
California leaders approve budget to close $12bn deficit in blow to progressive causes
California lawmakers on Friday approved a budget that pares back a number of progressive priorities, including a landmark healthcare expansion for low-income adult immigrants without legal status, to close a $12bn deficit.
It is the third year in a row the nation's most populous state has been forced to slash funding or stop some of the programs championed by Democratic leaders. This year's $321bn spending plan was negotiated by legislative leaders and the Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom.
Newsom is expected to sign the budget. But it will be void if lawmakers don't send him legislation to make it easier to build housing by Monday.
The budget avoids some of the most devastating cuts to essential safety net programs, state leaders said. They mostly relied on using state savings, borrowing from special funds and delaying payments to plug the budget hole.
California also faces potential federal cuts to healthcare programs and broad economic uncertainty that could force even deeper cuts. Newsom in May estimated that federal policies – including on tariffs and immigration enforcement – could reduce state tax revenue by $16bn.
'We've had to make some tough decisions,' Mike McGuire, the senate president pro tempore, said on Friday. 'I know we're not going to please everyone, but we're doing this without any new taxes on everyday Californians.'
Republican lawmakers said they were left out of budget negotiations. They also criticized Democrats for not doing enough to address future deficits, which could range between $17bn to $24bn annually.
'We're increasing borrowing, we're taking away from the rainy day fund, and we're not reducing our spending,' said Tony Strickland, a Republican state senator, before the vote. 'And this budget also does nothing about affordability in California.'
Here's a look at spending in key areas:
Under the budget deal, California will stop enrolling new adult patients without legal status in its state-funded healthcare program for low-income people starting in 2026. The state will also implement a $30 monthly premium in July 2027 for immigrants remaining on the program, including some with legal status. The premiums would apply to adults under 60 years old.
The changes to the program, known as Medi-Cal, are a scaled-back version of Newsom's proposal in May. Still, it is a major blow to an ambitious program started last year to help the state inch closer to a goal of universal healthcare.
A Democratic state senator, María Elena Durazo, broke with her party and voted 'no' on the healthcare changes, calling them a betrayal of immigrant communities.
The deal also removes $78m in funding for mental health phone lines, including a program that served 100,000 people annually. It will eliminate funding that helps pay for dental services for low-income people in 2026 and delay implementation of legislation requiring health insurance to cover fertility services by six months to 2026.
But lawmakers also successfully pushed back on several proposed cuts from Newsom that they called 'draconian'.
The deal secures funding for a program providing in-home domestic and personal care services for some low-income residents and Californians with disabilities. It also avoids cuts to Planned Parenthood.
Lawmakers agreed to let the state tap $1bn from its cap-and-trade program to fund state firefighting efforts. The cap-and-trade program is a market-based system aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Companies have to buy credits to pollute, and that money goes into a fund lawmakers are supposed to tap for climate-related spending.
Newsom wanted to reauthorize the program through 2045, with a guarantee that $1bn would annually go to the state's long-delayed high-speed rail project. The budget does not make that commitment, as lawmakers wanted to hash out spending plans outside of the budget process. The rail project currently receives 25% of the cap-and-trade proceeds, which is roughly $1bn annually depending on the year.
Legislative leaders also approved funding to help transition part-time firefighters into full-time positions. Many state firefighters only work nine months each year, which lawmakers said harms the state's ability to prevent and fight wildfires. The deal includes $10m to increase the daily wage for incarcerated firefighters, who earn $5.80 to $10.24 a day currently.
The budget agreement will provide $80m to help implement a tough-on-crime initiative voters overwhelmingly approved last year. The measure makes shoplifting a felony for repeat offenders, increases penalties for some drug charges and gives judges the authority to order people with multiple drug charges into treatment.
Most of the fund, $50m, will help counties build more behavioral health beds. Probation officers will get $15m for pre-trial services and courts will receive $20m to support increased caseloads.
Advocates of the measure – including sheriffs, district attorneys and probation officers – said that was not enough money. Some have estimated it would take about $400m for the first year of the program.
Newsom and lawmakers agreed to raise the state's film tax credit from $330m to $750m annually to boost Hollywood. The program, a priority for Newsom, will start this year and expire in 2030.
The budget provides $10m to help support immigration legal services, including deportation defense.
But cities and counties will not see new funding to help them address homelessness next year, which local leaders said could lead to the loss of thousands of shelter beds.
The budget also does not act on Newsom's proposal to streamline a project to create a vast underground tunnel to reroute a big part of the state's water supply.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
21 minutes ago
- Reuters
Even as markets rally, Trump's policymaking causes market angst
June 28 (Reuters) - As Wall Street puts April's tariff shakeout in the rearview mirror and indexes set record highs, investors remain wary of U.S. President Donald Trump's rapid-fire, sometimes chaotic policymaking process and see the rally as fragile. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq composite index advanced past their previous highs into uncharted territory on Friday. Yet traders and investors remain wary of what may lie ahead. Trump's April 2 reciprocal tariffs on major trading partners roiled global financial markets and put the S&P 500 on the threshold of a bear market designation when it ended down 19% from its February 19 record-high close. This week's leg up came after a U.S.-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Iran brought an end to a 12-day air battle that had sparked a jump in crude prices and raised worries of higher inflation. But a relief rally started after Trump responded to the initial tariff panic that gripped financial markets by backing away from his most draconian plans. JP Morgan Chase, in the midyear outlook published on Wednesday by its global research team, said the environment was characterized by "extreme policy uncertainty." "Nobody wants to end a week with a risk-on tilt to their portfolios," said Art Hogan, market strategist at B. Riley Wealth. "Everyone is aware that just as the market feels more certain and confident, a single wildcard policy announcement could change everything," even if it does not ignite a firestorm of the kind seen in April. Part of this wariness from institutional investors may be due to the magnitude of the 6% S&P 500 rally that followed Trump's re-election last November and culminated in the last new high posted by the index in February, said Joseph Quinlan, market strategist at Bank of America. "We were out ahead of our skis," Quinlan said. A focus on deregulation, tax cuts and corporate deals brought out the "animal spirits," he said. Then came the tariff battles. Quinlan remains upbeat on the outlook for U.S. stocks and optimistic that a new global trade system could lead to U.S. companies opening new markets and posting higher revenues and profits. But he said he is still cautious. "There will still be spikes of volatility around policy unknowns." Overall, measures of market volatility are now well below where they stood at the height of the tariff turmoil in April, with the CBOE VIX index now at 16.3, down from a 52.3 peak on April 8. "Our clients seem to have become somewhat desensitized to the headlines, but it's still an unhealthy market, with everyone aware that trading could happen based on the whims behind a bunch of" social media posts, said Jeff O'Connor, head of market structure, Americas, at Liquidnet, an institutional trading platform. Trading in the options market shows little sign of the kind of euphoria that characterized stock market rallies of the recent past. "On the institutional front, we do see a lot of hesitation in chasing the market rally," Stefano Pascale, head of U.S. equity derivatives research at Barclays, said. Unlike past episodes of sharp market selloffs, institutional investors have largely stayed away from employing bullish call options to chase the market higher, Pascale said, referring to plain options that confer the right to buy at a specified future price and date. Bid/ask spreads on many stocks are well above levels O'Connor witnessed in late 2024, while market depth - a measure of the size and number of potential orders - remains at the lowest levels he can recall in the last 20 years. "The best way to describe the markets in the last couple of months, even as they have recovered, is to say they are unstable," said Liz Ann Sonders, market strategist at Charles Schwab. She said she is concerned that the market may be reaching "another point of complacency" akin to that seen in March. "There's a possibility that we'll be primed for another downside move," Sonders addded. Mark Spindel, chief investment officer at Potomac River Capital in Washington, said he came up with the term "Snapchat presidency" to describe the whiplash effect on markets of the president's constantly changing policies on markets. "He feels more like a day trader than a long-term institutional investor," Spindel said, alluding to Trump's policy flip-flops. "One minute he's not going to negotiate, and the next he negotiates." To be sure, traders seem to view those rapid shifts in course as a positive in the current rally, signaling Trump's willingness to heed market signals. "For now, at least, stocks are willing to overlook the risks that go along with this style and lack of consistent policies, and give the administration a break as being 'market friendly'," said Steve Sosnick, market strategist at Interactive Brokers.


Reuters
26 minutes ago
- Reuters
Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
WASHINGTON, June 28 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on Friday granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. "There are not many specifics," said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. "I don't understand it well." She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. "I don't know if I can give her mine," she said. "I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality." Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit, opens new tab in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating "an extremely confusing patchwork" across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. "Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?" she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. "Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason," he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. "He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution," she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. "It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights," said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. "That is really chaotic." Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. "I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born," she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. "She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen," she said. "If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?"


Reuters
30 minutes ago
- Reuters
US Senate Republicans aim to push ahead on Trump's sweeping tax-cut, spending bill
WASHINGTON, June 28 (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republicans will seek to push President Donald Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill forward on Saturday with a procedural vote that could kick off a marathon weekend session. The bill would extend the 2017 tax cuts that were Trump's main first-term legislative achievement, cut other taxes and boost spending on the military and border security. Nonpartisan analysts estimate a version passed by the House of Representatives last month would add about $3 trillion to the nation's $36.2-trillion government debt. Senate Republicans have been deeply divided over plans to partly offset that bill's heavy hit to the deficit, including by cutting the Medicaid health insurance program for low-income Americans. Republicans are using a legislative maneuver to bypass the Senate's 60-vote threshold to advance most legislation in the 100-member chamber. Their narrow margins in the Senate and House mean they can afford no more than three Republican no votes to advance a bill that Democrats are united in opposing, saying it takes a heavy toll on low- and middle-income Americans to benefit the wealthy. Trump has pushed for Congress to pass the bill by the July 4 Independence Day holiday. The White House said early this month that the legislation, which Trump calls the "One Big Beautiful Bill," would reduce the annual deficit by $1.4 trillion. While a handful of Republicans in both chambers have voiced opposition to some of the bill's elements, this Congress has so far not rejected any of the president's legislative priorities. A successful vote to open debate would kick off a lengthy process that could run into Sunday, as Democrats unveil a series of amendments that are unlikely to pass in a chamber Republicans control 53-47. Democrats will focus their firepower with amendments aimed at reversing Republican spending cuts to programs that provide government-backed healthcare to the elderly, poor and disabled, as well as food aid to low-income families. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer summarized the reasons for his party's opposition to the bill at a Friday press conference: "It has the biggest cuts to food funding ever" and could result in more than 2 million people losing their jobs, as he highlighted the Republican rollback of clean energy initiatives ushered in by the Biden administration. Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune stressed the tax-cut components during a Friday speech to the Senate. "The centerpiece of our bill is permanent tax relief for the American people," he said as he showcased legislation that contains a new tax break for senior citizens and other taxpayers. The measure, Thune said, will "help get our economy firing on all cylinders again." It also would raise the Treasury Department's statutory borrowing limit by trillions of dollars to stave off a first-ever default on its debt in coming months. If the Senate manages to pass Trump's top legislative goal by early next week, the House would be poised to quickly apply the final stamp of approval, sending it to Trump for signing into law. But with Senate Republicans struggling to find enough spending cuts to win the support of the party's far right, Trump on Friday loosened the leash a bit, saying his July 4 deadline for wrapping it all up was "important" but "it's not the end-all." Among the most difficult disagreements Senate Republicans struggled to resolve late on Friday was the size of a cap on deductions for state and local taxes and a Medicaid cost-savings that could hobble rural hospitals.