California Assembly committee kills 2 bills restricting trans athletes' participation in girls sports
SACRAMENTO — A California State Assembly committee killed two bills on Tuesday that would have restricted transgender athletes from playing on girls' sports teams.
One bill,
introduced by Assemblymember Bill Essayli
(R-Riverside), would have prevented transgender students from participating in sports teams and using bathrooms and locker rooms that don't align with their gender assigned at birth.
The other bill,
introduced by Assemblymember Kate Sanchez
(R-Rancho Santa Margarita), would have restricted transgender athletes from playing girls' and women's sports from elementary school through the college level.
"CA Dems just killed my bill to protect girls' sports. They DO NOT CARE that girls no longer have a level playing field and it's absolutely ridiculous,"
Sanzhez said on social media
in response to her bill being rejected.
Essayli also
issued a response
to his bill being rejected on social media, saying, "Assembly Democrats doubled-down on their war against women and parental rights."
"The vast majority of Californians and Americans agree: keep boys out of girls sports," Essayli continued. "Assembly Democrats are radically out of touch with commonsense Californians and the voters will hold them accountable to restore justice and fairness in girls sports."
Tuesday evening, in a story
first reported by Politico
, CBS Sacramento confirmed that Essayli would resign from his role in the California Assembly to become the new U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, effective as of Wednesday.
California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas voted no on Sanchez's bill.
"I'm not going to support a bill that takes rights away from a protected class of people," Rives said. "Gender identity is a protected class here in California."
After his vote, Rivas would not stop to speak to the press, leading reporters to chase him up a capitol stairway where he eventually made his way into his office and away from cameras.
Tuesday's vote comes after Governor Gavin Newsom announced his opposition to trans athletes in women's sports
on the debut episode of his new podcast
, where he sat down with Republican political activist Charlie Kirk.
"We are fighting a battle against people who want to squash our ability to express ourselves," transgender advocate Katherine Darrow said.
The hearing on transgender rights, which occurred a day after Transgender Day of Visibility, took center stage at the California State Capitol, leading to overflowing crowds and people lining up in hallways to testify on both sides of the bills.
"Opportunities I and so many other female athletes have worked so hard for now feel out of reach," said a female high school athlete who identified herself only as Jaden.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
14 minutes ago
- Axios
Public media funding cuts hit Chicago: WBEZ, WTTW brace for impact
President Trump and the Republican-majority U.S. House moved one step closer to cutting funding for public media, putting local organizations in limbo. The latest: The House passed a bill Thursday afternoon to cancel over $1 billion in funding for PBS and NPR, via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This funding was included in the 2025 fiscal year budget, but this action removes it. Why it matters: Federal funding for public media could vanish — and Chicago stations like WBEZ and WTTW are bracing for the fallout. The big picture: The move breaks decades of bipartisan tradition treating CPB funding as apolitical and throws public media companies into budgetary chaos. What they're saying: "If approved, this cancellation of funding would eliminate critical investments, stripping resources that we use to power independent journalism, educational programming, emergency alerts and the infrastructure that supports the entire network of newsrooms nationwide," Chicago Public Media CEO Melissa Bell wrote to station members. "This could threaten the ability of PBS, and member stations like WTTW, to operate autonomously," a WTTW spokesperson said in a statement. By the numbers: The cuts would amount to about 6 percent of Chicago Public Media's budget, which the organization estimates to be about $3 million annually. That's not factoring in possible syndication costs handed down by National Public Radio, which is also losing funding from this bill. For WTTW, 10% of its 2024 budget came from federal funding. Zoom in: Chicago Public Media and WTTW (which also includes WFMT-FM) are among the largest public media organizations. Chicago Public Media (WBEZ/Sun-Times) reported revenue of $70 million for 2024, while WTTW had a total operating budget of $32.7 million. Both organizations receive significant revenue from member donations. Yes, but: Smaller Illinois radio stations, such as WILL-FM in Urbana, WUIS-FM in Springfield, and WNIJ-FM in DeKalb, have significantly higher federal funding, in some cases accounting for half of their budgets. Those stations are attached to local universities. Zoom out: It's unclear if the organizations will supercharge fundraising to attract more private donors or cut back on programming and staff. Chicago Public Media recently cut staff at both the Sun-Times and WBEZ. The intrigue: The rescission package aims to claw back funding that Congress previously approved for fiscal year 2025. It primarily consists of cuts identified by DOGE, which include funding for foreign aid programs such as USAID. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting's funding is usually allocated every two years, so this cuts the second year of funding and puts future allocations in serious doubt. The rescission bill is rare in government. Trump attempted to use it during his first term, but was defeated in the Senate. Between the lines: Republicans have increasingly painted public media as left-leaning and biased, citing PBS programs like "Sesame Street" as "woke propaganda." The other side: Public media offers a variety of independent programming from news, culture, food and children's programs, funded to avoid programming influenced by corporations and commercials.
San Francisco Chronicle
14 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Unrest in the Middle East threatens to send some prices higher
Israel's attack on Iran Friday has catapulted their long-running conflict into what could become a wider, more dangerous regional war and potentially drive prices higher for both businesses and households. Oil and gold surged and the dollar rose as markets retreated, signaling a flight to investments perceived as more safe. After years of sky-high inflation in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, Americans have become increasingly leery about the economy this year due to President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs, though the impact so far has been muted. The latest escalation in the Middle East has the potential to cause widespread price increases that could set consumers back again. Here's a look at some of the sectors that could face an outsized impact from the escalation in the Middle East, and what that might mean for consumers. Energy Oil prices surged Friday to their biggest gain since the onset of Russia's war on Ukraine began more than three years ago. If or when Israel's attack on Iran could impact gas prices, which have been in decline for nearly a year, isn't entirely clear. Iran is one of the world's major producers of oil, though sanctions by Western countries have limited its sales. If a wider war erupts, it could significantly slow or stop the flow of Iran's oil to its customers. Energy prices have been held in check this year because production has remained relatively high, and demand for it low. A widening conflict could tilt that balance. 'The loss of this export supply would wipe out the surplus that was expected in the fourth quarter of this year,' analysts for ING wrote in a note to clients. In the past, conflicts in the Middle East have sent energy price soaring for extended periods but in recent years, because of the huge supply of oil, those spikes have been more fleeting. Earlier this month, the countries in the OPEC+ alliance decided to increase production again, which often pushes crude prices down. They hit a four-year low in early May. That usually means cheaper gas, of which there is currently a surplus. According to the auto club organization AAA, the average price for a gallon of gas in the U.S. on Friday was $3.13 per gallon, down from $3.46 a year ago. Shipping Shipping costs were already on the rise for a number of reasons. Cargo is being rerouted around the Red Sea where the U.S. began conducting air strikes on Yemen's Houthis, the Iran-backed rebels who were attacking ships on what is a vital global trade route. And this year, companies have scrambled to import as many goods as possible before Trump's tariffs kicked in, pushing demand, and prices to ship, higher. The Baltic Dry Index, a key indicator of dry bulk shipping demand that tacks the movement of coal, iron ore, grains and more, is hitting eight-month highs. The window for companies seeking to ship goods before the year's end is coming to a close this month. A widening conflict in the Middle East would only drive prices higher as those companies jostle to get goods from overseas as geopolitical tensions in the region rise. Shares of ocean shipping companies like Teekay and Frontline rose sharply following Israel's attack. Consumer goods Higher energy prices can lead to elevated costs for a wide range of products because just about everything is made and transported using oil or natural gas. Government data this week revealed that Trump's tariffs have yet to cause a broader rise in inflation. Still, many companies have announced price hikes due to the tariffs. Walmart has already raised prices on some goods and said it will do so again as the back-to-school shopping season begins. J.M. Smucker, largely due to the impact of tariffs on coffee from Brazil and Vietnam, said it's also raised prices and will do so again. Combined with the higher shipping and production costs that could result from the escalated Middle East conflict, prices will almost certainly rise further, analysts say. 'Inventory buffers may have allowed firms to put off decisions about raising prices, but that won't be the case for much longer,' the ING analysts said. 'We expect to see bigger spikes in the month-on-month inflation figures through the summer,' they added, noting that The Fed's recent Beige Book cited widespread reports of aggressive price hikes already in the pipeline. Federal Reserve Federal Reserve officials meet next week to make their next interest rate decision, and the vast majority of economists still think the U.S. central bank will leave its benchmark rate where it is for the fourth straight time. The Fed has been juggling its dual mandate of supporting the labor market while keeping inflation at bay. That goal may become increasingly difficult to achieve if prices for gas, food and other essential rise due to the Israel-Iran conflict. If prices go up, Fed officials may be inclined to raise its benchmark rate, raising borrowing costs for businesses and consumers. That could lead to businesses to cut jobs, particularly in the high-growth tech sector, and force Americans to pull back on spending, which drives more than 70% of economic activity in the U.S. Travel Perhaps contrary to conventional wisdom, one cascading effect of the heightened Middle East tension may be that the cost of traveling, even if fuel prices rise, will come down. Airlines have been downgrading their travel forecasts as businesses and families tighten their travel budgets in anticipation of tariff-related price hikes. Several major air disasters also have made some wary of getting on a plane. Most major U.S. airlines have said they plan to reduce their scheduled domestic flights this summer, citing an ebb in economy passengers booking leisure trips. Last month, Bank of America reported that its credit card customers were spending less on flights and lodging. And because of the Trump tariff wars, the dollar has fallen almost 10% this year when measured against a basket of foreign currencies, making it more expensive for Americans to travel abroad due to unfavorable exchange rates.
Newsweek
15 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Gavin Newsom Reacts to Donald Trump's 'Unprecedented' Medicaid Move
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. California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom has expressed concern for the privacy of immigrants in his state, following reports that the Trump administration has shared Medicaid data with immigration officials. An internal memo and emails obtained by the Associated Press showed that Medicaid officials unsuccessfully sought to block the data transfer, citing legal and ethical concerns. Nevertheless, two top advisers to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered the dataset handed over to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the emails show. Officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) were given just 54 minutes on Tuesday to comply with the directive. "We deeply value the privacy of all Californians," Newsom's office told Newsweek in a statement. "This action by the federal government has implications for every person on Medicaid, but it is especially alarming for our immigrants and American mixed-status families who are already under relentless, indiscriminate attack by this administration. The federal government continues to instill fear across this nation and shroud its continued violation of Americans' privacy rights in propaganda." Newsweek reached out to DHS and the Department for Health and Human Services for comment via email and contact form Friday afternoon. California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer granted an emergency temporary restraining order to stop President Donald Trump's deployment of the California National Guard, on June 12, 2025, at the California... California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer granted an emergency temporary restraining order to stop President Donald Trump's deployment of the California National Guard, on June 12, 2025, at the California State Supreme Court building in San Francisco. More Santiago Mejia/San Francisco Chronicle via AP Why It Matters Reports of increased data sharing between federal agencies for the purpose of immigration enforcement have caused concerns for several weeks. The Trump administration has said the data is vital in finding illegal immigrants who should be deported. What To Know The dataset included the information of people living in California, Illinois, Washington state and Washington, D.C., all of which allow non-U.S. citizens to enroll in Medicaid programs that pay for their expenses using only state taxpayer dollars. CMS transferred the information just as the Trump administration was ramping up its enforcement efforts in Southern California. Newsom's office said it was concerned about how deportation officials might utilize the data, especially as federal authorities conduct immigration raids with the assistance of National Guard troops and Marines in Los Angeles. Besides helping authorities locate migrants, experts said, the government could also use the information to scuttle the hopes of migrants seeking green cards, permanent residency or citizenship if they had ever obtained Medicaid benefits funded by the federal government. CMS announced late last month that it was reviewing some states' Medicaid enrollees to ensure federal funds have not been used to pay for coverage for people with "unsatisfactory immigration status." In a letter sent to state Medicaid officials, CMS said that the effort was part of Trump's February 19 executive order titled "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders." As part of the review, California, Washington and Illinois shared details about non-U.S. citizens who have enrolled in their state's Medicaid program, according to a June 6 memo signed by Medicaid Deputy Director Sara Vitolo that was obtained by AP. The memo was written by several CMS officials under Vitolo's supervision, according to sources familiar with the process. The data includes addresses, names, Social Security numbers and claims data for enrollees in those states, according to the memo and two people familiar with what the states sent to CMS. Both people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to share details about the data exchange. CMS officials attempted to fight the data sharing request from Homeland Security, saying that complying would violate federal laws, including the Social Security Act and the Privacy Act of 1974, according to Vitolo's memo. "Multiple federal statutory and regulatory authorities do not permit CMS to share this information with entities outside of CMS," Vitolo wrote, further explaining that the sharing of such personal data is allowed only for directly administering the Medicaid program. Sharing information about Medicaid applicants or enrollees with DHS officials would violate a "longstanding policy," wrote Vitolo, a career employee, to Trump appointee Kim Brandt, deputy administrator and chief operating officer of CMS. The legal arguments outlined in the memo were not persuasive to Trump appointees at HHS, which oversees Medicaid. Four days after the memo was sent, on June 10, HHS officials directed the transfer of "the data to DHS by 5:30 ET today," according to email exchanges obtained by AP. Former government officials said the move was unusual because CMS, which has access to personal health data for nearly half of the country, does not typically share such sensitive information with other departments. "DHS has no role in anything related to Medicaid," said Jeffrey Grant, a former career employee at CMS. Beyond her legal arguments, Vitolo said sharing the information with DHS could have a chilling effect on states, perhaps prompting them to withhold information. States, she added, needed to guard against the "legal risk" they were taking by giving federal officials data that could be shared with deportation officials. A 'Concerning' Development All states must legally provide emergency Medicaid services to non-U.S. citizens, including to those who are lawfully present but have not yet met a five-year wait to apply for Medicaid. Seven states, along with the District of Columbia, allow immigrants who are not living legally in the country to enroll—with full benefits—in their state's Medicaid program. The states launched these programs during the Biden administration and said they would not bill the federal government to cover those immigrants' health care costs. The Trump administration has raised doubts about that pledge. Nixon said that the state's Medicaid programs for immigrants "opened the floodgates for illegal immigrants to exploit Medicaid—and forced hard-working Americans to foot the bill." All of the states—California, New York, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, Minnesota and Colorado—have Democratic governors. As a result of his state's budget woes, Newsom announced earlier this year that he would freeze enrollment in the program. Illinois will shut down its program for roughly 30,000 non-U.S. citizens in July. The remaining states have not yet submitted the identifiable data to CMS as part of the review, according to a public health official who has reviewed CMS' requests to the states. What People Are Saying U.S. Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon told AP that the data sharing was legal: "With respect to the recent data sharing between CMS and DHS, HHS acted entirely within its legal authority—and in full compliance with all applicable laws—to ensure that Medicaid benefits are reserved for individuals who are lawfully entitled to receive them." California Governor Gavin Newsom's office, in a statement sent to Newsweek: "Sharing Medicaid beneficiary information with the Department of Homeland Security—which is itself legally dubious—will jeopardize the safety, health, and security of those who will undoubtedly be targeted by this abuse, and Americans more broadly. "Federal law requires emergency care to be provided to all to save lives, and the federal government helps pay for it for low-income individuals, regardless of immigration status. Every state should be concerned about this data sharing and its implications for the safety and health of its communities. We will continue to vigorously defend Californians' privacy rights and explore all avenues to protect their information and safety." What Happens Next Republicans in Congress are continuing to look to limit undocumented immigrants from accessing federal programs while continuing to scrutinize whether sanctuary jurisdictions allow them to receive benefits. This article contains reporting by The Associated Press.
