In these divided times, Californians of both stripes have been comforted by how readily its most recent Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and current Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom have come together—especially when it came to standing up to (Republican, as if you didn’t know) President Donald Trump. But that Golden State alliance ended this week, after Newsom announced a plan to redistrict California in response to a Trump-inspired gerrymandering scheme in Texas.
For months now, Trump’s team has been lobbying GOP lawmakers and governors to redraw state maps to ensure a Republican House majority in the 2026 midterm elections. In Indiana, for example, Trump asked Gov. Mike Braun to call for a special legislative session to redistrict the Hoosier state, even sending Vice President JD Vanceto implore leaders to convene.
Braun—who Trump relegated to the kids’ table during his star-studded inauguration—has yet to make a decision on the matter, but his counterpart in Texas, Greg Abbott, is all in on the plan, with a special redistricting session planned for this week that could net the GOP five more House seats.
ICE agents march to LA’s Edward R. Roybal Federal Building after a show of force outside Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Thursday, Aug 14 press conference in support of a special election to redistrict California.
Carlin Stiehl/Getty Images
In response, Newsom announced his own redistricting proposal Thursday, saying via X that he will call a special election “to redraw our Congressional maps and defend fair representation.” At a press conference on Thursday to promote the November 4 vote, Newsom explained that redrawing California’s electoral map would generate five Democratic house seats, effectively negating any Texas gains. It’s a move that the state must make “in reaction to a president of the United States that called a sitting governor of the state of Texas and said ‘find me five seats,’” Newsom said.
“I know they say don’t mess with Texas. Well, don’t mess with the great Golden State,” Newsom said, even as Trump appeared to do just that: Armed and masked ICE agents assembled just outside Newsom’s press event to promote the redistricting effort, a show of force that LA Mayor Karen Bass described as “completely unacceptable” and Newsom pointed to as proof that California’s redistricting is the only way forward. The ICE agents’ presence was “pretty sick and pathetic,” Newsom told reporters, describing it as everything one needs to know “about Donald Trump’s America.”
That scene must have sent chills down the spine of Newsom’s fellow Californian, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Terminator star, who had Newsom’s current job from November 17, 2003, to January 3, 2011, was born shortly after World War II to a member of the Nazi party—a group that, under Trump, has experienced a significant revival. “My father was, and so many other millions of men were, sucked into a hate system through lies and deceit. And so, we have seen where that leads,” Schwarzenegger said in a 2023 interview.
THE WAY WE WERE: Then-California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom joke around at Schwarzenegger’s ceremony to sign the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 to reduce greenhouse emissions. Though the GOP has threatened to roll back the many of the protections promised in that act, Schwarzenegger remains a member of the Republican party.
OpenAI has named labor leader Dolores Huerta and three others to a temporary advisory board that will help guide the artificial intelligence company’s philanthropy as it attempts to shift itself into a for-profit business.
Huerta, who turned 95 last week, formed the first farmworkers union with Cesar Chavez in the early 1960s and will now voice her ideas on the direction of philanthropic initiatives that OpenAI says will consider “both the promise and risks of AI.”
The group will have just 90 days to make their suggestions.
“She recognizes the significance of AI in today’s world and anybody who’s been paying attention for the last 50 years knows she will be a force in this conversation,” said Daniel Zingale, the convener of OpenAI’s new nonprofit commission and a former adviser to three California governors.
Huerta’s advice won’t be binding but the presence of a social activist icon could be influential as OpenAI CEO Sam Altman attempts a costly restructuring of the San Francisco company’s corporate governance, which requires the approval of California’s attorney general and others.
Another coalition of labor leaders and nonprofits recently petitioned state Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, to investigate OpenAI, halt the proposed conversion and “protect billions of dollars that are under threat as profit-driven hunger for power yields conflicts of interest.”
OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, started out in 2015 as a nonprofit research laboratory dedicated to safely building better-than-human AI that benefits humanity.
It later formed a for-profit arm and shifted most of its staff there, but is still controlled by a nonprofit board of directors. It is now trying to convert itself more fully into a for-profit corporation but faces a number of hurdles, including getting the approval of California and Delaware attorneys general, potentially buying out the nonprofit’s pricy assets and fighting a lawsuit from co-founder and early investor Elon Musk.
Backed by Japanese tech giant SoftBank, OpenAI last month said it’s working to raise $40 billion in funding, putting its value at $300 billion.
Huerta will be joined on the new advisory commission by former Spanish-language media executive Monica Lozano; Robert Ross, the recently retired president of The California Endowment; and Jack Oliver, an attorney and longtime Republican campaign fundraiser. Zingale, the group’s convener, is a former aide to California governors including Democrat Gavin Newsom and Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger.
“We’re interested in how you put the power of AI in the hands of everyday people and the community organizations that serve them,” Zingale said in an interview Wednesday. “Because, if AI is going to bring a renaissance, or a dark age, these are the people you want to tip the scale in favor of humanity.”
The group is now tasked with gathering community feedback for the problems OpenAI’s philanthropy could work to address. But for California nonprofit leaders pushing for legal action from the state attorney general, it doesn’t alter what they view as the state’s duty to pause the restructuring, assess the value of OpenAI’s charitable assets and make sure they are used in the public’s interest.
“As impressive as the individual members of OpenAI’s advisory commission are, the commission itself appears to be a calculated distraction from the core problem: OpenAI misappropriating its nonprofit assets for private gain,” said Orson Aguilar, the CEO and founding president of LatinoProsperity, in a written statement.
In San Mateo County, leaders have asked Gov. Gavin Newsom to declare a state of emergency over the home insurance crisis as homeowners scramble to find solutions.
In a remote part of the county, there’s a good chance you’ll find Patricia O’Coffey outside her home, working hard on a number of tasks to ensure it has enough defensible space.
“It is getting harder each year. It’s true of this whole community. A lot of us moved out here when we were much younger,” she said.
Keeping her home as fire-safe as possible is a routine task for her. But it’s not the threat of fire that causes her constant anxiety.
“We’re not going to renew you,” she said.
Those are the words she heard back in 2019 from her longtime insurance provider.
“We’d been with Allstate for 40 years – this house, a prior house, and all of our vehicles and homes. And just two weeks before it was time to pay the renewal, we get the letter saying they’re not going to renew us. No reason given. Just, ‘We’re not going to renew you,’” O’Coffey said. “I mean, when we got cancelled by Allstate, we were paying less than $4,000, I believe. And it went up to $20,000.”
She ultimately was able to get a new plan with State Farm, with a premium of around $6,000. But now, with insurers including State Farm leaving California, and others raising premiums sky high and limiting coverage, O’Coffey is nervous she will once again get dropped.
“Thousands of people are losing their insurance on a regular basis,” she said. “It’s very unnerving. You just never know. If you have a mortgage, you’ve got to have insurance.”
It’s not just people who live in some of the more fire-prone parts of the county and state that are at risk of losing their policies, or have already had their policies cancelled.
“People are facing this problem and they’re facing it every day,” said San Mateo County Supervisor Ray Mueller. “We need help.”
He says he routinely hears from people who live in his district who are experiencing the fallout of the insurance crisis.
“I just want to figure out how we can go ahead and bring resources to help them,” he said.
That’s why he and the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors joined the growing list of California counties to urge Governor Newsom to declare a state of emergency for California’s insurance crisis.
“Right now, we have an emergency taking place. It may not be visible to the eye, but people in our district are experiencing it every single day,” he said. “It allows the state to actually bypass the rulemaking process and go ahead and start implementing actions right now and requirements on the insurance market. That’s what we really need.”
Since 2022, seven of the top 12 insurance companies operating in California have either cut existing policies or stopped writing new ones, according to the Department of Insurance.
The Department is working on implementing a plan that it believes will expand coverage and bring insurance companies back to California. However, Mueller says there needs to be a solution sooner.
“What is happening right now, the state has embarked on a process through the Department of Insurance to address this crisis. But, the implementation of what comes out of that isn’t really set to take effect until 2026, which is far too off in the future,” he said. “If people have to wait until 2026, what it means is I’m going to have residents in my district who have to go without insurance.”
O’Coffey says she can understand why insurance companies are raising rates, to a degree. The climate is changing. Wildfires have ravaged California in recent years. However, she says the status quo is not acceptable.
Over the course of her 30 years living in the mountains, she says there have been two fires. She says the CZU division of Cal Fire made residents change their approaches to taking care of their properties.
“It did wake everybody up. Most people were not into home hardening and defensible space before that. They are now,” she said.
Her community has since taken major proactive steps to become a nationally recognized fire-wise community as well.
“It feels like the insurance companies are making these arbitrary decisions not based on the facts of the real situation on the ground,” she said. “They’re not going to come out here and inspect my property before they decide to renew me or cancel me.”
Worst case scenario, she’ll have to leave the place she never planned on leaving – something many people facing this threat may also be considering.
“If they can’t get insurance, they’re going to leave California. That affects the economy of California and our future,” she said.
The insurance issue is also having a significant impact on home sales. In a new survey by the California Association of Realtors, 13% of realtors, or one in seven, reported a sale falling out of escrow because the buyer couldn’t find insurance.
That number nearly doubled year-over-year. It’s gotten so bad that this past summer, the Association added a contingency to home sales that lets the buyer bail out of the contract if they aren’t satisfied with the insurance options available.
SACRAMENTO — Governor Gavin Newsom announced last month that California’s Organized Retail Crime Task Force (ORCT) had made more than 1,000 arrests in 2024. For more than a month, CBS News California has been trying to find out what happened to those people after their arrests.
No one – not the Governor’s Office, the attorney general, nor the California Highway Patrol (CHP), which runs California’s task force – could tell us how many of the people arrested for retail theft were sentenced, let alone how many showed up to court, went to jail, received treatment, or re-offended. None of the agencies could even provide the names of those 1000+ people, so we could not independently track them down.
The CHP did provide arrest statistics, which reveal that out of the 1,126 arrests made by the Organized Retail Crime Task Force as of early October, more than half (684) were cite-and-releases, which means those offenders received the equivalent of the ticket and a notice to appear in court. District Attorneys say many of those people never show up in court.
RELATED:
A week before California voters decide on the tougher-on-crime Proposition 36, Gov. Newsom held a virtual news conference Monday to announce that more than 10,000 arrests over the past year by local law enforcement agencies statewide. These arrests were for various crimes, but he attributed them to the hundreds of millions of dollars California invested in cracking down on organized retail theft (ORT) last year.
Newsom awarded approximately $267 million worth of grants to 55 California cities and counties in October 2023. The governor said that money “has generated 10,128 arrests and counting just from the local law enforcement efforts.” Of those arrests there were “nearly 8,000 for organized retail theft,” according to the governor’s office.
However, what the governor couldn’t quantify for reporters on Monday is what happened after those arrests were made. CBS News California has learned that no one is keeping track.
What happens to the retail theft offenders?
“They come out with this big press release, they announce all these arrests, and then, poof, you don’t know what happens,” former Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert said in response to the Governor’s press release.
Schubert is the co-chair of the Yes on Proposition 36 campaign, a ballot measure that would strengthen penalties for certain theft and drug crimes. She has been critical of the state’s attempt to crack down on retail crime and points to the CHP data, which show more than 60% of people arrested by the retail crime task force were cited and released.
“When they’re given a ticket, 50-75% of them never even show up [to court],” Schubert said. She pointed to statistics cited by the Sacramento County Sheriff and District Attorney’s offices, which show the county currently has more than 30,000 bench warrants for people who don’t show up.
“That tells you 30,000 people have never come to court,” she explained. “If you took that number and expanded it statewide, we’re probably talking hundreds of thousands.”
“They spend all this money and get no consequences,” Schubert said, referring to the state money spent on these investigations and arrests.
“Crime does pay”
In some cases, people are arrested, especially for large-scale organized retail theft crimes that can take years to investigate.
Michelle Mack ran a 21-county, multi-million dollar retail crime ring out of her San Diego mansion. She paid women to steal high-end cosmetics and handbags from stores like Sephora and Ulta, which she then sold on Amazon.
Mack and her husband, Kenneth Mack, were among the thousands of arrests publicized by Newsom.
Both of the Macks pleaded guilty and faced up to five years in prison. The judge ordered the Macks to pay more than $3 million in restitution and stay away from Ulta and Sephora stores.
CHP says the agency spent years and hundreds of man-hours investigating the crimes.
“Crime is paying for these folks, and they know it,” Schubert said. “You have to hold them accountable because if not, then guess what? Crime does pay.”
However, Captain Jonathan Staricka, a CHP special operations commander, argues that there is value in the arrest alone.
“What we can’t see and what we can’t measure is how much did we prevent by making that arrest,” Staricka said. “Do you feel that there’s a success rate when we arrest this many individuals? Or was it better when we didn’t?“
Schubert agreed with Staricka on that point.
“I give credit to CHP for the work that they’re doing,” Schubert stressed. “But if we’re going to spend these resources… [the state has] to follow through.”
Fountain had two prior violent convictions and, according to state prison records, would have still been in prison on the date of his latest arrest if he’d served his full sentence for his previous crimes. However, he was released from prison with credits more than two years early under California’s prison crediting system.
He had several other new pending cases when the Attorney General’s office charged Fountain with 29 counts last year, including charges for violent felonies and organized retail theft. The Attorney General then dismissed all but one of those charges, including the charge of Organized Retail Theft.
We reached out to Bonta’s office to ask about his decision to dismiss the 28 charges. A spokesperson for the attorney general explained that several factors are weighed in prosecutorial decisions, including the public safety risk a defendant would pose, what the available evidence is, the interests of the victim, and any risk associated with probation or incarceration in a plea bargain.
“Based on all these factors, this state prison sentence was an appropriate disposition,” the spokesperson concluded.
Fountain pled guilty to just one robbery charge and received a six-year prison sentence, but it’s not clear how much time he’ll serve.
Records show Fountain is currently serving one year in county jail for a separate case prosecuted by the Los Angeles County District Attorney. When he is transferred to state prison at the end of that sentence, he’ll arrive with an eight-month credit for time served. Then, he’ll likely receive an additional one-third to one-half sentence reduction based on California’s current prison crediting system under Proposition 57, which was passed by voters in 2016.
“To give him one count and dismiss the rest is not only outrageous. That individual deserves probably no less than 20 years in state prison. He’s a dangerous human being, Schubert said, adding, “Crime is paying for these folks, and they know it.”
Organize Retail Theft
Many district attorneys argue that California’s Organized Retail Theft (ORT) statute, amended by California lawmakers in 2021, is not an effective tool to charge offenders because it’s too complicated to prove.
Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig called it a “junk statute,” explaining that it requires evidence of multiple complex elements that are rarely established by investigations and simply do not exist in the vast majority of retail crimes.
Data provided by the California District Attorneys Association indicates that most California counties had zero felony ORT convictions in 2023. Even large counties like Sacramento, San Bernadino, Santa Clara, and Ventura show single-digit ORT convictions.
Notably, in the Fountain case, the Attorney General’s office dismissed the one ORT charge.
Of 36 recent organized retail theft defendants publicized by California Attorney General Rob Bonta in press releases from his office, CBS News California identified sentencing information for roughly half.
A CBS News California analysis found that roughly a quarter of those who were sentenced received probation without jail time. Sentences for the remaining defendants ranged from two days to 10 years. However, the one 10-year sentence was based on multiple carjacking and other violent convictions, not the organized retail theft conviction.
What happened to the others arrested this year for retail crime?
Fountain and the Macks are just a few of the recent organized retail theft ring leaders who were arrested for their crimes. In most cases, tracking down the sentencing information is a complicated multi-agency process.
CBS News California spent weeks cross-referencing records through multiple agencies and sources to find out what happened to the three suspects featured in this story. Even officials at the agencies we worked with had difficulty finding accurate information.
So, what happened to the other 1000+ people arrested by California’s Organized Retail Crime Task Force?
CHP Captain Jonathan Staricka said that is “a complicated question.”
Staricka explained that after task force officers make an arrest, they hand the case off to prosecutors, and if there’s a conviction, the case is then tracked by the state prison system, county jails, or the probation department, depending on the sentence. Centralizing that data would be challenging, he noted.
Proposition 36 “is a separate conversation”
Strengthening penalties for retail theft and cracking down on repeat offenders are part of what supporters of Proposition 36 hope the ballot measure will accomplish.
Specifically, they argue that increased penalties under Prop 36 will result in fewer people being cited and released and more people actually being arraigned for alleged crimes.
However, despite being questioned repeatedly Monday about the initiative, Newsom stressed that Proposition 36 “is a separate conversation” from organized retail theft and the statistics from the CHP task force.
“I hope you’ll take a good look at progress,” Newsom continued. “We hope that will continue again, separate and above anything that happens with that initiative.”
We wanted to ask the governor what it would take for him to direct one of his state agencies to publically track what happens to the thousands of people arrested for retail theft in California, including how many show up to court, are sentenced, receive treatment, or re-offend. However, his team did not select us to ask a question.
“Why is it so difficult to get this information out of our attorney general or out of our governor, who’s taking this very proactive role saying that we’re cracking down on organized retail theft?” Schubert questioned. “Why is it so hard?”
Gov. Newsom’s office did not respond to our request for comment or to our repeated requests for an interview.
Julie Watts is a national-award-winning investigative correspondent for CBS News, covering California. Her investigations, Capitol accountability reports, and solutions-oriented journalism air weekly on CBS stations across California.
Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled a proposal on Sunday to increase the state’s film incentive to $750 million, responding to calls to boost the struggling industry.
At a press conference at Raleigh Studios in Los Angeles, Newsom said it was important to “send a statement” by more than doubling the subsidy, which is currently set at $330 million.
“We needed to be big and bold,” Newsom said, flanked by supporters from labor. “We’re in a position where we can afford this, and we need to do this.”
The increase must be approved by the Legislature next year, and would take effect in July 2025.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass applauded the proposal, saying it would make a “huge difference” in making the state competitive with tax incentives in New York and Georgia.
“Just like we need to do in the World Series, we have to make sure we stay ahead of New York,” Bass said.
Several labor leaders also applauded the move, saying that members have struggled to find employment and some have been forced to move away.
“It’s been rough,” said Alex Aguilar, business manager of LiUNA Local 724, which represents laborers in the industry. “Hollywood is the heartbeat of the entertainment industry and it needs to remain that way.”
The industry has not recovered from the 2023 strikes, as production has fallen well below pre-strike levels in recent months, according to permit data from FilmLA.
The state has long sought to preserve a signature industry from the threat “runaway production” — as studios chase more attractive subsidies in the U.K., Canada, and Australia, and in other U.S. states. New York increased its tax incentive from $420 million to $700 million in 2023, as it fought competition from New Jersey.
“Other states and countries, through tax credits, are aggressively pursuing our jobs and are succeeding,” said Brigitta Romanov, the executive director of the Costume Designers Guild. “We are at risk of losing the industry entirely. Filming needs to stay here.”
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger first approved a subsidy for the film and TV industry in 2009, offering $100 million per year. The figure was increased to $330 million under Gov. Jerry Brown in 2014.
Newsom, first elected in 2018, temporarily increased the incentive by $90 million when the state enjoyed a large pandemic-era surplus in 2021.
Gov. Gavin Newsom is set to announce a proposal on Sunday to bolster the struggling TV and film industry in California, his office said in a statement.
Newsom is due to appear at a studio lot in Los Angeles to make the announcement, along with leaders from the entertainment industry and labor unions. California provides $330 million per year in tax credits to the industry, but that incentive trails behind Georgia, New York and countries like the U.K. and Canada.
The governor is expected to propose an enhancement in the tax credit, which would go through the budget process in the Legislature next year.
Filming in Los Angeles has dropped off dramatically in recent years, according to permit data from FilmLA. Total shoot days in the third quarter of 2024 were 50% lower than the same quarter in 2021, and 36% below the five-year average.
Scripted production ground to a near halt during the actors and writers strikes last year. But the post-strike recovery has stalled and production levels have dropped steadily since the beginning of 2024. Earlier this month, FilmLA called for a “vast expansion” of the film and TV tax credit.
Much of the decline is due to the industrywide contraction, which began before the strikes in 2023 and has continued since, as higher interest rates and weak results in streaming forced a correction.
But industry and political leaders in L.A. have warned that jobs are fleeing to other jurisdictions that offer more generous filming incentives. In California, film and TV productions go through a lengthy application process that examines the job impact of each project. Those who are awarded a credit get either 20% or 25% of their qualified production expenses, which is limited to in-state “below the line” production costs.
In Georgia, the credit is not capped — meaning that productions are essentially guaranteed to receive a 30% rebate on their total costs, including big-ticket “above the line” salaries for actors and directors. That credit has topped $1 billion in recent years, though Georgia also saw a sharp drop in production amid the 2023 strikes.
New York increased its credit from $420 million to $700 million in 2023 to compete with neighboring New Jersey and other jurisdictions.
Nevada is also considering a plan to offer a $100 million incentive toward the construction of a soundstage facility in Las Vegas, and Arizona approved a $125 million program in 2022.
California remains the nation’s largest production hub, but many have expressed fear that its market share is falling as other locations develop infrastructure and a crew base.
“California is home to the largest share of the film and TV economy in the United States,” the governor’s office said Saturday. “Film and TV production in California supports over 700,000 jobs and nearly $70 billion in wages for in-state workers.”
Newsom agreed to a two-year increase in the film credit in 2021, which temporarily lifted the program to $420 million. He also signed into law a separate $150 million incentive for the construction of soundstages.
In 2023, Newsom agreed to extend the program for five years, through 2030, and to make the $330 million credit “refundable.” That amendment allowed companies like Netflix, which do not have significant California tax liability, to redeem the value of the credit in cash.
WASHINGTON (AP) — A child psychiatrist who altered a first-day-of-school photo he saw on Facebook to make a group of girls appear nude. A U.S. Army soldier accused of creating images depicting children he knew being sexually abused. A software engineer charged with generating hyper-realistic sexually explicit images of children.
Law enforcement agencies across the U.S. are cracking down on a troubling spread of child sexual abuse imagery created through artificial intelligence technology — from manipulated photos of real children to graphic depictions of computer-generated kids. Justice Department officials say they’re aggressively going after offenders who exploit AI tools, while states are racing to ensure people generating “deepfakes” and other harmful imagery of kids can be prosecuted under their laws.
“We’ve got to signal early and often that it is a crime, that it will be investigated and prosecuted when the evidence supports it,” Steven Grocki, who leads the Justice Department’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, said in an interview with The Associated Press. “And if you’re sitting there thinking otherwise, you fundamentally are wrong. And it’s only a matter of time before somebody holds you accountable.”
The Justice Department says existing federal laws clearly apply to such content, and recently brought what’s believed to be the first federal case involving purely AI-generated imagery — meaning the children depicted are not real but virtual. In another case, federal authorities in August arrested a U.S. soldier stationed in Alaska accused of running innocent pictures of real children he knew through an AI chatbot to make the images sexually explicit.
Trying to catch up to technology
The prosecutions come as child advocates are urgently working to curb the misuse of technology to prevent a flood of disturbing images officials fear could make it harder to rescue real victims. Law enforcement officials worry investigators will waste time and resources trying to identify and track down exploited children who don’t really exist.
Lawmakers, meanwhile, are passing a flurry of legislation to ensure local prosecutors can bring charges under state laws for AI-generated “deepfakes” and other sexually explicit images of kids. Governors in more than a dozen states have signed laws this year cracking down on digitally created or altered child sexual abuse imagery, according to a review by The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
“We’re playing catch-up as law enforcement to a technology that, frankly, is moving far faster than we are,” said Ventura County, California District Attorney Erik Nasarenko.
Nasarenko pushed legislation signed last month by Gov. Gavin Newsom which makes clear that AI-generated child sexual abuse material is illegal under California law. Nasarenko said his office could not prosecute eight cases involving AI-generated content between last December and mid-September because California’s law had required prosecutors to prove the imagery depicted a real child.
AI-generated child sexual abuse images can be used to groom children, law enforcement officials say. And even if they aren’t physically abused, kids can be deeply impacted when their image is morphed to appear sexually explicit.
“I felt like a part of me had been taken away. Even though I was not physically violated,” said 17-year-old Kaylin Hayman, who starred on the Disney Channel show “Just Roll with It” and helped push the California bill after she became a victim of “deepfake” imagery.
Hayman testified last year at the federal trial of the man who digitally superimposed her face and those of other child actors onto bodies performing sex acts. He was sentenced in May to more than 14 years in prison.
Open-source AI-models that users can download on their computers are known to be favored by offenders, who can further train or modify the tools to churn out explicit depictions of children, experts say. Abusers trade tips in dark web communities about how to manipulate AI tools to create such content, officials say.
A report last year by the Stanford Internet Observatory found that a research dataset that was the source for leading AI image-makers such as Stable Diffusion contained links to sexually explicit images of kids, contributing to the ease with which some tools have been able to produce harmful imagery. The dataset was taken down, and researchers later said they deleted more than 2,000 weblinks to suspected child sexual abuse imagery from it.
Top technology companies, including Google, OpenAI and Stability AI, have agreed to work with anti-child sexual abuse organization Thorn to combat the spread of child sexual abuse images.
But experts say more should have been done at the outset to prevent misuse before the technology became widely available. And steps companies are taking now to make it harder to abuse future versions of AI tools “will do little to prevent” offenders from running older versions of models on their computer “without detection,” a Justice Department prosecutor noted in recent court papers.
“Time was not spent on making the products safe, as opposed to efficient, and it’s very hard to do after the fact — as we’ve seen,” said David Thiel, the Stanford Internet Observatory’s chief technologist.
AI images get more realistic
The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children’s CyberTipline last year received about 4,700 reports of content involving AI technology — a small fraction of the more than 36 million total reports of suspected child sexual exploitation. By October of this year, the group was fielding about 450 reports per month of AI-involved content, said Yiota Souras, the group’s chief legal officer.
Those numbers may be an undercount, however, as the images are so realistic it’s often difficult to tell whether they were AI-generated, experts say.
“Investigators are spending hours just trying to determine if an image actually depicts a real minor or if it’s AI-generated,” said Rikole Kelly, deputy Ventura County district attorney, who helped write the California bill. “It used to be that there were some really clear indicators … with the advances in AI technology, that’s just not the case anymore.”
Justice Department officials say they already have the tools under federal law to go after offenders for such imagery.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 struck down a federal ban on virtual child sexual abuse material. But a federal law signed the following year bans the production of visual depictions, including drawings, of children engaged in sexually explicit conduct that are deemed “obscene.” That law, which the Justice Department says has been used in the past to charge cartoon imagery of child sexual abuse, specifically notes there’s no requirement “that the minor depicted actually exist.”
The Justice Department brought that charge in May against a Wisconsin software engineer accused of using AI tool Stable Diffusion to create photorealistic images of children engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and was caught after he sent some to a 15-year-old boy through a direct message on Instagram, authorities say. The man’s lawyer, who is pushing to dismiss the charges on First Amendment grounds, declined further comment on the allegations in an email to the AP.
A spokesperson for Stability AI said that man is accused of using an earlier version of the tool that was released by another company, Runway ML. Stability AI says that it has “invested in proactive features to prevent the misuse of AI for the production of harmful content” since taking over the exclusive development of the models. A spokesperson for Runway ML didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from the AP.
In cases involving “deepfakes,” when a real child’s photo has been digitally altered to make them sexually explicit, the Justice Department is bringing charges under the federal “child pornography” law. In one case, a North Carolina child psychiatrist who used an AI application to digitally “undress” girls posing on the first day of school in a decades-old photo shared on Facebook was convicted of federal charges last year.
“These laws exist. They will be used. We have the will. We have the resources,” Grocki said. “This is not going to be a low priority that we ignore because there’s not an actual child involved.”
__
The Associated Press receives financial assistance from the Omidyar Network to support coverage of artificial intelligence and its impact on society. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org
Supporters of Proposition 36 say it will force people into treatment and get them off the street. Opponents, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, argue that it will fill up jails and mark a return to the 1980s war on drugs.
CBS News California took a closer look at the drug component of the high-profile ballot measure to fact-check those claims and analyze the concerns.
Will Proposition 36 revive drug treatment courts?
To understand this debate, you must go back ten years to November 2014 when California voters passed a different ballot measure: Proposition 47.
Proposition 47 made hard drug possession a misdemeanor instead of a felony and, along with other reforms like Assembly Bill 109 and Proposition 57, helped reduce the state’s prison population. End-of-year data from the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation show that from December 2014 to December 2023, California’s prison population dropped by more than 40,000.
However, court data suggests there were also unintended consequences. CBS News California analyzed county data from across the state and found a consistent drop in drug court participation after Proposition 47 was approved.
For instance, Sacramento County saw more than an 80% drop in drug court participation between 2015 and 2023. However, much of that drop came after the pandemic.
Yolo County’s drug court caseload dropped from 270 cases in 2015 to just three in 2023.
In Santa Clara County, drug court participation dropped so low that the county stopped tracking drug court cases and merged its drug court and mental health court.
While there is no reliable statewide drug court data, a 2020 survey from the Center for Court Innovation examined 67 drug courts in California. The average participation rate across those drug courts dropped from 51% to 39%.
Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan are among a growing number of high-profile elected Democrats going against Newsom to support the new treatment-mandated felonies for hard drug possession under Proposition 36.
Mahan and Ho say that when California slashed sentences for drug possession, it also reduced the incentive for people to choose court-supervised treatment instead of jail time.
“If you get arrested, it’s a cite-and-release for possession of drugs. It’s a misdemeanor,” Ho said. “And when the judge tells you, ‘You can get two or three days in jail or you can go to a treatment program that’s going to be a year long,’ what are you going to take?”
Under Proposition 36, the first two convictions for drug possession would still be misdemeanors. The third is a treatment-mandated felony, which means the charges would be dismissed if treatment is completed.
With a fourth conviction, a judge could issue a maximum three-year sentence, but only if someone is not eligible for treatment.
“It focuses on repeat offenders, and it allows a judge to give someone a choice between engaging in treatment or detoxing in jail,” Mahan said.
In a statement sent to CBS News California, the No on Proposition 36 campaign claimed that “22 counties have no residential treatment facilities,” echoing a statement made by Newsom in August.
We reached out to the Governor’s Office for clarification on what 22 counties he was talking about. They could not tell us, and instead, we received a link to California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) webinar slides from January 2022, based on information collected during the pandemic, which, according to the state, referenced 22 counties not participating in a specific drug delivery program.
The DHCS said it can confirm that “all but 15 counties (Alpine, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Imperial, Inyo, Lassen, Madera, Mariposa, Modoc, Mono, Plumas, Sierra, Siskiyou, Trinity)” currently have state-licensed residential treatment facilities, and in those counties, “clinics, health facilities, community and residential care facilities, jails and prisons can also offer these services.”
“I also think the voters need to hold the state and county accountable for building the treatment capacity we need,” Mahan said.
Soto DeBerry’s criticisms of Proposition 36 include that there is no funding attached to the ballot measure or a mandate to create sufficient treatment options.
Supporters of Proposition 36 point to a variety of funding sources ranging from Proposition 1’s mental health bonds to opioid settlement funds, but critics say that still won’t be enough.
Soto DeBerry also said that it often takes multiple attempts to successfully get an offender treatment, claiming that “under Prop 36, they won’t get a second chance; they’ll be sent to prison.”
“A person shall not be sentenced to jail or prison pursuant to this section unless a court determines that the person is not eligible or suitable for treatment…”
That brings us back to the governor’s argument that Proposition 36 is about mass incarceration.
For context, there are currently around 90,000 people in state prisons. At its peak in 2006, there were over 170,000 people incarcerated, according to CDCR data.
Getting arrested saved his life
On graduation day in Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Larry Brown’s mental health court, Cesar, whose last name we are omitting, had plenty to smile about.
Cesar was arrested in Sacramento County, which has a robust system of “Collaborative Courts” — including drug court and mental health court — and related treatment programs. While in treatment, his case worker helped find him housing and work.
“I was homeless,” he said. “Nothing would stop me from getting high.”
Cesar attended all of his court-mandated treatment appointments. Completing his program resulted in his conviction being erased.
“I got a second chance in life,” he said.
Cesar’s story is a powerful example of the potential of California’s treatment courts.
“I didn’t know another life until I got arrested,” Cesar said. “And I quit cold turkey. Now, I’m sober. Now, I see how a real man feels.”
Proposition 36 supporters point to stories like Cesar’s in their argument that it will result in more people receiving treatment and getting off the streets.
Julie Watts is a national-award-winning investigative correspondent for CBS News, covering California. Her investigations, Capitol accountability reports, and solutions-oriented journalism air weekly on CBS stations across California.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Oil company Phillips 66 announced Wednesday that it plans to shut down a Los Angeles-area refinery by the end of 2025, citing market concerns.
The refinery accounts for about 8% of California’s refining capacity, according to the state’s Energy Commission. The company said it will remain operating in the state.
“With the long-term sustainability of our Los Angeles Refinery uncertain and affected by market dynamics, we are working with leading land development firms to evaluate the future use of our unique and strategically located properties near the Port of Los Angeles,” CEO Mark Lashier said in a statement. “Phillips 66 remains committed to serving California and will continue to take the necessary steps to meet our commercial and customer demands.”
The closure will impact 600 employees and 300 contractors who help operate the refinery, the company said in a news release. The refinery consists of two facilities that were built more than a century ago.
The announcement comes days after Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law aimed at preventing gas prices from spiking at the pump. The law authorizes energy regulators to require refineries to maintain a certain level of fuel on hand. The goal is to avoid sudden increases in gas prices when refineries go offline for maintenance.
Phillips 66’s decision to close was not related to the new law, the company said. It said it supported the state’s efforts to keep certain levels of fuel on hand to meet consumer needs.
The company also operates a refinery near San Francisco that accounts for about 5% of California’s refining capacity, according to the state Energy Commission. Phillips 66 Santa Maria, a refinery that was located about 62 miles (100 kilometers) northwest of Santa Barbara, shut down in 2023 after the company announced plans to convert its San Francisco-area site into “one of the world’s largest renewable fuels facilities.”
Newsom has applied pressure on lawmakers to pass oil and gas regulations. He called the state Legislature into a special session in 2022 to pass legislation aimed at cracking down on oil companies for making too much money. The Democrat often touts California’s status as a climate leader. The state has passed policies in recent years to phase out the the sale of new fossil fuel-powered lawn mowers, cars, big rigs and trains.
___
This story has been corrected to show that the Los Angeles-area refinery accounts for about 8% of California’s refining capacity, not that it produces that amount of the state’s crude oil. It has corrected the same error for the San Francisco-area refinery.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — California tenants who held Section 8 housing vouchers were refused rental contracts by more than 200 landlords, including major real estate firms, according to an undercover investigation that found widespread discrimination in the state.
The investigative nonprofit Housing Rights Initiative announced Tuesday that it has filed complaints with the California Civil Rights Department, alleging landlords violated a state law against denying leases to renters who pay with vouchers. It seeks penalties against 203 companies and individuals.
The nonprofit is also pushing for more state funding to adequately enforce the law, which Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed in 2019.
“This historic filing serves as an opportunity for the Governor and his housing enforcement agency to enforce the very bill he signed into law and hold violators accountable,” the Housing Rights Initiative said in a statement.
Newsom’s office referred comment on the filing to the state Civil Rights Department. Rishi Khalsa, a department spokesperson, said the agency is “deeply committed to using the tools at its disposal to combat discrimination in housing.” The department has reached more than 200 settlements related to similar discrimination in recent years, Khalsa said.
“We always welcome additional support to strengthen enforcement of civil rights and we continue to work with a range of partners in those efforts,” he said in an email Tuesday.
The goal of the Section 8 program, named for a component of the federal Housing Act, is to keep rental properties affordable and prevent homelessness, which has reached crisis levels in California. Under the program, which has a long waiting list, tenants typically pay about 30% of their income on rent, with the voucher covering the rest.
Over the course of a year, undercover investigators posing as prospective tenants reached out via text messages to landlords, property managers and real estate agents to determine compliance with California’s fair housing laws. The investigation found voucher holders were explicitly discriminated against 44% of the time in San Francisco. Voucher denials took place in 53% of cases in Oakland, 58% in San Jose, and 70% in Los Angeles.
In one text message exchange, an agent with EXP Realty, a national brokerage firm, tells an investigator posing as a prospective tenant that utilities are included in the monthly rate for a rental unit. When informed that the tenant has a Section 8 voucher, the agent responds, “I don’t work with that program,” according to the investigation.
In another exchange, a broker with Sotheby’s International Realty replies to an investigator posing as a hopeful renter, “Oh sorry, owner not accepting Section 8.”
Representatives for EXP and Sotheby’s didn’t immediately respond Tuesday to emails seeking comment on the claims.
Kate Liggett, program director of Housing Rights Initiative, estimates the filing represents just a fraction of discrimination against Section 8 tenants in California.
“By exposing this widespread and harmful practice, we call on the State to provide agencies like the California Civil Rights Department with the resources they need to eradicate voucher discrimination once and for all,” Liggett said in a statement.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday vetoed a landmark bill aimed at establishing first-in-the-nation safety measures for large artificial intelligence models.
The decision is a major blow to efforts attempting to rein in the homegrown industry that is rapidly evolving with little oversight. The bill would have established some of the first regulations on large-scale AI models in the nation and paved the way for AI safety regulations across the country, supporters said.
Earlier this month, the Democratic governor told an audience at Dreamforce, an annual conference hosted by software giant Salesforce, that California must lead in regulating AI in the face of federal inaction but that the proposal “can have a chilling effect on the industry.”
The proposal, which drew fierce opposition from startups, tech giants and several Democratic House members, could have hurt the homegrown industry by establishing rigid requirements, Newsom said.
“While well-intentioned, SB 1047 does not take into account whether an AI system is deployed in high-risk environments, involves critical decision-making or the use of sensitive data,” Newsom said in a statement. “Instead, the bill applies stringent standards to even the most basic functions — so long as a large system deploys it. I do not believe this is the best approach to protecting the public from real threats posed by the technology.”
Newsom on Sunday instead announced that the state will partner with several industry experts, including AI pioneer Fei-Fei Li, to develop guardrails around powerful AI models. Li opposed the AI safety proposal.
The measure, aimed at reducing potential risks created by AI, would have required companies to test their models and publicly disclose their safety protocols to prevent the models from being manipulated to, for example, wipe out the state’s electric grid or help build chemical weapons. Experts say those scenarios could be possible in the future as the industry continues to rapidly advance. It also would have provided whistleblower protections to workers.
The legislation is among a host of bills passed by the Legislature this year to regulate AI, fight deepfakes and protect workers. State lawmakers said California must take actions this year, citing hard lessons they learned from failing to rein in social media companies when they might have had a chance.
Proponents of the measure, including Elon Musk and Anthropic, said the proposal could have injected some levels of transparency and accountability around large-scale AI models, as developers and experts say they still don’t have a full understanding of how AI models behave and why.
The bill targeted systems that require more than $100 million to build. No current AI models have hit that threshold, but some experts said that could change within the next year.
“This is because of the massive investment scale-up within the industry,” said Daniel Kokotajlo, a former OpenAI researcher who resigned in April over what he saw as the company’s disregard for AI risks. “This is a crazy amount of power to have any private company control unaccountably, and it’s also incredibly risky.”
The United States is already behind Europe in regulating AI to limit risks. The California proposal wasn’t as comprehensive as regulations in Europe, but it would have been a good first step to set guardrails around the rapidly growing technology that is raising concerns about job loss, misinformation, invasions of privacy and automation bias, supporters said.
A number of leading AI companies last year voluntarily agreed to follow safeguards set by the White House, such as testing and sharing information about their models. The California bill would have mandated AI developers to follow requirements similar to those commitments, said the measure’s supporters.
But critics, including former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, argued that the bill would “kill California tech” and stifle innovation. It would have discouraged AI developers from investing in large models or sharing open-source software, they said.
Newsom’s decision to veto the bill marks another win in California for big tech companies and AI developers, many of whom spent the past year lobbying alongside the California Chamber of Commerce to sway the governor and lawmakers from advancing AI regulations.
Two other sweeping AI proposals, which also faced mounting opposition from the tech industry and others, died ahead of a legislative deadline last month. The bills would have required AI developers to label AI-generated content and ban discrimination from AI tools used to make employment decisions.
California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks to the press ahead of the presidential debate between US Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and former US President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on September 10, 2024.
Newsom said the bill “does not take into account whether an AI system is deployed in high-risk environments, involves critical decision-making or the use of sensitive data” and would apply “stringent standards to even the most basic functions — so long as a large system deploys it.”
Newsom said he had asked leading experts on generative AI to help California “develop workable guardrails” that focus “on developing an empirical, science-based trajectory analysis.” He also ordered state agencies to expand their assessment of the risks from potential catastrophic events tied to AI use.
Generative AI — which can create text, photos and videos in response to open-ended prompts — has spurred excitement as well as fears it could make some jobs obsolete, upend elections and potentially overpower humans and have catastrophic effects.
The bill’s author, Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener, said legislation was necessary to protect the public before advances in AI become either unwieldy or uncontrollable. The AI industry is growing fast in California and some leaders questioned the future of these companies in the state if the bill became law.
Wiener said Sunday the veto makes California less safe and means “companies aiming to create an extremely powerful technology face no binding restrictions.” He added “voluntary commitments from industry are not enforceable and rarely work out well for the public.”
“We cannot afford to wait for a major catastrophe to occur before taking action to protect the public,” Newsom said, but added he did not agree “we must settle for a solution that is not informed by an empirical trajectory analysis of AI systems and capabilities.”
Newsom said he will work with the legislature on AI legislation during its next session. It comes as legislation in U.S. Congress to set safeguards has stalled and the Biden administration is advancing regulatory AI oversight proposals.
Newsom said “a California-only approach may well be warranted – especially absent federal action by Congress.”
Chamber of Progress, a tech industry coalition, praised Newsom’s veto saying “the California tech economy has always thrived on competition and openness.”
Among other things, the measure would have mandated safety testing for many of the most advanced AI models that cost more than $100 million to develop or those that require a defined amount of computing power. Developers of AI software operating in the state would have also needed to outline methods for turning off the AI models, effectively a kill switch.
The bill would have established a state entity to oversee the development of so-called “Frontier Models” that exceed the capabilities present in the most advanced existing models.
The bill faced strong opposition from a wide range of groups. Alphabet’s GOOGL.O Google, Microsoft MSFT.O-backed OpenAI and Meta Platforms META.O, all of which are developing generative AI models, had expressed their concerns about the proposal.
Some Democrats in U.S. Congress, including Representative Nancy Pelosi, also opposed it. Proponents included Tesla TSLA.O CEO Elon Musk, who also runs an AI firm called xAI. Amazon AMZN.O-backed Anthropic said the benefits to the bill likely outweigh the costs, though it added there were still some aspects that seem concerning or ambiguous.
Newsom separately signed legislation requiring the state to assess potential threats posed by Generative AI to California’s critical infrastructure.
The state is analyzing energy infrastructure risks and previously convened power sector providers and will undertake the same risk assessment with water infrastructure providers in the coming year and later the communications sector, Newsom said.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — For Johnny Hernandez Jr., vice chairman of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians in Southern California, it was difficult as a kid growing up around San Bernardino to hear two different accounts of the histories of Indigenous peoples in the state.
One account came from his elders and was based on their lived experiences, and another came from his teachers at school and glossed over decades of mistreatment Native American people faced.
“You have your family, but then you have the people you’re supposed to respect — teachers and the administration,” he said. “As a kid — I’ll speak for myself — it is confusing to … know who’s telling the truth.”
Now a bill signed into law by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday requires public schools teaching elementary, middle or high school students about Spanish colonization and the California gold rush to include instruction on the mistreatment and contributions of Native Americans during during those periods. The state Department of Education must consult with tribes when it updates its history and social studies curriculum framework after Jan. 1, 2025, under the law.
“This is a critical step to right some of the educational wrongs,” Hernandez said before the bill was signed.
Newsom signed the measure Friday on California Native American Day, a holiday first designated in the 1990s to honor the culture and history of Indigenous peoples in the state. California is home to 109 federally recognized Indigenous tribes, the second-most in the nation behind Alaska.
“I’m proud of the progress California has made to reckon with the dark chapters of our past, and we’re committed to continuing this important work to promote equity, inclusion and accountability for Native peoples,” Newsom said in statement. “As we celebrate the many tribal communities in California today, we recommit to working with tribal partners to better address their unique needs and strengthen California for all.”
Newsom, who issued a state apology in 2019 for the historical violence against and mistreatment of Native Americans, also signed another 10 measures Friday to further support tribal needs.
Democratic Assemblymember James C. Ramos, the first Native American state lawmaker in California who authored the curriculum bill, said it would build on legislation the state passed in 2022 encouraging school districts to work with tribes to incorporate their history into curricula.
Can’t afford to contribute? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. We hope you’ll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.
“For far too long California’s First People and their history have been ignored or misrepresented,” he said in a statement last month. “Classroom instruction about the Mission and Gold Rush periods fails to include the loss of life, enslavement, starvation, illness and violence inflicted upon California Native American people during those times. These historical omissions from the curriculum are misleading.”
Sophie Austin is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Austin on X: @sophieadanna
Can’t afford to contribute? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. We hope you’ll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will formally apologize for slavery and its lingering effects on Black Americans in the state under a new law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Thursday.
The legislation was part of a package of reparations bills introduced this year that seek to offer repair for decades of policies that drove racial disparities for African Americans. Newsom also approved laws to improve protections against hair discrimination for athletes and increase oversight over the banning of books in state prisons.
“The State of California accepts responsibility for the role we played in promoting, facilitating, and permitting the institution of slavery, as well as its enduring legacy of persistent racial disparities,” the Democratic governor said in a statement. “Building on decades of work, California is now taking another important step forward in recognizing the grave injustices of the past –- and making amends for the harms caused.”
Newsom signed the bills after vetoing a proposal Wednesday that would have helped Black families reclaim or be compensated for property that was unjustly seized by the government through eminent domain. The bill by itself would not have been able to take full effect because lawmakers blocked another bill to create a reparations agency that would have reviewed claims.
California entered the union as a free state in 1850. In practice, it sanctioned slavery and approved policies and practices that thwarted Black people from owning homes and starting businesses. Black families were terrorized, their communities aggressively policed and their neighborhoods polluted, according to a report published by a first-in-the-nation state reparations task force.
Efforts to study reparations at the federal level have stalled in Congress for decades. Illinois and New York state passed laws in recent years creating reparations commissions. Local officials in Boston and New York City have voted to create task forces studying reparations. Evanston, Illinois, launched a program to provide housing assistance to Black residents to help atone for past discrimination.
California has moved further along on the issue than any other state. But state lawmakers did not introduce legislation this year to give widespread direct payments to African Americans, which frustrated some reparations advocates.
He already signed laws included in the reparations package aimed at improving outcomes for students of color in K-12 career education programs. Another proposal the Black caucus backed this year that would ban forced labor as a punishment for crime in the state constitution will be on the ballot in November.
State Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, a Democrat representing Culver City, called legislation he authored to increase oversight over books banned in state prisons “a first step” to fix a “shadowy” process in which the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation decides which books to ban.
The corrections department maintains a list of disapproved publications it bans after determining the content could pose a security threat, includes obscene material or otherwise violates department rules.
The new law authorizes the Office of the Inspector General, which oversees the state prison system, to review works on the list and evaluate the department’s reasoning for banning them. It requires the agency to notify the office of any changes made to the list, and it makes the office post the list on its website.
“We need transparency in this process,” Bryan said. “We need to know what books are banned, and we need a mechanism for removing books off of that list.”
___
Sophie Austin is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Austin on X: @sophieadanna
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — School districts in California will have to create rules restricting student smartphone use under a new law Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Monday.
The legislation makes California the latest state to try to curb student phone access in an effort to minimize distractions in the classroom and address the mental health impacts of social media on children. Florida, Louisiana, Indiana and several other states have passed laws aimed at restricting student phone use at school.
“This new law will help students focus on academics, social development, and the world in front of them, not their screens, when they’re in school,” Newsom said in a statement.
But some critics of phone restriction policies say the burden should not fall on teachers to enforce them. Others worry the rules will make it harder for students to seek help if there is an emergency or argue that decisions on phone bans should be left up to individual districts or schools.
“We support those districts that have already acted independently to implement restrictions because, after a review of the needs of their stakeholders, they determined that made the most sense for their communities with regards to safety, school culture and academic achievement,” said Troy Flint, a spokesperson for the California School Boards Association. “We simply oppose the mandate.”
The law requires districts to pass rules by July 1, 2026, to limit or ban students from using smartphones on campus or while students are under the supervision of school staff. Districts will have to update their policies every five years after that.
The move comes after Newsom signed a law in 2019 authorizing school districts to restrict student phone access. In June, he announced plans to take on the issue again after the U.S. surgeon general called on Congress to require warning labels on social media platforms and their effects on young people.
The governor then sent letters to districts last month, urging them to limit student device use on campus. That came on a day that the board for the second-largest school district in the country, Los Angeles Unified, voted to ban student phone use during the school day beginning in January.
Assemblymember Josh Hoover, a Republican representing Folsom, introduced the bill with a bipartisan group of lawmakers who are also parents.
Phones are restricted where Hoover’s children — ages 15, 12 and 10 — attend school. Many of the students don’t always like the policy, which is in part a reflection of how addictive phones can be, he said.
“Anytime you’re talking about interrupting that addiction, it’s certainly going to be hard for students sometimes,” Hoover said. “But I think overall they understand why it’s important, why it helps them focus better on their classes and why it actually helps them have better social interaction with their peers face to face when they’re at school.”
Some parents have raised concerns that school cellphone bans could cut them off from their children if there is an emergency. Those fears were highlighted after a shooting at a Georgia high school left four dead and nine injured this month.
The 2019 law authorizing districts to restrict student phone access makes exceptions for emergencies, and the new law doesn’t change that. Some proponents of school phone restrictions say it’s better to have phones off in an active shooter situation, so that they don’t ring and reveal a student’s location.
Teachers have reported seeing students more engaged since the Santa Barbara Unified School District began fully implementing a ban on student phone use in class during the 2023-24 school year, Assistant Superintendent ShaKenya Edison said.
Nick Melvoin, a Los Angeles Unified board member who introduced the district’s resolution, said passing the policies at the district or state level can help prevent students from feeling like they’re missing out on what’s going on on social media.
Before student cellphone use was banned during the school day at Sutter Middle School in Folsom, students had been seen recording fights, filming TikTok challenges and spending lunchtime looking at online content, Principal Tarik McFall said. The rule has “totally changed the culture” of the school so that students spend more time talking to one another, he said.
“To have them put away, to have them power off and that be a practice, it has been a great thing,” McFall said.
Teachers have become more reliant in recent years on technology as a learning tool for students, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic, said Mara Harvey, a social studies teacher at Discovery High School in the Natomas Unified School District.
The district, which is in Sacramento, provides students in the first through 12th grades with a Chromebook, where they can access online textbooks and Google Classroom, a platform where teachers share class materials. But if a student forgets their Chromebook at home, their smartphone becomes “the next viable choice for them to access the curriculum,” Harvey said.
___
Austin is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Austin on X: @sophieadanna
You’ve probably seen the word “deepfakes” in the news lately, but are you confident you would be able to spot the difference between real and artificial intelligence-generated content? During the summer, a video of Vice President Kamala Harris saying that she was “the ultimate diversity hire” and “knew nothing about running the country” circulated on social media. Elon Musk, the owner of X, retweeted it. This was, in fact, a deepfake video.By posting it, Musk seemingly ignored X’s own misinformation policies and shared it with his 193 million followers. Although the Federal Communication Commission announced in February that AI-generated audio clips in robocalls are illegal, deepfakes on social media and in campaign advertisements are yet to be subject to a federal ban. A growing number of state legislatures have begun submitting bills to regulate deepfakes as concerns about the spread of misinformation and explicit content heighten on both sides of the aisle. In September, with less than 50 days before the election, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed three bills that target deepfakes directly — one of which takes effect immediately. AB 2839 bans individuals and groups “from knowingly distributing an advertisement or other election material containing deceptive AI-generated or manipulated content.” This ban would take effect 120 days before an election and 60 days after it, an aim at reducing content that may spread misinformation as votes are being counted and certified. “Signing AB 2839 into law is a significant step in continuing to protect the integrity of our democratic process. With fewer than 50 days until the general election, there is an urgent need to protect against misleading, digitally altered content that can interfere with the election,” said Gail Pellerin, the chair of the Assembly Elections Committee.According to Public Citizen, 25 states have now either signed a bill into law that addresses political deepfakes or have a bill that is awaiting the governor’s signature. Do you know how to spot a deepfake?According to cyber news reporter and cybersecurity expert Kerry Tomlinson, “a deepfake is a computer-created image or voice or video of a person, either a person who doesn’t exist but seems real, or a person who does exist, making them do or say something they never actually did or said.”Tomlinson says there are several giveaways to identify a deepfake. Objects and parts of the face, such as earrings, teeth or glasses, may not be fully formed. Pay attention to the breathing. The speaker takes no breaths while speaking. Ask yourself: Is the message potentially harmful or manipulating?Can the information be verified?Ultimately, Tomlinson encourages people to “learn about how attackers are using deepfakes. Learn about how politicians and political parties are using deepfakes. Read about it. It’s as simple as that.”
You’ve probably seen the word “deepfakes” in the news lately, but are you confident you would be able to spot the difference between real and artificial intelligence-generated content?
During the summer, a video of Vice President Kamala Harris saying that she was “the ultimate diversity hire” and “knew nothing about running the country” circulated on social media. Elon Musk, the owner of X, retweeted it. This was, in fact, a deepfake video.
By posting it, Musk seemingly ignored X’s own misinformation policies and shared it with his 193 million followers.
A growing number of state legislatures have begun submitting bills to regulate deepfakes as concerns about the spread of misinformation and explicit content heighten on both sides of the aisle.
AB 2839 bans individuals and groups “from knowingly distributing an advertisement or other election material containing deceptive AI-generated or manipulated content.”
This ban would take effect 120 days before an election and 60 days after it, an aim at reducing content that may spread misinformation as votes are being counted and certified.
“Signing AB 2839 into law is a significant step in continuing to protect the integrity of our democratic process. With fewer than 50 days until the general election, there is an urgent need to protect against misleading, digitally altered content that can interfere with the election,” said Gail Pellerin, the chair of the Assembly Elections Committee.
According to Public Citizen, 25 states have now either signed a bill into law that addresses political deepfakes or have a bill that is awaiting the governor’s signature.
Do you know how to spot a deepfake?
According to cyber news reporter and cybersecurity expert Kerry Tomlinson, “a deepfake is a computer-created image or voice or video of a person, either a person who doesn’t exist but seems real, or a person who does exist, making them do or say something they never actually did or said.”
Tomlinson says there are several giveaways to identify a deepfake.
Objects and parts of the face, such as earrings, teeth or glasses, may not be fully formed.
Pay attention to the breathing. The speaker takes no breaths while speaking.
Ask yourself: Is the message potentially harmful or manipulating?
Can the information be verified?
Ultimately, Tomlinson encourages people to “learn about how attackers are using deepfakes. Learn about how politicians and political parties are using deepfakes. Read about it. It’s as simple as that.”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed off Tuesday on legislation aiming at protecting Hollywood actors and performers against unauthorized artificial intelligence that could be used to create digital clones of themselves without their consent.The new laws come as California legislators ramped up efforts this year to regulate the marquee industry that is increasingly affecting the daily lives of Americans but has had little to no oversight in the United States.The laws also reflect the priorities of the Democratic governor who’s walking a tightrope between protecting the public and workers against potential AI risks and nurturing the rapidly evolving homegrown industry.“We continue to wade through uncharted territory when it comes to how AI and digital media is transforming the entertainment industry, but our North Star has always been to protect workers,” Newsom said in a statement. “This legislation ensures the industry can continue thriving while strengthening protections for workers and how their likeness can or cannot be used.”Inspired by the Hollywood actors’ strike last year over low wages and concerns that studios would use AI technology to replace workers, a new California law will allow performers to back out of existing contracts if vague language might allow studios to freely use AI to digitally clone their voices and likeness. The law is set to take effect in 2025 and has the support of the California Labor Federation and the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, or SAG-AFTRA.Another law signed by Newsom, also supported by SAG-AFTRA, prevents dead performers from being digitally cloned for commercial purposes without the permission of their estates. Supporters said the law is crucial to curb the practice, citing the case of a media company that produced a fake, AI-generated hourlong comedy special to recreate the late comedian George Carlin’s style and material without his estate’s consent.“It is a momentous day for SAG-AFTRA members and everyone else because the AI protections we fought so hard for last year are now expanded upon by California law thanks to the legislature and Governor Gavin Newsom,” SAG-AFTRA President Fran Drescher said in a statement. “They say as California goes, so goes the nation!”California is among the first states in the nation to establish performer protection against AI. Tennessee, long known as the birthplace of country music and the launchpad for musical legends, led the country by enacting a law protecting musicians and artists in March.Supporters of the new laws said they will help encourage responsible AI use without stifling innovation. Opponents, including the California Chamber of Commerce, said the new laws are likely unenforceable and could lead to lengthy legal battles in the future.The two new laws are among a slew of measures passed by lawmakers this year in an attempt to reign in the AI industry. Newsom signaled in July that he will sign a proposal to crack down on election deepfakes but has not weighed in other legislation, including one that would establish first-in-the-nation safety measures for large AI models.The governor has until Sept. 30 to sign the proposals, veto them or let them become law without his signature.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed off Tuesday on legislation aiming at protecting Hollywood actors and performers against unauthorized artificial intelligence that could be used to create digital clones of themselves without their consent.
The new laws come as California legislators ramped up efforts this year to regulate the marquee industry that is increasingly affecting the daily lives of Americans but has had little to no oversight in the United States.
The laws also reflect the priorities of the Democratic governor who’s walking a tightrope between protecting the public and workers against potential AI risks and nurturing the rapidly evolving homegrown industry.
“We continue to wade through uncharted territory when it comes to how AI and digital media is transforming the entertainment industry, but our North Star has always been to protect workers,” Newsom said in a statement. “This legislation ensures the industry can continue thriving while strengthening protections for workers and how their likeness can or cannot be used.”
Inspired by the Hollywood actors’ strike last year over low wages and concerns that studios would use AI technology to replace workers, a new California law will allow performers to back out of existing contracts if vague language might allow studios to freely use AI to digitally clone their voices and likeness. The law is set to take effect in 2025 and has the support of the California Labor Federation and the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, or SAG-AFTRA.
Another law signed by Newsom, also supported by SAG-AFTRA, prevents dead performers from being digitally cloned for commercial purposes without the permission of their estates. Supporters said the law is crucial to curb the practice, citing the case of a media company that produced a fake, AI-generated hourlong comedy special to recreate the late comedian George Carlin’s style and material without his estate’s consent.
“It is a momentous day for SAG-AFTRA members and everyone else because the AI protections we fought so hard for last year are now expanded upon by California law thanks to the legislature and Governor Gavin Newsom,” SAG-AFTRA President Fran Drescher said in a statement. “They say as California goes, so goes the nation!”
California is among the first states in the nation to establish performer protection against AI. Tennessee, long known as the birthplace of country music and the launchpad for musical legends, led the country by enacting a law protecting musicians and artists in March.
Supporters of the new laws said they will help encourage responsible AI use without stifling innovation. Opponents, including the California Chamber of Commerce, said the new laws are likely unenforceable and could lead to lengthy legal battles in the future.
The two new laws are among a slew of measures passed by lawmakers this year in an attempt to reign in the AI industry. Newsom signaled in July that he will sign a proposal to crack down on election deepfakes but has not weighed in other legislation, including one that would establish first-in-the-nation safety measures for large AI models.
The governor has until Sept. 30 to sign the proposals, veto them or let them become law without his signature.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has declared a state of emergency as a fast-moving landslide threatens the city of Rancho Palos Verdes. Evacuations have been ordered and electricity has been cut off to prevent fires. Jonathan Vigliotti reports.
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
Office of the Governor of California, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
By Kenneth Schrupp (The Center Square)
The California legislature passed a bill allowing undocumented immigrants to make use of the state’s $150,000, 0 down, 0 interest home “loans.” The bill now goes to the governor’s desk, where he must either veto or approve the bill by the end of September.
California has one of the worst home shortages in the nation, with an estimated 4.5 million home shortage, and a nearly $1 million median home price.
“Many generational Californians can’t afford to buy a house in their home state thanks to Democrats’ unsustainable economic policies,” said State Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones, R-San Diego, in a statement urging California Gov. Gavin Newsom to veto the bill. “This policy is not only unfair but also sends a dangerous message: ‘Come to California, whether legally or illegally, and claim your $150,000 home loan.’”
The California legislature passed a bill allowing undocumented immigrants to make use of the state’s $150,000, 0 down, 0 interest home “loans.” The bill now goes to the governor’s desk, where he must either veto or approve the bill by the end of September.
California has one of the worst home shortages in the nation, with an estimated 4.5 million home shortage, and a nearly $1 million median home price.
“Many generational Californians can’t afford to buy a house in their home state thanks to Democrats’ unsustainable economic policies,” said State Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones, R-San Diego, in a statement urging California Gov. Gavin Newsom to veto the bill. “This policy is not only unfair but also sends a dangerous message: ‘Come to California, whether legally or illegally, and claim your $150,000 home loan.’”
California would become the fifth state to require public schools to restrict or ban student smartphone use on school grounds under legislation Gov. Gavin Newsom has supported and is expected to sign.
The bipartisan Phone-Free Schools Act — Assembly Bill 3216 — would require school districts to enact smartphone restrictions by July 1, 2026, and review policies every five years. If enacted, California would join Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, South Carolina and Ohio in passing statewide cellphone use restrictions on public school campuses.
“Now is the time to require rather than just authorize all school districts to take measures to not only support student success by limiting or restricting smartphone use but to protect their teenage mental health,” said Democratic Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, who co-authored the bill.
Newsom, who has been very vocal about supporting cellphone restrictions on school grounds, previously approved legislation in 2019 — AB 272 — authorizing school districts to limit or prohibit students’ use of cell phones at school. In June, he said he planned to build on that law to further restrict students’ cell phone use, but did not offer details.
The Phone-Free bill was authored by Muratsuchi of Torrance — who also authored AB 272 — along with Republican Assemblymember Josh Hoover of Folsom and Democratic Assemblymembers David Alvarez of Chula Vista and Josh Lowenthal of Long Beach.
“We’re Democrats and Republicans, but what we all have in common is we’re all parents, and we’ve all seen this firsthand,” Hoover said. “I strongly believe that this is an area of statewide concern.”
Muratsuchi said he introduced AB 272 not only as a state legislator, but as a father of a teenage daughter. Growing research shows a relationship between teenage smartphone use and anxiety, depression and suicide, he said, making the need for smartphone restrictions more important than ever.
The governor’s letter to schools cited a Pew Research survey that found that 72% of high school and 33% of middle school teachers report cell phone distractions as a major problem and a Common Sense Media survey that found that 97% of students use their phones during the school day for a median of 43 minutes.
Hoover said the key difference between AB 3216 and the existing 2019 legislation is that now, every school in the state will be required to pass policies limiting smartphone use during the school day and revise those policies every five years. He said there are no specific requirements for districts in the bill in order to allow flexibility for schools to choose how to restrict or ban cellphone use.
The California School Boards Association, which represents the state’s public trustees, has strongly opposed the bill, which it says does not account for the substantial demographic and ideological differences between the state’s 940 school districts and 58 county offices of education.
Troy Flint, the association’s chief communications officer, said proponents on both sides of the argument are “well-intentioned” and trying to do what is best for student’s safety and mental health.
“We don’t object to cellphone bans in the abstract and we encourage districts to investigate whether that makes sense for them,” Flint said. “We do object to the blanket statewide policy.”
Flint said the association disagrees with Hoover on whether the bill respects local control “to the necessary degree.”
“We have a lot of different situations in California,” he explained. “Kids traveling on a bus an hour to school … Kids with disabilities … This is a rare issue where everyone is well-intentioned and trying in their own way to do what they think is best.”
Hoover confirmed that the Phone-Free Schools Act does not remove any of the current exceptions to existing legislation — including cases of an emergency or when students have permission to use their phone in class.
Existing law also states a student has the right to access their phone in response to a perceived threat of danger, like a school shooting or lockdown.
The bill is supported by the Los Angeles Unified School District — which voted earlier this summer to ban students’ use of phones beginning in 2025 — and the California Teachers Association, one of the state’s major teacher unions.
“Our union has supported improving school environments and restricting the use of smartphones on campuses,” said David Goldberg, the teacher’s association’s president.
Bay Area schools have been split on the issue. Some schools have expressed support over smartphone restrictions, including San Mateo High School, which became a phone-free campus in 2019.
Others, like Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District and Palo Alto Unified School District, have said cellphones are necessary for many families and proposed bans don’t make sense in schools that rely on technology to support students’ learning.
Muratsuchi said smartphones are still relatively new and society still is adjusting to its impacts.
“We need to rethink this culture of constant access to smartphones,” Muratsuchi said, “given the growing evidence of the detrimental impact on student education as well as their mental health.”
