
Half a century ago, Californians saved the coast. Will Trump threats spark another uprising?
In 1972, thousands of Californians came together in what was a defining moment in state history. They were united by fears that the spectacular coast was in danger of becoming overdeveloped, heavily industrialized, ecologically diminished and irreversibly privatized.
Rue Furch, a Sonoma State University student, signed on as a volunteer for Proposition 20, which called for a commission to 'preserve, protect, restore, and enhance the environment and ecology of the coastal zone.'
'I was just one of the worker bees, and it felt great to be doing something positive,' said Furch, whose role was 'collecting signatures and holding signs and showing up to rallies.'
In Sacramento, a young legislative assistant named Sam Farr (who would later become a U.S. congressman), helped organize a coastal bike ride, led by state Sen. Jim Mills, that galvanized Proposition 20 support and drew hordes of reporters as cyclists pedaled from Land's End in San Francisco to Balboa Park in San Diego.
'The highway patrol kind of designed the route,' said Farr, who recalled that cyclists camped at state parks along the way and dined on food donated by supporters of the rolling 'save our coast' call to arms.
In Los Angeles, teams of young environmentalists sabotaged dozens of campaign billboards, hung by the opposition, which originally said,'The Beach Belongs to You – Don't Lock it Up. Vote No on Proposition No. 20.' The activists painted the word 'Yes' over the word 'No.'
So why am I telling you this a half-century later?
Because voter-approved Proposition 20 led to the 1976 California Coastal Act and the creation of the Coastal Commission, which is now under threat like never before, targeted by the Trump administration, federal legislation and other critics.
In a January visit to Los Angeles after the devastating wildfires, Trump said the Coastal Commission is 'considered the most difficult in the entire country' and said when it comes to rebuilding, 'we are not going to let them get away with their antics.'
If that seems personal, it is. Trump, who bought a Ranch Palos Verdes golf course at a discounted price in 2002, after the 18th hole fell into the ocean, has had disputes with the Coastal Commission over waterfalls on the property and a 70-foot tall flagpole erected without a permit.
In February, Trump special missions envoy Ric Grenell painted a bullseye on the coastal commission, saying that fire relief assistance could be held up if California doesn't bow to the administration's wishes. He called the Coastal Commission 'an unelected group of people who are crazy woke left' and said that 'putting strings on them to get rid of the California Coastal Commission is going to make California better.'
To be clear, the commissioners are selected by elected people, which is often how commissions work. And speaking of powerful unelected people, the name Elon Musk comes to mind, and Trump's Oval Office playmate has his own beef with the Coastal Commission. Musk's SpaceX company sued the commission last fall after commissioners rejected a bid to increase the number of rocket launches from the U.S. military's Vandenberg Space Force Base near Lompoc.
Military officials have said in support of SpaceX that they'd like to increase the number of launches from a handful to as many as 100 annually. The commission argued that most of the launches are for private interests rather than for military purposes, and that sonic booms and environmental impacts are a problem.
And it might be wise to hold off on increased launches following Thursday's explosion of a SpaceX craft that ripped apart after takeoff from Texas. A shower of debris led to the grounding of flights at several Florida airports, and this was the second such SpaceX disaster in seven weeks. At the very least, SpaceX employees — just like federal employees targeted by Musk — should get memos asking what they had done in the seven days prior to each crash to justify keeping their jobs.
To be fair, the Coastal Commission staff and its commissioners are not beyond reproach, nor have commissioners always served with honor, so scrutiny and pushback ought to be part of the process. Nearly a decade ago, my Times colleagues and I examined the ways in which wealthy property owners and developers used lawyers, lobbyists and political connections in attempting to influence commission decision-making.
In the case of the recent SpaceX case, commissioners made bone-headed political comments about Musk in rejecting the bid for more launches, naively handing him lawsuit fodder.
And the commission — which is made up of more than 100 staff members and 12 voting commissioners — has a history of irritating property owners and even governors with painfully long reviews of applications (caused, in part, by decades of under-staffing) for everything from new coastal construction to property improvements of various types.
Several recent bills by Democratic legislators have tried (with limited success) to chip away at agency authority and clear the way for more housing, and Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed an executive order limiting commission oversight in the interest of speeding up rebuilding in the Palisades fire zone.
Republicans, meanwhile just want to tear it all apart. On March 5, U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) called for stripping the commission of its power, saying the agency is 'out of control and has veered from its purpose of protecting the coast.'
Susan Jordan of the nonprofit California Coastal Protection Network, quickly sized up what that would mean.
'This is like the federal government putting a big for-sale sign on the California coast,' she said. 'It basically takes away the state's ability to comment on and provide feedback on projects … It's like an open invitation to oil drilling, to any commercial venture, to liquefied natural gas terminals.'
There's a reason that has not already happened, and it has a lot to do with that movement that began in 1972 (the story has been captured in a new documentary on the people who were determined to save the coast).
There's a reason that as you travel the coast, you see all those roadside beach access signs.
There's a reason that when beachfront property owners put up illegal 'private property' signs or otherwise attempt to drive away those who have a right to enjoy the beach, they're cited and fined.
There's a reason the 1,100-mile natural wonder that stretches from the Oregon border to the Mexico border does not, for the most part, resemble the blighted, overdeveloped coasts of other states.
There's a reason any and all development proposals are exhaustively reviewed, with the perils of sea level rise in mind, and in the interest of protecting marine and shore habitats.
The reason is the California Coastal Act of 1976, a people-inspired, legislatively approved framework that guides state and local governments on the use of land and water in the coastal zone, and embodies the idea that this natural wonder is not owned by anybody, but by everybody, and that it must be treated — with careful, unwavering stewardship — like the public treasure that it is.
The first director of the agency, the late and legendary Peter Douglas, recognized that there would always be threats to the commission and to the shore.
It's why he said:
'The coast is what it is because a lot of people worked really hard and sacrificed to protect it. And if we want it to be there for our children, we have to keep fighting to protect it. In that way, the coast is never saved, it's always being saved.'
If it takes another bike ride, I'm ready to roll.
steve.lopez@latimes.com
Hashtags

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


Fox News
9 minutes ago
- Fox News
Minnesota faces federal lawsuit for offering illegal immigrants college tuition benefits denied to Americans
The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint challenging laws in Minnesota that provide free and reduced in-state tuition to illegal aliens, claiming the laws are unconstitutional. Under federal law, higher education institutions are prohibited from providing benefits to illegal aliens not offered to U.S. citizens. According to the DOJ, Minnesota's laws unconstitutionally discriminate against U.S. citizens and are in direct conflict with federal law. "No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens," Attorney General Pam Bondi said. "The Department of Justice just won on this exact issue in Texas, and we look forward to taking this fight to Minnesota in order to protect the rights of American citizens first." By filing the lawsuit, the DOJ is demanding that Minnesota stop the enforcement of a law requiring public colleges and universities to provide in-state tuition rates and free tuition based on certain income circumstances to immigrants in the country illegally who maintain state residency. Federal law prohibits higher education facilities from providing education benefits to illegal immigrants, which are not offered to U.S. citizens. The lawsuit comes just weeks after the DOJ took actions against Texas for providing similar benefits to illegal immigrants. Both lawsuits have been filed in response to two executive orders signed by President Donald Trump since returning to the Oval Office in January. The executive orders were signed to ensure illegal immigrants cannot receive taxpayer benefits or preferential treatment. One of the orders, "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders," ordered all agencies to "ensure, to the maximum extent permitted by law, that no taxpayer-funded benefits go to unqualified aliens." The other order, "Protecting American Communities From Criminal Aliens," directs officials to "take appropriate action to stop the enforcement of State and local laws, regulations, policies, and practices favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens that are unlawful, preempted by Federal law, or otherwise unenforceable, including State laws that provide in-State higher education tuition to aliens but not to out-of-State American citizens." Ultimately, Texas complied with the DOJ and stopped enforcing the Texas Dream Act, which was originally introduced in February 2001. The legislation, signed by Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, June 16, 2001, removed federal immigration status as a factor in determining eligibility to pay in-state tuition at Texas public colleges and universities for students who graduate from a Texas high school and who meet the minimum residency, academic and registration criteria. While the state immediately stopped enforcement, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has since intervened. On Tuesday, the ACLU of Texas, alongside organizations like the Texas Civil Rights Project and Democracy Forward, filed a motion to intervene in the litigation to defend the constitutionality of the Texas Dream Act against the DOJ. The ACLU said the DOJ's order was agreed to by Texas without proper process and creates "sweeping uncertainty" for students and colleges. "As students prepare to attend school in the fall, the failure of neither the DOJ nor the attorney general to defend the Texas Dream Act threatens their ability to afford tuition – and suddenly threatens their dreams of pursuing higher education," the ACLU said in a press release. "By moving to intervene, these groups and individuals hope to challenge this abusive litigation strategy and defend the Texas Dream Act, which has enabled a generation of Texans to grow their careers and become leaders in our communities." Fox News Digital has reached out to Gov. Greg Abbott's office for comment on the matter.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The S&P 500 flirts with it's all-time high, oil futures rise 1.4% after Middle East ceasefire
The S&P 500 closed the day at 6,092, just 51 points off its all-time high of 6,144 from February. Oil prices recovered from, rising 1.4% today, as tensions in the Middle East settled. Across the board other macro issues from tariffs to the looming spending bill also sat in limbo, easing uncertainty for markets. Despite little change in the U.S. stocks on Wednesday, investors watched the markets closely. The S&P 500 closed the day just 51 points off from its all-time high closing price of 6,144 on February 19. The Dow Jones closed the day down about 106 points, but still higher than its mid-afternoon lows on Monday. Meanwhile, the tech-heavy Nasdaq finished up 0.3%, closing Tuesday at 19,974. It is also flirting with a return to its all-time high of 20,173 points from December 16, 2024. The fact U.S. equities are not just recovering from their April rout, but rebounding to the record highs they saw before President Donald Trump's tariff policies, indicates markets may have started readjusting to the era of increased uncertainty investors find themselves in. Overall levels of market uncertainty have declined compared to their peaks in the immediate aftermath of Trump's on-again, off-again tariff policy. (A point reiterated by Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell during congressional testimony on Tuesday). But market conditions have not returned to the humdrum routine that investors welcome. On the other hand, the many issues that could roil markets—from the Middle East, to the looming inflationary impacts of tariffs, to an unprecedented government spending bill—are in a holding pattern. Yes, they haven't been solved but neither have they worsened. The U.S. announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Trump stopped removing and reinstituting tariffs on a daily basis like he had been just a few weeks ago. The U.S. and China appear to be working on a trade deal but, there is nothing concrete other than the removal of the more than 100% tariffs they'd placed on each other. The spending bill, which would send the deficit skyrocketing, is for now, mired in the sandpits of the American legislative branch. This week started with slumps in the equities market over fears the conflict in the Middle East would disrupt oil flows. But what a difference a couple of days can make. On Wednesday oil futures were up 1.4% after falling earlier this week. Stocks also saw a similar drop earlier this week. After Monday's initial shock, a muted and fairly surprising reaction followed, noted Jake Schurmeier, portfolio manager at Harbor Capital and a former member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's Markets Group. 'The risk premium in markets lasted all of five hours,' Schurmeier told Fortune. 'I think the answer could be that markets are becoming more efficient in getting used to these geopolitical blips.' The ups and downs of the last few days pointed to a reactionary market, Schurmeier said. 'The broader point is we've become so short term,' he said. 'It all strikes me as very cynical and short-term thinking at this point.' With choppy markets, including in intraday trading, some investors keep an eye on the long game. Bob Robotti, president and chief investment officer of asset manager Robotti & Company, said he's focused on the structural risks facing the economy rather than short-term geopolitical volatility. For instance, several major forces are going to drive inflation higher, he said. Key inflationary pressures such as 'all the aspects of tariffs, changing supply chains, extra frictional costs' aren't temporary but represent fundamental shifts in how the global economy operates, Robotti said. He sees the outcome from those shifts resulting in permanently higher prices. 'If inflation is a persistent event and higher interest rates are required, that means lower multiples on everything in the investable world,' Robotti told Fortune. 'This is particularly concerning given the concentration of capital in growth assets and private equity that have benefited from the low-rate environment, making the entire system more vulnerable to an inflationary regime change.' This story was originally featured on
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
State of Texas: Immigration crackdown brings concern over impact on workers
AUSTIN (Nexstar) – Immigration enforcement operations targeting worksites have led to arrests and deportations of workers across the country. Some of the people caught up in the raids have been working in the U.S. for years. The action sparked protests in cities around the country, including in Texas. But the backlash to the immigration crackdown goes deeper than protests in the streets. Businesses and farmers have also pushed back. At a news conference on Thursday, President Donald Trump acknowledged some of the concerns raised about the effect of the deportations on farm workers. 'We can't take farmers and take all their people and send them back because they don't have, maybe what they're supposed to have, maybe not,' Trump told reporters. 'And what is happening, they get rid of some of the people because, you know, you go into a farm and you look, and people don't, they've been there for 20, 25 years, and they've worked great, and the owner of the farm loves them and everything else, and then you're supposed to throw them out.' 'I think we can't do that to our farmers. And leisure too, hotels. We're going to have to use a lot of common sense on that,' the President added. Fernando Rustrian Herrera is one of thousands of migrants deported since President Trump took office in January. The 18-year-old from Guatemala was detained by ICE agents at a checkpoint while heading to work at a construction site in Houston. 'I had my apartment in Houston, and saw raids taking place. I saw people families which some had papers and others did not. They would take them, and those with papers, they called them up to court, but they tricked them. They sent them back anyway,' Rustrian said, speaking through an interpreter. Rustrian is now staying at a migrant shelter in Juarez, Mexico. Enrique Serrano helps run the city's migrant assistance center. He said many deportees arrive devastated after losing everything they built in the U.S. 'They are people that had been in the United States a long time. They had a job, they had homes and properties. Some even opened up a business in the United States, and they were doing good. They are sad because it's going to be very difficult for them to return to the United States soon, they practically have to start here from zero,' Serrano said. Rustrian says he plans to work in Mexico while waiting for conditions in the U.S. to improve. Despite being deported, he says he harbors no ill feelings toward the Trump administration. But he believes the deportations hurt both migrant workers and the people who want them out. 'As [Trump] harms us, he also harms himself because all of the things being built in the United States are being built not by Americans, but by migrants,' Rustrian said. An estimated 1,500 migrants remain in government and church-run shelters in Juarez. The Trump administration has suspended asylum except in extreme hardship cases. Meanwhile, federal officials are expanding efforts to crack down on illegal border crossings. Last week, U.S. troops started detaining migrants as part of the Deep South Campaign. The campaign includes zones known as National Defense Areas, or NDA's. Those are military domains established along segments of the border wall. People who enter an NDA face penalties as if they had unlawfully entered a military base. Most migrants trying to cross illegally would face immediate removal. Justin R. Simmons, interim U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas said NDA's and other examples of heightened enforcement have sharply curtailed illegal crossings. 'The crossings and the encounters by Border Patrol over the last several years were several thousand a day. That's dropped to 60 to 70 per day,' Simmons said. 'That's an amazing decline in encounters. So it shows what we're doing here is working.' More than a week has passed since the Texas Dream Act was struck down, and schools still do not have clear answers about changes to undocumented student tuition rates. Undocumented students lost the ability to receive in-state tuition earlier this month after the Trump administration sued Texas, accusing it of violating federal law. The administration said the Dream Act, which passed the Texas legislature with bipartisan support in 2001, was in violation of a 1996 federal law. Because Texas agreed, the suit was settled within hours, and it is unclear if the decision will be appealed. For some undocumented students, the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition at Texas public universities may be the difference between receiving a college education or not being able to afford one. Edilsa Lopez is a recipient of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and attended the University of Texas at Austin for her undergraduate degree. She said that because noncitizens are not eligible for federal aid, the Dream Act was essential for her ability to afford college. State of Texas: Abbott approves billions for schools, but is it enough? 'Having in-state tuition for us was such a blessing, because we didn't have to pay three times the in-state tuition rate,' Lopez said. 'Even then, we had a situation that was still very difficult for us, just because of the limited amount of financial aid available to us, undocumented students.' The out-of-state tuition rate ranges from double to nearly quadruple that of in-state tuition, depending on the school. Out-of-state students at UT and Texas A&M University pay the highest amounts, over $40,000 per year. Lopez was brought to the United States from Guatemala at age 12, fleeing poverty and homelessness. Even after arriving in the U.S., she said, she experienced homelessness after her mother had to leave the U.S., leaving Lopez to care for herself and her sister. Lopez said going to college was transformative for her life, as she now works for a Fortune 500 company as an accountant. 'I was brought here [at a] very young age… and so education for me was very important, and I only had one thing in mind, which is to graduate from college,' Lopez said. 'And so it was difficult in itself, but having in-state tuition and then graduating from college changed my life completely. I am now a professional financial accountant.' While in high school, Lopez said she didn't know about college, but her educators urged her to pursue it. She ended up in the top 10% of her class, making her eligible for automatic admission to most public universities in the state. Now, Lopez worries for the undocumented students following in her footsteps. She said that even before the Dream Act was reversed, she at times struggled to pay for her education. 'At the very end, I wasn't able to get all the money that I needed to graduate from college, and I almost dropped out,' Lopez said. 'But it was thanks to my high school teachers who really supported me, and they always believed in my potential, that they sort of helped me and did a fundraiser for me.' State Rep. Ramon Romero, D-Fort Worth, shares Lopez's concerns about the future for undocumented students — especially those who are currently in the middle of their college education. Romero, who chairs the Mexican American Legislative Caucus in the Texas House, worries that Texas may lose good students to other states if they can no longer afford a college education in Texas. 'How would we not continue to support those that we have invested, likely over $100,000 into that child, if they were with us through K through 12,' Romero said. 'It's a lot of money to invest and then see them walk away and go to a different state. So we don't want this talent to leave.' Former Texas Governor Rick Perry signed the Texas Dream Act into law in 2001. He defended the law during a 2011 Republican presidential debate. 'If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they have been brought there by no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart,' Perry said during the debate, drawing cheers from the audience. In an interview after the court decision to end the Dream Act, Perry had a different view. He cited dissatisfaction with how the Biden administration dealt with border security as changing public opinion about children who were brought to the country illegally. 'They basically had a open border policy,' Perry said of the Biden administration. 'That has tainted everything all across this country, and I think it made it easy for people to stand up and say, look, what was a thoughtful approach to how we deal with people who don't have the legal right to be in this country 25 years ago to today is completely different.' Perry said that until the issue of immigration is resolved, programs like the Dream Act are unlikely to come back into place. 'The American people basically said, you know what, until we get that fixed, these other programs are not going to go forward. And I will tell you, I think that's probably the proper way,' Perry said. State Sen. Carol Alvarado, D-Houston, pointed out the economic impact that allowing undocumented students to pay in-state tuition generates for Texas. She said in 2021 alone, 20,000 undocumented students paid about $80 million in tuition to state universities. 'I think … we're going to take a financial hit from this, because these are students that may choose not to go to school,' Alvarado said. One temporary solution, proposed by State Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin, is for the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to give undocumented students a temporary designation that allows them to receive in-state tuition until the legislature can address the matter in its next session. Romero said he agrees with Howard. In a statement, THECB Spokesperson Mike Eddleman said the agency does not have an update to share, but is looking into the matter. 'Currently, we are evaluating the scope of the ruling and are actively working to ensure that any THECB rules, policies, and programs comply with the law,' Eddleman said. In the meantime, universities in Texas have to decide how to proceed with billing students for the fall semester. So far, most do not have updates to share. University of Texas Rio Grande Valley spokesperson Melissa Vasquez said, in a statement, that the university understands the decision may affect students' existing financial plans. 'As UTRGV continues its review of the impact of the consent judgment, students who may be affected will be notified directly,' Vasquez said. A spokesperson for Midwestern State University said that MSU is currently reviewing the impact of the decision. A spokesperson for UT Austin said it did not have updates to share. The Texas A&M University System will hold a meeting Friday to discuss the change, according to a spokesperson from West Texas A&M University. Other public universities around the state did not respond to requests for comment. The sudden nature of the decision not only complicates the path forward for universities and students, but it also raises eyebrows at the prospect of collusion between the federal government and the state. Alvarado was frustrated by the timing of the decision, right after the legislative session concluded. 'It's kind of like a boyfriend that cheated on you,' Alvarado said. 'Everybody was recognizing the importance of keeping the in-state tuition for these students, and then as soon as we turn our backs and go home, then they circumvented the legislative process.' Romero called the whole process 'shady,' but said the path forward has to involve more than talking about the issue. 'We're at a time when President Trump is really using every single lawyer at his disposal … to go around and circumvent the priorities of the state of Texas,' Romero said. 'Am I upset? Yes, but we can't just stay upset. We have to do something about it.' Undocumented students will be faced with the reality of being charged significantly more for higher education, and possibly not being able to afford it, if lawmakers or THECB are unable to find a solution before the fall semester. For Lopez, who said she learned English specifically so that she would be able to get an education, that would have made a difference in her life trajectory. 'I mean, the only thing we want in this country is literally opportunity for an education,' Lopez said. 'We want to be able to contribute back to the state we have lived here our entire lives.' Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed legislation Tuesday that invests $50 million into clinical research of ibogaine — a naturally occurring psychedelic substance that could treat post-traumatic stress disorder, opioid use disorder and other mental health conditions. For years, veterans and others suffering from PTSD have sought ibogaine treatment in Mexico, where the substance is not heavily regulated. In the United States, ibogaine is classified as a Schedule 1 drug, the most restrictive drug category. Other drugs classified under Schedule 1 include psilocybin, LSD and heroin. According to the legislative summary of SB 2308, the implications for those with opioid use disorder are lifechanging; a single administration of ibogaine in a controlled setting has been shown to stop withdrawal symptoms and reduce drug cravings long-term. 'Preliminary reports also suggest benefits in cognitive function, mood regulation, and sleep among individuals with [traumatic brain injury] and PTSD—conditions prevalent among U.S. veterans,' the bill text read. The new legislation will create a program within the Texas Health and Human Services Commission to support Texas-based trials of ibogaine through the FDA. Ibogaine is not currently FDA-approved due to its Schedule 1 classification. 'Texas has positioned itself as the global leader of Ibogaine research and development which is critical,' Bryan Hubbard said before attending the bill signing ceremony. Hubbard leads the American Ibogaine Initiative. Hubbard said after he learned about the treatment's potential, he committed himself to getting lawmakers on board. 'I came to commit myself to doing whatever was necessary to advance a therapeutic that can restore the mind, body and spirit of an individual who has been walled off in the isolation of addiction,' Hubbard said. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry has been a high profile advocate for expanding Ibogaine research. He worked closely with Hubbard to push for the legislation. 'Brian Hubbard is just the absolute genius on this,' Perry said. 'He has the experience, the knowledge, the understanding of how to run these clinical trials. And from my perspective, that's the real key here.' Perry said he and Hubbard are partnering on ways to expand clinical trials around the country. Together, they've created a 501c3 called Americans for Ibogaine. Perry said Veteran Marcus Luttrell is one of the board members. 'There are a lot of other states that are going to be interested in this, and that's going to give us the ability to really expand the clinical trials across the country,' Perry said. He hopes that data from clinical trials could lead to Ibogaine being rescheduled from Schedule 1 down to Schedule 3 classification, potentially making it more accessible for medical use. 'I was very skeptical at first, but I was open minded, I listened, I studied, and I came to believe that it is the or could be a major, widespread solution for a lot of issues that we face in this country,' Perry said. 'Not only the PTSD and what we put our war fighters through for the last 20 years, but for addictions, for some of the neurodegenerative diseases of Parkinson's, MS, potentially Alzheimer's and dementia.' 'God bless Texas for getting behind this and for making it a reality in the Lone Star State,' Perry added. SB 2308 will fund research through gifts, grants or donations and will require equal matching funds by the recipients, which will include Texas medical facilities 'equipped for cardiac-intensive monitoring' by a supervising physician, among other qualifications. There are health concerns linked to Ibogaine. A study by the National Institutes of Health cited the risk of deadly cardiac complications. State Senator Tan Parker, R-Flower Mound, who authored the legislation, addressed that issue after the bill signing. 'This will be administered in hospital type facilities where you have proper cardiac capabilities. You have all the various things that need to be done when treating a patient with Ibogaine that we know of already today,' Parker said. So anything but recreational. This is very serious, very substantive.'> 'By advancing ibogaine research, Texas has the opportunity to lead in neuroscience innovation, address urgent veteran health needs, and shape the future of mental health treatment nationwide,' the bill text reads. Texas in recent years has become more open-minded to the use of psychedelic substances in treating mental health conditions. 'There's definitely been a shift in the openness and the receptivity of the field to this type of research,' said Greg Fonzo, Ph.D., co-director of the McGill Center for Psychedelic Research & Therapy at Dell Medical School. 'People who do undergo this treatment process, some of them respond well and have a benefit in terms of symptom reductions and feeling better,' Fonzo told KXAN earlier this year. Two years ago, an Army post in Killeen, Texas, was redesignated to honor General Richard Edward Cavazos, a native Texan, war hero and Medal of Honor recipient. Past coverage: Fort Hood becomes Fort Cavazos The post was one of nine U.S. Army installations redesignated in 2023 based on the Naming Commission's recommendations to remove the names, symbols, displays, monuments and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate the Confederate States of America, according to the U.S. Army's website. Now, it's one of several of those whose names are being restored back to their previous names. President Donald Trump announced the move at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on Tuesday. 'For a little breaking news, we are also going to be restoring the names to Fort Pickett, Fort Hood, Fort Gordon, Fort Brucker, Fort Polk, Fort AP Hill, and Fort Robert E. Lee,' Trump said while addressing soldiers at Fort Bragg. The seven installations he listed had their names changed in 2023. The President said they will be restored to what he called their historic names. 'We won a lot of battles out of those forts. It's no time to change,' Trump added. The same day, the U.S. Army issued a release stating that it would 'take all necessary actions to change the names of seven Army installations in honor of heroic Soldiers who served in conflicts ranging from the Civil War to the Battle of Mogadishu.' RELATED | Army restores the names of seven bases that lost their Confederate-linked names under Biden Fort Cavazos was initially named Fort Hood after Confederate Gen. John Bell Hood. The post will again be renamed, back to Fort Hood, but with a different namesake: World War I Col. Robert B. Hood. According to the Army, Col. Hood received the Distinguished Service Cross for his 'extraordinary heroism' during WWI during an 'intense shelling' near Thiaucourt, France. Congress passed legilation in 2021 to require renaming military installations that honored anyone who served in the Confederacy. The changes President Trump announced are skirting that law by choosing honorees with the same last name as Confederates previously honored. 'It's a slap in the face,' a family member of Gen. Cavazos said Thursday. Albert Ochoa, an Austin resident and retired teacher, is a nephew of Gen. Cavazos. He said he and several of his family members are upset about Trump's call to rename the post once again. Ochoa said he and the general 'go way back.' He explained that Cavazos was raised by his mother on King Ranch, and Ochoa grew up having a personal relationship with the general. Ochoa called Cavazos a 'family man, through and through,' and described him as a dedicated soldier. 'He was a great man, really, a soldier's soldier,' Ochoa said. 'So, you know, I can't tell you enough about how he dedicated his life to the army and to be disrespected like this goes beyond anything I can think of.' Ochoa said that when the post was redesignated as Fort Cavazos, it was a celebration for him and his family. He said more than 100 relatives of Cavazos went to the redesignation ceremony. 'It was an affirmation of his career and the dedication he had to this country and the Army,' he said. 'You got to understand discrimination was still very big, and he was Hispanic… but he went on to become the first Hispanic four-star general [and was] quoted in Schwarzkopf books.' Ochoa said he was 'dumbfounded' when his son sent him an article about the base being named back to Fort Hood. 'To me, it's a slap in the face to the Army and all the veterans who served before. Trump… doesn't know a thing about war, strategy, tactics, the Army, armed forces, period.' He's not just upset about the renaming of the Killeen post, either. Ochoa mentioned the other posts affected by the decision and said, 'in effect, he's saying that the Confederacy was OK.' Ochoa said regardless of the name change, he wants people to remember what the base stood for and its stance as one of the major bases in the country. 'Changing the name is not going to change what it was about or what it did for this country,' Ochoa said. 'A name change isn't going to make that much of a difference. You know, it's disrespectful. We don't, we don't agree with it, but, you know, it's a slap in the face to all Army veterans that have ever served there… But it'll continue, regardless of how it's treated.' KXAN also reached out to media contacts at Fort Cavazos to ask for comment on the name change back to Fort Hood. We will update this story if we receive a response. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.