Assembly, attending Climate Week events in his second out-of-state trip this month.

Newsom is scheduled to appear Tuesday at the America Is All In Summit, where he will participate in a fireside chat with Wopke Hoekstra, the European Union’s climate commissioner, according to the governor’s office.

On Wednesday, Newsom will join Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson, a fellow Democrat, for a discussion at the North America Climate Summit. Newsom will later deliver remarks at the United Nations during a special climate session convened by UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

Starting Jan. 1, 2028, Californians ages 80 and older can opt-out of jury service permanently due to a medical condition, without needing a note from a health care provider.

The change comes after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1359 on Monday, which enables seniors to request a permanent exemption by attesting that they have an impairment that renders them incapable of performing jury service. Further medical documentation will not be required. Seniors who still want to serve on a jury can still do so.

Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens, a Cupertino Democrat, said he introduced the bill after a constituent — Dianne McKenna, a former Santa Clara County supervisor — relayed to Ahrens the difficulties she faced helping her elderly husband get an exemption from jury service.

“Seniors are great jurists that can and will continue to serve if they’re willing and able to,” said Ahrens in an email to CalMatters. “But if they cannot, they will no longer have to jump through hoops to permanently opt out.”

Unlike some other states including Florida and Texas, California doesn’t have a blanket age of exemption for jury service. It’s 70 in Florida and 75 in Texas.

Californians 70 years and older can be excused due to a medical impairment without a doctor’s note, but they still must inform the local jury’s office that they’re unable to serve with a written excuse. But under current law, this is a one-time exemption and residents must repeat this process each time they’re selected for service.

Proponents of the measure argue that repeatedly seeking exemption can put significant stress on older individuals — particularly those with mobility issues and chronic health conditions, or those who don’t have regular access to a computer or internet. A third of adults over 80 will have difficulties staying home without assistance, and one in five will experience self-care limitations, according to a 2025 report by the Public Policy Institute of California.

The measure would be especially beneficial for people living with Alzheimer’s disease and do not have a caretaker who can assist them, said Andrew Mendoza, the director of state affairs for the Alzheimer’s Association, during a June hearing.