CA lawmakers reserve hundreds of millions for earmarks

Earlier this summer, California lawmakers including Gov. Gavin Newsom worked to close a multibillion-dollar deficit. But a closer look at “pork-barrel spending” raises questions about whether the state’s $325-billion spending plan is going to those who need it most, writes CalMatters’ Ryan Sabalow.

To win the favor of their constituencies and tip the scales for reelection, lawmakers can allocate money to fund projects that benefit their districts. Known as pork-barrel spending, the practice isn’t unique to California lawmakers. But the state’s secretive budget negotiation process makes it difficult to identify what districts benefit from these special earmarks and the legislators behind them.

In one of the state’s 40 budget-related bills that passed this year, Ryan found nearly 100 earmarks that totaled $415 million for local projects. One of the biggest recipients of these earmarks appears to be Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, whose district received more than two dozen earmarks totalling more than $100 million. In addition to funding for hospitals, schools, fire stations and other regional projects, the Santa Rosa Democrat’s district secured $250,000 for a private farm-animal rescue.

Lawmakers also allocated tens of millions of dollars from Proposition 4, a $10-billion climate bond voters approved last year. McGuire’s largest earmarks included $50 million from Prop. 4 for a 320-mile redwood trail that runs across his district. Other Prop. 4 earmarks from other districts include $20 million to help the public access a gated Santa Barbara County beach, and $15 million for “geologic heritage sites.”

With interest and other expenses, taxpayers could spend an estimated $16 billion over the next 40 years to fully repay the bond measure. 

Newsom and the 90 Democrats who control the Legislature approved the budget and its earmarks while keeping state worker positions vacant, suspending some health care benefits and foregoing raises for firefighters.

For Susan Shelley, the vice president of communications for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, politicians like to say, “‘We need money for everything in California,’” she said.

• Shelley: “And what are they spending the money on now? Basically gifts to the districts that make the elected representatives look good and that are not essential or not as essential.”

Read more here.

An apparent miscommunication between Newsom’s administration and a San Francisco lawmaker has led to renewed questions about California’s shift away from its nearly decadeslong “housing first” policy, reports CalMatters’ Marisa Kendall.

In October Newsom spiked a bill that would have allowed counties and cities to use a portion of their state funds to pay for homeless housing projects that require sobriety. Known as “recovery housing,” the measure would have veered away from California’s current housing framework, which requires housing providers to accept homeless people even if they use drugs or alcohol.

In his veto message, Newsom said that “recent guidance” already allows local governments to do this — much to the surprise of the bill’s author, Democratic Assemblymember Matt Haney. The guidance Newsom referred to was a document that was dated July 2025, but was posted online the day after the governor’s veto.

The document also underscores the challenges of requiring sobriety at the potential expense of long-term housing. For instance, the guidance says sober housing providers can’t evict someone for relapsing. But if providers can’t evict people for using drugs or alcohol, Haney argues, they can’t run sober housing effectively.

• Haney: “There are some questions as to whether anyone is actually going to step up and do this under the guidelines as written.”

Read more here.

Under President Donald Trump, the Environmental Protection Agency is rolling back federal climate rules. But as the administration weakens regulations for vehicle emissions — arguing that greenhouse gases do not endanger people’s health — some experts say California could use this as an opportunity to lead the way in climate policy.

As CalMatters’ Alejandro Lazo explains, California for decades has been both a laboratory and pioneer for reducing air pollution. The state has set its own vehicle pollution standards as long as it secured federal permission through waivers.

But now that the Trump administration is working to repeal the EPA’s legal authority under the Clean Air Act to set the country’s greenhouse gas rules for vehicles — known as the “endangerment finding” — California could argue it no longer needs federal approval to set its own rules.

• Ann Carlson, a former federal official and current law professor at UCLA who first floated the idea: “If greenhouse gases aren’t covered by the Clean Air Act then California could presumably regulate them — and so could every other state.” 

Legal experts agree, however, that this would be a longshot in practice — in addition to opposition from the Trump administration, car and truck makers would likely sue the state to block its attempts to regulate greenhouse gases. 

Read more here.

In a win for the LGBTQ community, the California Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to a state law, which argued that requiring nursing home employees to address transgender patients by their preferred gender and pronouns is a violation of free speech. Read more from CalMatters’ Nigel Duara.