Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsom unveils homelessness plan to clear street camps
Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsom unveils homelessness plan to clear street camps
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Gavin Newsom says California has world's 4th largest economy
California was officially named the world's fourth-largest economy, according to the International Monetary Fund and the US Bureau of Economic Analysis.
unbranded - Newsworthy
California Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled a wide-reaching plan to tackle the state's severe homelessness crisis that would direct hundreds of cities, towns and counties to effectively ban tent camping on sidewalks and parks, according to a statement released early Monday, May 12.
"The Governor is calling on every local government to adopt and implement local policies without delay," the statement says.
The move comes as the state prepares for a surge of funding for homelessness and mental health after voters approved a multi-billion-dollar bond measure in November, and after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2024 that opened the door to arresting and fining individuals for sleeping in public spaces.
More: California failed to track how billions are spent to combat homelessness programs, audit finds
The model ordinance is not a flat directive, giving local municipalities a guideline and an effective choice to implement the policies. The template will be provided to every community as a "starting point," the statement says, so jurisdictions can tailor it.
California is the nation's most populous state and is home to a significant portion of the country's homeless individuals. Nearly a quarter of all unhoused Americans live in California, according to federal data and local studies.
The two-term governor will join California Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kim Johnson, the Director of the California Department of Health Care Services Michelle Baass and unnamed mental health leaders at 1 p.m. PT, according to a news release.
More: The homeless population is increasing. Will Trump's second term make it worse?
The event, which will be livestreamed across the governor's social media pages, is an "announcement regarding his administration's continued transformation of behavioral health services supporting California's seriously ill and homeless populations," the release says.
"There's nothing compassionate about letting people die on the streets," Newsom said in the statement. "Local leaders asked for resources — we delivered the largest state investment in history. They asked for legal clarity — the courts delivered. Now, we're giving them a model they can put to work immediately, with urgency and with humanity, to resolve encampments and connect people to shelter, housing, and care."
Kathryn Palmer is a trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@usatoday.com and on X @KathrynPlmr.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
44 minutes ago
- USA Today
Three ways the Trump-Musk feud revealed the GOP's twisted hypocrisy
Three ways the Trump-Musk feud revealed the GOP's twisted hypocrisy | Opinion There's no other takeaway from this other than: We were happy to pay Musk whatever he wanted as long as he loved Trump, but the minute he stopped loving Trump, we can easily stop paying him. Show Caption Hide Caption 'Two big egos.' Americans not surprised by Trump-Musk feud Americans across the country say they're not surprised by the public feud between President Donald Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk. Aside from being globally cathartic, the all-too-predictable breakup of President Donald Trump's unquenchable ego and Elon Musk's immense sense of self-importance pulled the dressing-room curtain back on the Republican Party. And what we saw was both cringeworthy and indecent. Or as I like to call it, the Republican Party. Here are three things this episode of 'Real Annoying Billionaires of Washington, DC' taught us about the conservatives who excitedly welcomed Musk – and his money – into politics: 1. Trump and GOP used taxpayers' money to purchase Elon Musk's support As the president and the weirdo billionaire hurled insults at each other on June 5, Trump posted this threat: 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.' Gee, I wonder who, up until June 5, was helping Musk grease the wheels to line up 'Billions and Billions of Dollars' in additional government contracts? As The New York Times reported in March: 'Within the Trump administration's Defense Department, Elon Musk's SpaceX rocketry is being trumpeted as the nifty new way the Pentagon could move military cargo rapidly around the globe. In the Commerce Department, SpaceX's Starlink satellite internet service will now be fully eligible for the federal government's $42 billion rural broadband push, after being largely shut out during the Biden era. … And at the Federal Aviation Administration and the White House itself, Starlink satellite dishes have recently been installed, to expand federal government internet access.' Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming? How quickly Trump went from filling Musk's coffers to repay him for his support and campaign contributions to suggesting Musk's contracts were, in fact, a form of government waste and fraud. (I mean … they are a form of government waste and fraud, but not in the way Trump was suggesting.) There's no other takeaway from this other than: We were happy to pay Musk whatever he wanted as long as he loved Trump, but the minute he stopped loving Trump, we can easily stop paying him. I think there's a word for that. 2. Elon Musk, despite all the tush-kissing, never liked or respected Donald Trump Musk's swift about-face on Trump shows what many of us have long suspected: Republicans or Republicans-of-convenience like Musk don't actually like or respect Trump. On Feb. 7, Musk posted on social media: 'I love @realDonaldTrump as much as a straight man can love another man.' On June 5, Musk posted: '@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Going from 'I love you, man' to 'I'm alleging you're connected to a notorious sex offender who was facing child sex trafficking charges before he died of suicide in jail' is quite a journey. And it implies that Musk saw Trump for what he is: a useful, loathsome fool. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. The minute Trump became not useful to Musk, he sang his truth, something I'd bet most Republicans would do if they had untold wealth and didn't have to worry much about repercussions. That tells you all you need to know about the modern-day GOP – liars boosting a lout in their own self-interest. 3. DOGE was nonsense, and Republicans never really liked Musk For all its fanfare, the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency that Musk oversaw accomplished precious little cost-cutting while inflicting massive harm on America's global reputation, the lives of people reliant on U.S. aid, and the overall functioning of the federal government. Republicans knew this yet still tripped over themselves to toss roses at Musk's feet, hailing him as some kind of genius/savior. They wanted his money, and they wanted the disinformation cannon that comes with his right-wing social media platform. But when Musk grew wise to what Republican lawmakers were doing with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act – a deficit-ballooning monstrosity – he turned on his handmaidens and his former love, President Trump. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. So Trump, of course, called him crazy. Which begs the question: Why were you letting a crazy person access Americans' most private data and demolish the federal workforce? And are you now going to … you know … make sure the guy you think is crazy didn't do something catastrophically bad? Congressional Republicans had to pick a side, and they've largely stepped into Trump's arms, knowing Musk may well be disliked even more than the sitting president. The Washington Post reported June 6: 'Across the government, the Trump administration is scrambling to rehire many federal employees dismissed under DOGE's staff-slashing initiatives after wiping out entire offices, in some cases imperiling key services such as weather forecasting and the drug approval process.' Translation: Musk's DOGE nonsense was for naught, an attempt to fluff a billionaire's ego while cloaking the high-spending, deficit-raising moves Republicans were going to make all along. There's a sucker born every minute, and two Republicans to take 'em. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Gavin Newsom condemns National Guard deployment amid ICE raids, protests in LA
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday evening criticized federal officials' decision to deploy 2,000 members of the California National Guard to the Los Angeles area as 'purposefully inflammatory.' U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents deployed flash grenades and tear gas to disperse a protest at a Home Depot in Paramount, where people had gathered to protest a series of raids immigration officials had carried out around the city on Friday. SEIU California union president David Huerta, a frequent Newsom ally, was injured while protesting Friday and remained in federal custody over the weekend. 'The federal government is moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers,' Newsom said in a social media post. 'That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' In an earlier post announcing he had deployed CHP officers to 'maintain safety on Los Angeles highways to keep the peace.' 'It's not (the CHP's) job to assist in federal immigration enforcement,' Newsom said. 'The federal government is sowing chaos so they can have an excuse to escalate. That is not the way any civilized country behaves.' The Department of Homeland Security said Saturday that recent ICE operations in the south state resulted in the arrest of 118 people, including five individuals the agency identified as gang members. The agency said those arrested included individuals with prior convictions for drug trafficking, assault and other offenses. Federal officials linked the arrests to heightened tensions in the region, and said ICE agents had been targeted during protests. The department reported a '413% increase in assaults' on officers and alleged that some agents' family members had been doxed. Homeland Security officials criticized the Los Angeles Police Department in the statement, saying it took officers more than two hours to respond to a disturbance outside a federal building Friday night. 'The violent targeting of law enforcement in Los Angeles by lawless rioters is despicable and Mayor (Karen) Bass and Governor Newsom must call for it to end,' Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in the statement. 'The men and women of ICE put their lives on the line to protect and defend the lives of American citizens.' McLaughlin went on to criticize House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.J. and others including Bass for 'contributing to the surge in assaults of our ICE officers' 'From comparisons to the modern-day Nazi gestapo to glorifying rioters, the violent rhetoric of these sanctuary politicians is beyond the pale. This violence against ICE must end,' she said. Tom Homan, the White House 'border czar,' told Fox News on Saturday that the administration planned to send in National Guardsmen to quell the protests, saying ICE would not 'apologize for enforcing the law.' Under the Insurrection Act of 1792, federal authorities can override state law and deploy state militia in specific circumstances, such as in 'emergencies, civil disturbances, and other reasons authorized by state law.' In 2020, the Trump administration called up guardsmen from 11 states to put down anti-police brutality protests in Washington, D.C. It was unclear what authority Homan, who has no official title within either Homeland Security or ICE, or any other officials had invoked to send in the National Guard. In a statement Saturday night, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the deployment, accusing California officials of failing to maintain order. 'California's feckless Democrat leaders have completely abdicated their responsibility to protect their citizens,' she said. 'That is why President Trump has signed a Presidential Memorandum deploying 2,000 National Guardsmen to address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester.' 'The Commander-in-Chief will ensure the laws of the United States are executed fully and completely.' The protests at the Home Depot in Paramount escalated into a violent clash with federal agents, prompting federal officials to declare the gathering an unlawful assembly. Flash-bang grenades and pepper balls were deployed, according to the Los Angeles Times, and several protesters were injured. Federal officials said one immigration agent was injured when a rock shattered his vehicle's windshield, and the U.S. Marshals Service reported arrests for obstructing operations, according to the Times. Bass said reports of violence in Paramount, an independent city patrolled by the L.A. Sheriff's Department, were 'deeply concerning' and emphasized that while peaceful protest was protected, 'violence and destruction are unacceptable.' Paramount Mayor Peggy Lemons told the Times that the city had no prior notice of federal operations and was not coordinating with immigration authorities. 'That creates chaos and fear,' she said. In a statement posted to social media, Rep. Nanette Barragán, who represents south Los Angeles, condemned the use of tear gas and heavy-handed tactics by ICE and other federal agencies. 'This is unacceptable,' she wrote, urging constituents to 'know your rights.' Newsom, who was previously in Los Angeles this week, said in a statement that local authorities had 'no unmet needs' and were able to 'access law enforcement assistance at a moment's notice.' 'The Guard has been admirably serving L.A. throughout recovery,' he said. 'This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust.'
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Can Tackling Addictions Reduce Medicaid Costs?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Discussions around Medicaid costs have become more heated than ever in recent months as President Donald Trump's administration tries to push its budget bill through the legislative ranks. House Republicans have instructed the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to slash $880 billion in spending over the next decade, with Medicaid making up 93 percent of the committee's budget. As a result, the amount of money the federal Medicaid program needs to provide health care services for more than 70 million Americans has been under dispute, with some arguing there is significant waste and misuse of money in the system, while others have warned cuts would leave millions of vulnerable people without access to health care. While lawmakers continue debating the divisive legislation, experts have discussed with Newsweek whether there could be another way of reducing Medicaid costs—tackling substance use disorders. Medicaid enrollees with substance use disorders require significantly higher health costs than those without—around $1,200 per month on average compared to $550, according to KFF. Around 7.2 percent of Medicaid recipients age 12 to 64 have a diagnosed substance use disorder, and treatment is key to addressing overdoses, deaths and other health or social complications, KFF reported. So could tackling substance use disorders in turn reduce costs for the Medicaid program? Here's what experts told Newsweek. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva Why Are Medicaid Costs Higher for Those With Substance Use Disorders? The reason Medicaid enrollees with substance use disorders have higher health costs is because they often also have additional health complications, Dr. Joshua Lynch, professor of emergency and addiction medicine at the University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, New York, told Newsweek. This could be physical health conditions, such as hypertension, high cholesterol and diabetes, or mental health disorders, "which can lead to more complex health care needs," he added. Those with substance use disorders also may "experience more fragmented care and more challenging access to high quality, lower cost care and preventative services," Lynch said. They may also struggle to work, or stay in work, and this may "contribute to increased reliance on higher-cost healthcare services," he added. Many Americans with substance use disorders also go undiagnosed, Brendan Saloner, professor of health policy and management at the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, told Newsweek. He added that those with substance addiction can have a lot of problems, such as the risk of overdose, or contracting blood-borne diseases like HIV or hepatitis C, as well as other issues, so "it's much better to get people into care proactively then to wait for their problems to become a crisis." The higher costs for those with substance use disorders, therefore, could "reflect the devastating physical consequences of substance use itself," Heidi Allen, professor of social work at the Columbia University School of Social Work, New York, told Newsweek, pointing to overdoses, increased vulnerability for chronic illness and exposure to infectious diseases. It's also not just about health complications, John Kelly, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and director of the Recovery Research Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital, told Newsweek. "The nature of these disorders means also that, on average, in the Medicaid population, individuals suffering from substance use disorder tend to have more social instability in terms of secure housing, employment, and criminal justice complications. These all contribute to increased costs," he said. Could Tackling Substance Use Disorders Reduce Medicaid Costs? While tackling substance use disorders may not slash Medicaid costs in the short term, as it would require investment in prevention and treatment, it could have positive economic impacts in the long run. "Prioritizing substance use treatment for enrollees might not reduce Medicaid costs in the short term, since we would expect more Medicaid enrollees to engage with treatment, which itself costs money," Allen said. However, she added that "it could certainly improve the health of enrollees, which might result in Medicaid savings down the road." If patients also have access to high-quality treatment and are able to manage their condition, "they have a lower reliance on high-cost health care such as emergency visits and inpatient hospitalizations," Lynch said. He added that other comorbidities also become more manageable, while housing stability and employment turn more achievable. "All of these will lead to a decrease in overall Medicaid spending," he said. Kelly also said he thought that tackling substance use disorders could reduce costs for Medicaid, adding that "focus on earlier intervention, and better implementation of care coordination will result in reduced use of more expensive acute medical care services, as well as prevention of the contraction of more chronic disease such as alcohol-associated liver diseases, HIV and hepatitis infections." "I am very confident that it would help to prevent some long-term costs to the program and would have a huge impact on other non-health needs like employment and reduced incarceration," Saloner said. But he added that whether it fully pays for itself, or saves money, is a more difficult question to answer. "We have some older studies showing that substance use care can offset lots of costs to society, but purely from the perspective of the Medicaid budget it's hard to say. The quality of life gains make it very cost-effective, whether or not it's cost saving," he said. Carrie Fry, professor in the department of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Tennessee, told Newsweek: "Research shows that addressing substance use disorder with effective, evidence-based treatments reduces Medicaid costs." In order to cut Medicaid costs, Fry said, making it easier for people with substance use disorders "to start and remain on effective treatment" would be an important step in the process. "For opioid use disorder, this means expanding availability of medications for opioid use disorder including methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone," she said. She added that only about half of Medicaid enrollees with an opioid use disorder receive evidence-based treatment in a given year. "So, treatment is an important first step to addressing the burden of substance use disorders in Medicaid and can reduce or prevent additional downstream costs," Fry said. She added that reducing the prevalence of substance use disorder via prevention will "require a more comprehensive approach to addressing broader social conditions that lead to increased risk of developing a substance use disorder."
