Transcript Highlights:

• and federal requirements.
• it wasn’t for this administration.
• In 2024, the federal administration under Biden issued a rule requiring child care...
• In 2024, the federal administration under Biden issued a rule requiring child care providers be paid
• Along with that updated guidance from the federal government, the Administration for Children and Families

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittees on early childhood education heard a broad review of the Governor’s child care and preschool budget proposals, with testimony from the Department of Finance, the Department of Social Services (CDSS), the California Department of Education (CDE), and the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO). The main topics were cost-of-care-plus and COLA adjustments, the California State Preschool Program, child care slot reductions tied to federal and Proposition 64 funding changes, disaster recovery grants for child care facilities, trailer bill proposals on family fees and absences, prospective pay, and several budget change proposals for departmental staffing and licensing. Officials also discussed the state’s transition toward an alternative methodology for setting rates based on the true cost of care. On rate reform, CDSS and CDE said the current reimbursement system remains below the alternative methodology in many counties and that providers continue to struggle with recruitment and retention. The LAO recommended aligning cost-of-care-plus increases across provider types, while CDE urged that any COLA be added to base rates rather than cost-of-care-plus payments because providers view the latter as less ongoing. CDSS said the next alternative methodology update will be developed with a contractor during fiscal year 2026-27, with public engagement and legislative input, and estimated that fully transitioning to rates informed by the methodology would take about 24 months once policy and funding are in place. CDSS also said the direct-service cost of care under the methodology was estimated at about $18.7 billion in a July 2025 report. A major point of contention was the proposed reduction of 4,167 child care slots due to lower federal CCDF funding and reduced Proposition 64 revenue. CDSS said it expects to absorb the reduction through unspent funds and relinquishments so currently enrolled children are not disrupted, while the LAO supported the reduction as a way to avoid worsening the structural deficit. Members strongly objected to the slot cuts, arguing the administration has repeatedly proposed reductions after prior budget agreements and emphasizing the economic and family benefits of child care. The committee also discussed preschool enrollment trends, including growth in three-year-old enrollment and a sharp increase in two-year-olds served under a temporary provision, with CDE warning that the temporary two-year-old authority expires in 2027. The committee also reviewed an $11.5 million Proposition 64 proposal for child care infrastructure grants for facilities impacted by 2025 state disasters, especially the Los Angeles fires, and members asked for trailer bill language to make the funds flexible for repairs, equipment, insurance, and permitting. On trailer bill items, the panel discussed codifying family fee reimbursement rules, defining excessive unexplained absences to allow disenrollment after prolonged nonuse, and expanding temporary provider absences; CDSS said the absence policy is meant to mirror federal CCDF rules, while CDE said it is already pursuing its own rulemaking. The hearing also covered prospective pay, with CDSS and CDE saying they are waiting for final federal guidance before moving ahead; LAO said the state could save ongoing costs if the federal requirement is rescinded. Finally, the committee reviewed staffing and support budget requests for CDSS and other implementation items, and held several items open for further discussion before the May Revision. Public comment overwhelmingly urged full funding for child care slots, true cost-of-care payments, and ongoing support for early education programs and county offices of education.

Transcript Highlights:

• HR1 also amended the definition of who qualifies for federally funded Medicaid, full-scope federally
• Which then draws down federal funds, not as many federal funds as would have been received if they also
• at the federal level has made the department's administrative landscape much more complex to navigate
• administration still in power.
• Not just H.R. 1, but these are in response to E.O.s that will go away once the federal administration

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services heard an overview of the expected California budget and program impacts from H.R. 1, including changes to Medi-Cal and CalFresh eligibility, redeterminations, work requirements, immigration-related coverage rules, retroactive coverage limits, and reductions in federal matching for certain services and provider financing mechanisms. DHCS and CDSS described implementation plans focused on automation, data matching, clearer communications, county training, and outreach, while noting that many federal details are still pending. The Legislative Analyst’s Office also reviewed how H.R. 1 could increase pressure on county indigent care systems, explaining the history of county responsibility under Section 17000, 1991 realignment, and AB 85, and warning that counties may face large increases in uninsured residents seeking care without corresponding funding flexibility. An independent policy expert urged consideration of a more standardized statewide approach to indigent care and raised questions about governance, benefits, and financing. Department witnesses estimated substantial coverage losses and fiscal effects: DHCS projected major Medi-Cal disenrollment tied to work requirements, six-month renewals, narrowed immigrant eligibility, and reduced retroactive coverage, while CDSS estimated large CalFresh benefit losses and a significant increase in administrative workload and payment accuracy pressure. Members questioned how exemptions would work for older adults, people experiencing homelessness, undocumented residents, and cash workers, and asked about the effect on the CalFresh Minimum Nutrition Benefit Pilot and on county administrative funding. Officials said they would use available data and self-attestation where possible, but acknowledged that many cases would require manual screening and that the county workload estimates remain in dispute. They also said the state is still evaluating the impact of H.R. 1 on provider taxes and state-directed payments, which could create additional budget pressure. County representatives from Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Tulare, and San Bernardino described major local consequences if H.R. 1 is implemented as written. They warned of higher uninsured rates, more strain on emergency rooms and public hospitals, increased homelessness and food insecurity, and a likely need to rebuild or expand county indigent care programs that were largely scaled back after the ACA. Counties said they are already freezing hiring, cutting positions, reducing overtime, deferring spending, and launching outreach and coordination efforts with managed care plans and community partners, but argued that these steps are not enough without additional state support. Several counties backed the California County Welfare Directors Association’s request for $373 million in General Fund support for eligibility work and asked for a CalFresh match waiver to soften the new county share of administrative costs; Los Angeles and Santa Clara also emphasized that their local revenue measures would not close the projected gaps. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• for us, the administration, to pay for this new requirement.
• Finally, though the proposal is to use federal funds, the state didn't receive any additional federal
• First, the administration is providing one-time funding, though the federal program is ongoing and much
• The administration is not saying this is one-time workload.
• And I recognize that the federal administration has not been easy to work with and that they're constantly

Summary: The subcommittee heard May Revision proposals for higher education, beginning with the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education. Finance proposed a one-time $10 million General Fund backfill to repay a special fund loan used to cover litigation costs, plus provisional language to allow budget flexibility for a remaining legal expense and to repay the loan without interest. The LAO opposed shifting the litigation costs to the General Fund and raised legal concerns about waiving interest on the loan, noting that special fund loans have historically been repaid with interest. Members asked about the litigation amount and the estimated interest savings, which Finance said would be about $245,000. The committee then discussed University of California funding, including the Governor’s proposed compact funding and a $1.5 million one-time increase for the First Star foster youth program at UC campuses. UC said the program has strong outcomes at UCLA, including a 100% college-going rate and high college completion rates, and that the new funding would expand the program to additional campuses and eventually be self-supporting through fundraising. The LAO recommended rejecting the proposal, arguing that UC already has overlapping outreach programs, including the Early Academic Outreach Program, and that the new initiative would duplicate existing services. Several senators questioned whether the state should expand a new program instead of strengthening existing ones, while UC and Finance emphasized the program’s focus on foster youth and its high success rates. For the California Community Colleges, Finance outlined the May Revision’s increase to the Student-Centered Funding Formula COLA from 2.41% to 4.31%, along with enrollment growth funding, categorical COLAs, deferred maintenance, and other ongoing and one-time investments. The Chancellor’s Office supported the flexible “super COLA” approach and asked for more enrollment growth funding, arguing that many districts are already above current targets and that unfunded growth restricts access. The LAO recommended funding at least the statutory COLA, redirecting some ongoing funds to enrollment growth or one-time priorities, and rejecting the $9.7 million Adult Learner Demonstration Project because districts already have incentives to do similar work. Senators pressed Finance and the Chancellor’s Office on the use of COLA funds to cover the new paid pregnancy disability leave requirement, the impact on hold-harmless and basic-aid districts, and whether the state should fund actual enrollment growth rather than a flat COLA. The committee also reviewed California Student Aid Commission proposals, including adjustments to Cal Grant and Middle Class Scholarship funding, continued Golden State Teacher Grant funding, and implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. Finance said the Middle Class Scholarship changes reflected updated caseload estimates and that the higher 35% unmet-need level had been one-time funding, while CSAC urged continued support and noted the importance of financial aid for student success. The LAO recommended rejecting additional Golden State Teacher Grant funding as not well-targeted and urged caution on Workforce Pell trailer bill language, citing uncertainty about federal rules, ongoing administrative workload, and the need for clearer implementation planning. Members also raised concerns about declining CADAA applications and the need to better promote state aid for undocumented and mixed-status students. No votes were taken during the transcripted portion, and the committee moved through the agenda items with questions and testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• administration.
• Implemented two federal demonstration projects to remove barriers, reduce administrative burden, and
• The federal administration is dismantling access to justice for immigrant children and families.
• The federal administration is halting funding to critical legal programs, including for unaccompanied
• The administration, through the Office of Management and Budget, issued a federal funding freeze directive

Transcript Highlights:

• But federal election law—that's federal election day, the November day that we're all sort of used to
• The president's executive order would have said that votes for federal offices at the federal general
• or limit a federal action.
• So federal agencies have been very active during the current administration in executive...
• Federal agencies have been very active during the current administration in exercising their administrative

Committee: House State Government & Tribal Relations

Transcript Highlights:

• The Trump administration has attempted to freeze critical federal funding. funding and raise questions
• There was a mention of federal funding and perhaps disruptions in federal funding.
• the federal government on federal funds.
• federal government...
• administration.

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• and federal requirements.
• Despite budget agreements between the administration and the Legislature, the administration continues
• it wasn't for this administration.
• In 2024, the federal administration under Biden issued a rule requiring child care In 2024, the federal
• Along with that updated guidance from the federal government, the Administration for Children and Families

Transcript Highlights:

• But federal election loss, that's federal election day as the November day that we're all sort of used
• That's because they received pretty significant federal funding, and that federal funding was mostly
• or limit a federal action.
• So federal agencies have been very active during the current administration in executive...
• Federal agencies have been very active during the current administration in exercising their administrative

Summary: The House State Government & Tribal Relations Committee held a virtual work session focused first on federal actions affecting elections. A representative from NCSL reviewed recent U.S. Supreme Court and pending cases, including a redistricting/Voting Rights Act case and a case on whether mailed ballots received after Election Day can be counted. She also discussed a Trump executive order directing USPS to draft mail-ballot rules, the federal SAVE system’s expanded use for voter list maintenance, DOJ requests for unredacted voter rolls, and reduced federal election-security support. Committee members asked about proof of citizenship requirements, whether DOJ requests are compulsory, and how federal election funding and grants may be changing. The Attorney General’s Office then described Washington’s litigation challenging two election-related executive orders and DOJ’s lawsuit seeking unredacted voter registration lists. State lawyers said courts have already enjoined parts of the executive orders, including documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements and voting-system changes, and have upheld Washington’s ballot-receipt deadlines so far. They said DOJ’s voter-roll demands have been rejected by multiple courts and that Washington’s position is that state law limits disclosure of sensitive voter data. Members asked about the legal basis for DOJ’s requests, the risk of immigration-enforcement use, and whether attestation on registration forms counts as proof of citizenship; the office said it does under state law and that no evidence of mass voter-fraud problems in Washington has been shown. Deputy Attorney General Todd Bowers then gave a broader overview of the Attorney General’s federal litigation, saying Washington has filed 61 cases since January 2025, often with other states, and has had notable success obtaining preliminary injunctions and favorable summary judgments. He highlighted cases involving election rules, environmental and energy disputes, public health funding, student loans, housing, and data privacy, and said many challenges involve executive-branch conditions added to congressionally appropriated funds. He also described a growing number of federal audits and inquiries directed at state agencies. Finally, Office of Equity Director Megan Matthews discussed how federal actions are affecting state and local equity work, community organizations, and public confidence. She said the office is coordinating more closely with the Attorney General, governor’s office, other agencies, and local governments through the immigration subcabinet, while also working on data privacy, Keep Washington Working compliance, and community outreach. Committee members asked about the office’s human-trafficking work and how it is encouraging agency compliance; Matthews said the focus is on clearer guidance, technical support, and consistent expectations across agencies. The committee adjourned after the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're very concerned that the federal administration is going to continue to push for us to give our
• </c> We're very concerned uh that the federal We're very concerned uh that the federal administration
• </c><00:43:41.040><c> administration</c><00:43:41.560><c> is</c><00:43:41.680><c> pushing</c> the federal
• administration is pushing the federal administration is pushing towards<00:43:42.240><c> expedited</
• </c> asking assistance from federal asking assistance from federal government?

Committee: Senate Public Safety and Military Affairs

Summary: The joint hearing covered HB 1976, relating to dementia training for law enforcement, and HB 2443, relating to disaster services for people with disabilities and access or functional needs. For HB 1976, the Hawaii Law Enforcement Standards Board opposed the bill’s process and cost, arguing there was no documented training gap because existing CALEA accreditation already includes mental illness response training that covers dementia. Supporters, including the Alzheimer’s Association, AARP, disability advocates, caregivers, and several individuals, said dementia-specific training would help first responders better handle real-world encounters and avoid harmful misunderstandings. The committee later recommended passage with amendments, including changing mandatory language to permissive language in several places and removing a deadline for the first annual training cycle; the recommendation was adopted unanimously. For HB 2443, testimony was strongly supportive. The Disability Communication Access Board, the State Council on Developmental Disabilities, the Office of Wellness and Resilience, Hawaii Emergency Management Agency, and individual testifiers said the bill would strengthen emergency planning and response by adding a Disability Integration Specialist and better integrating people with disabilities and others with access and functional needs into disaster preparedness, sheltering, and FEMA coordination. Several speakers emphasized recent storms and rescues as evidence of the need. The committee recommended passage with amendments, including changes based on Attorney General comments and adding specialized communications and comprehensive communications planning provisions previously contained in another bill; that recommendation was also adopted unanimously. The transcript then moved to a separate mini hearing on HB 1768, relating to immigration enforcement. Supporters, including the ACLU of Hawaii, the Legal Clinic, the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, argued the bill would prevent local law enforcement from entering 287(g)-type agreements or otherwise participating in federal immigration enforcement, citing civil rights concerns, community trust, and the need for police to focus on local public safety. One testifier raised concerns that local cooperation could help avoid mistakes in enforcement, while supporters responded that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility and that local agencies should not be deputized for civil immigration arrests. The excerpt ends amid extended member questions and discussion, without showing a final vote on HB 1768.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Executive Branch then oversees the administration of the appropriated funds across federal agencies
• </c><00:16:53.040><c> is</c><00:16:53.279><c> following</c><00:16:53.680><c> federal</c> his administration
• is following federal his administration is following federal law<00:16:54.480><c> and</c><00:16:54.720
• of the appropriated funds administration of the appropriated funds across<00:17:13.439><c> federal</
• We've seen over 46 lawsuits to date against the administration in federal court now.

Summary: The Judiciary Committee held an informational briefing on the rule of law with U.S. Representative Ed Case. Chair Carl Rhodes opened by explaining the purpose of the briefing, noting it was being livestreamed and that public testimony would not be taken in the usual way. He described the rule of law as central to democracy and introduced Case, who was invited to discuss the concept and its relevance to recent federal actions affecting Hawaii. Case framed the rule of law as a durable system grounded in the Constitution, federal laws, separation of powers, and checks and balances, with each branch of government and the public itself playing a role. He emphasized that Congress makes the laws, the president executes them, and the courts decide whether the Constitution and laws are being followed. He also stressed that elected officials swear to uphold this structure and that the rule of law is distinct from ordinary policy disagreements. Case then argued that the Trump administration has undermined the rule of law through actions such as dismantling or weakening agencies created and funded by law, withholding appropriated funds, removing inspectors general and other independent officials, ignoring or challenging court orders, weakening the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice and the Federal Reserve, and intimidating dissenting voices, the press, and other opponents. He said these actions have harmed Hawaii and reflect a coordinated effort to concentrate power in the executive branch. He noted that Congress has not been serving as an effective check, while federal courts have been the main remaining check through more than 46 lawsuits, and he identified voters as the ultimate check and balance, briefly correcting the timing of the next midterm election to 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• Eligibility is 138% of the federal poverty level.
• The asset test elimination, federal success, and federal flexibilities have contributed to this.
• On March 3, 2025, the federal government published a note in the Federal Register that it would no longer
• The federal government and the new federal administration, and even the prior administration, had sent
• It's administratively complex to set up some of the arrangements with the third-party administrator.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this is why it is so very frustrating in this moment that under this federal administration, we are
• And this is why it is so very frustrating in this moment that under this federal administration, that
• we are going backwards in under this federal administration, that we are going backwards in terms of
• and administrative burden.
• becomes an administrative cost.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on the cost of uncertainty in California health care, especially the effects of federal policy changes on coverage, access, and affordability. Opening remarks from committee leaders and members emphasized that California’s uninsured rate had fallen to historic lows under the Affordable Care Act and state policies, but that the expiration of enhanced federal subsidies, H.R. 1, and other federal regulatory changes could reverse those gains. Members repeatedly cited rising premiums, skipped care, medical debt, and the strain on low-wage workers, families, clinics, hospitals, and public programs. The first panel reviewed the federal landscape and state response. A federal policy analyst described the ACA’s coverage gains and consumer protections, then outlined current threats: H.R. 1’s Medicaid and marketplace cuts, the end of enhanced premium tax credits, shorter open enrollment, more verification requirements, and changes affecting preventive services and vaccines. Covered California reported that the loss of subsidies is expected to nearly double average monthly premiums, reduce enrollment, and push more consumers into bronze plans with higher deductibles; it also noted that California’s $190 million affordability fund is helping the lowest-income enrollees. HCAI’s Office of Health Care Affordability explained its work on spending targets, market consolidation review, and primary care investment, saying the goal is to slow spending growth rather than impose price caps. Committee members pressed witnesses on the practical effects of bronze plans, administrative burdens, immigration-related disenrollment, provider taxes, uncompensated care, and whether California can sustain current coverage levels without new revenue. Witnesses said bronze plans preserve essential benefits but shift more costs to consumers, and that H.R. 1’s verification and auto-renewal changes will likely reduce enrollment. They also said provider tax reductions could significantly weaken state financing over time, and that higher uninsured rates may increase uncompensated care and pressure premiums elsewhere in the system. The second panel, featuring UC Berkeley Labor Center and California Health Care Foundation experts, highlighted broader affordability problems across job-based coverage and Medi-Cal, citing medical debt, skipped care, and the role of underlying system costs, administrative waste, and lack of competition. They pointed to medical debt relief efforts such as Los Angeles County’s program as a short-term mitigation strategy while the Legislature considers longer-term policy and budget responses.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I want to go back to this interplay between the Federal Highway Administration money and the Coast
• So I want to go back to this interplay between the Federal Highway Administration money and the Coast
• Also, as a note, the Federal Highway Administration has a National Highway Construction Cost Index, and
• Because in September of next year, the $2 billion in federal grants that were offered by the Biden administration
• The $2 billion in federal grants that were offered by the Biden administration are likely to be pulled

Committee: Joint Joint Oregon-Washington Legislative Action Committee

Summary: The committee met for a work session and public hearing on the Interstate 5 bridge replacement program. Program staff provided updates on permitting and environmental milestones, including the biological opinion, the Coast Guard navigation review, the final supplemental environmental impact statement, and the amended record of decision expected in 2026. They also discussed the Bridge Investment Program grant deadline, the need for an initial finance plan, and the transition from Greg Johnson to interim administrator Carly Francis. Johnson thanked the committee for its support as he prepared to step down, and members praised his leadership and the program’s outreach and transparency. A major focus was the bridge configuration and cost-estimating process. Staff said the Coast Guard is reviewing the Navigation Impact Report and will decide whether a fixed 116-foot span or a movable span is permissible. They said the final environmental document will also resolve open questions such as one versus two auxiliary lanes and single- versus double-deck configurations. Members pressed staff on why a cost estimate was not yet available, whether the federal decision could delay funding deadlines, and what cost drivers were most significant. Francis said the estimate is still being developed, that a movable span would cost more and affect schedule, and that the program is also considering value engineering and other efficiencies. The committee also reviewed transit-related costs and operations. Staff explained that light rail remains part of the modified locally preferred alternative, and that ridership and operations estimates are based on federal modeling methods. They said updated annual operations and maintenance costs are about $10.3 million, down from a prior estimate of $21.8 million because the current service plan assumes 15-minute train frequency rather than a more intensive schedule. Oregon’s share is estimated at about $5.15 million and Washington’s at $4.12 million, with TriMet said to have committed its portion while Washington-side funding sources are still being identified. Members asked for more detail on TriMet’s fiscal stability and on how the transit operating costs will be covered. In public testimony, economist Joe Cortright criticized the program for not providing an updated cost estimate and argued that the project is behind schedule and has been inconsistent about the Coast Guard process. He said the committee needed the most critical information—total project cost—before moving forward. The hearing then continued with additional public testimony not included in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're considering the nomination of Terrence Cole to serve as administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration
• Two decades ago, the mother and husband of federal judge Joan Lefkoe, a federal judge from my home state
• In the past few months, this administration has repeatedly attacked individual federal judges by name
• Federal US federal law enforcement before and has been cooperative. Okay. Thank you.
• We've seen in a related case a federal judge issue an order to show cause why the administration should

Committee: Senate Senate Judiciary

Keywords: fentanyl crisis, DEA, drug trafficking, public safety, Judea Serrata, Terrence Cole, judicial security, social media, drug prevention

Summary: The committee meeting centered on the urgent crisis of fentanyl abuse and the government’s response to the drug trafficking epidemic. Key discussions revolved around the nomination of Terrence Cole as the Administrator of the DEA and Judea Serrata as Director of the U.S. Marshals Service. Cole emphasized his commitment to combating the fentanyl crisis, highlighting the rising number of overdose deaths and the necessity of bipartisan efforts to dismantle drug cartels. Members engaged in dialogue on the effectiveness of various strategies and the importance of education aimed at preventing drug-related deaths among youth. Additionally, the challenges of social media in drug trafficking were highlighted, indicating a need for greater accountability in how platforms handle such issues. Senators voiced concerns about the impact of administration policies on judicial security and the resources available for marshals to perform their critical roles.

Transcript Highlights:

• We also wanted to share that the administration is providing one-time funding, though the federal program
• Given the termination of the federal Direct File program, the administration has appropriately reduced
• And how is the administration...
• And how is the administration...
• The administration proposes, effective beginning tax year 2026, to conform state law to the federal tax

Summary: The subcommittee heard May Revision proposals from the Department of Food and Agriculture, the Government Operations Agency, the Department of Technology, and the Franchise Tax Board, with public comment to come later and all items held open. CDFA presented funding for the animal care program implementing Proposition 12, including a one-time $5.2 million General Fund transfer to the Ag Fund and $2.8 million ongoing, and the LAO recommended approval while noting the Legislature should revisit the funding once litigation and federal preemption questions are resolved. CDFA also proposed ending state oversight of industrial hemp and moving to the federal USDA program by January 1, 2028, with an $8.3 million General Fund transfer to cover startup and transition costs; the LAO supported the transition. Additional CDFA items included $204,000 ongoing and one position to preserve agricultural statistics reporting after USDA reorganization, and trailer bill changes to clarify the department’s 5% indirect cost cap; both drew no objections from Finance or LAO. The Government Operations Agency and Cradle to Career items focused on implementing the new federal Workforce Pell program. Finance described trailer bill language establishing state eligibility processes, with the California Student Aid Commission as the authorizing entity in consultation with the Workforce Development Board, and proposed $1.3 million one-time General Fund for Cradle to Career to build data linkages. The LAO urged caution because federal rules were just finalized and said more information was needed on workload, costs, and whether existing data systems could support the work. Senators raised policy concerns about limiting the program to public institutions and about aligning the proposal with broader workforce and labor goals. The committee also briefly discussed SB 53/Cal Compute, with GovOps saying no appropriation had been provided for its consortium work, and Finance saying the administration was not proposing funding at this time. The Department of Technology presented a $30 million operational backstop for the Middle Mile Broadband Initiative, intended to cover any shortfall if expected revenues from the Golden State Net third-party administrator do not materialize in time. The LAO initially recommended rejection over broad spending authority, then suggested amendments with stronger reporting and legislative review; committee members questioned the revenue assumptions, oversight, and whether the request could recur. CDT also sought $1 million for Poppy, the state’s GenAI digital assistant, to expand secure statewide use; the LAO had no concerns, and members asked about data security, model bias, training restrictions, and possible local-government use. Finally, FTB proposed realigning CalFile resources after the federal Direct File program was discontinued, retaining three ongoing positions and returning the rest of the funding and positions to the General Fund; the LAO said the reduced scope was reasonable, and members discussed keeping the free filing system user-friendly and ready for future federal changes. The committee also heard the administration’s digital pre-written software tax proposal, which would extend sales tax to electronically delivered software and SaaS beginning January 1, 2027, generating an estimated $450 million General Fund in 2026-27 and $900 million ongoing, plus local revenue. The LAO supported modernizing the tax base but recommended broadening the proposal to include more digital products while considering a business-use exemption or reduced rate, and flagged a newly added video game exemption as a revenue downside. Senators generally supported the goal of raising revenue and aligning California with other states, but questioned the local revenue distribution and equity effects, and one senator said they would not support expanding the tax to books, music streaming, and similar consumer products. All items were left open without votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Federal School Transformation Administration and Support, 2.8 FTE, 1.2 FTE. 7.
• Federal School Transformation Administration and Support, 14.2 FTE, $1,525,025,000. 8.
• Federal School Transformation Administration and Support, $769,725. 13.
• Federal School Transformation Administration and Support, 14.2 FTE, 2 FTE. 14.
• Administrative<06:16:57.600><c> costs</c><06:16:58.000><c> 1062309</c> Administrative costs 1062309 Administrative

Transcript Highlights:

• This is now federally required under a new federal Federal rule however we have a waiver from the federal
• Additionally, establishing those positions will assist with cost avoidance of federal fiscal or federal
• administrative funding.
• We know the damage that this federal administration has done and continues to do to our economy and we
• federal HCBS compliance mandates as well as requirements as a condition of accepting state and federal

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:04:30.119><c> side</c> federal match on our administrative side federal match on our administrative
• Um, with the new federal administration in place, you know, you noted that a lot of the funding comes
• </c><01:09:58.480><c> Administration</c><01:09:59.159><c> in</c> with the new federal Administration
• So is the federal poverty guideline set administratively, where the agency says it goes up every year
• So is the federal poverty guideline set administratively, where the agency says it goes up every year

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• We've heard about federal budget cuts and staffing reductions.
• The Trump administration retaliated by terminating nearly $2.2 billion in federal grants.
• In most instances, the Trump administration is revoking federal funds not because it is legally entitled
• The message from this administration is clear: reduce your equity work or risk federal cuts.
• And as federal action, Lived experiences, our fight didn't count, and as federal action strips race-conscious

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Racial Equity, Civil Rights, and Inclusion

Summary: The Joint Committee on Racial Equity, Civil Rights, and Inclusion held an informational hearing on “Protecting Equity in Higher Education” and emphasized that no bills were being heard. Members and witnesses focused on the effects of recent federal actions on DEI, admissions, financial aid, student loans, international students, and campus equity efforts in Massachusetts. Opening remarks from the co-chairs and the chair of Higher Education highlighted Massachusetts’ investments in free community college, expanded financial aid, and early college programs, while warning that federal policy changes could undermine those gains. Testimony from BU law professor Jonathan Feingold argued that many DEI practices remain legally defensible after Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, and that the decision did not end all race-conscious or equity-oriented efforts. He said the Trump administration’s anti-DEI actions and funding threats were legally suspect and had created confusion and a chilling effect. Bahar Akman-in-Boden of the Hildreth Institute testified that proposed federal cuts to TRIO, Gear Up, Pell Grants, SEOG, work-study, and student loan programs would disproportionately harm low-income, first-generation, Black, Latino, and other underserved students, and urged the state to prepare hold-harmless and advising supports using Fair Share revenue. Commissioner Noe Ortega described Massachusetts’ long history of equity in higher education and said the state has expanded aid, success programs, and early college, but still has work to do on attainment and completion. He said the state responded to SFFA by creating ACARE and continuing to defend equity practices, while also warning that federal disruptions and “dear colleague” letters have created uncertainty. In the second panel, state university leaders and campus officials said federal threats to Pell, DEI grants, Medicaid, and international student policies could affect access, campus operations, and the economy; they stressed that most state university graduates stay in Massachusetts and that institutions are continuing their equity practices despite federal pressure. Roxbury Community College’s president said RCC remains committed to open access and inclusion, noted enrollment growth, and said executive orders do not change existing law or the college’s obligations.

Transcript Highlights:

• At the same time, it is clear that this administration, this federal administration, has created a culture
• The current federal administration has made it clear that eliminating Planned Parenthood and therefore
• I think that the federal administration and the current Congress has made it very clear that defunding
• Our final panel is going to be on the federal administrative changes affecting access to health care
• Our final panel is going to be on the federal administrative changes affecting access to health care

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused first on the impacts of H.R. 1 on Medi-Cal and California’s health care system. Department of Health Care Services Director Michelle Bass outlined provisions including work requirements, semiannual redeterminations, reduced retroactive coverage, new cost-sharing, limits on provider taxes and state-directed payments, reduced federal matching for emergency services for some immigrants, restrictions on lawful immigrant coverage, and a one-year ban on Medicaid funding for certain abortion providers. She said the law could put tens of billions of federal dollars at risk, with estimates of up to 3 million members losing coverage from work requirements, about 400,000 from more frequent redeterminations, and major pressure on hospitals, clinics, and rural providers. She also noted the state is considering implementation timelines, possible delays, and planning for communications, county systems, and a rural health transformation fund. Testimony from Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, the California Hospital Association, and the Western Center on Law and Poverty echoed those concerns. Planned Parenthood said the federal defunding provision would immediately threaten access to reproductive health care, with possible clinic closures, reduced hours, and workforce cuts if injunctions are lifted; it estimated about $305 million in annual federal matching funds are at stake in California. The hospital association warned that reduced provider taxes and state-directed payments could cut hospital revenue by an estimated $66 billion to $128 billion over 10 years, risking service reductions and closures, especially in rural areas. The Western Center argued the changes would reverse ACA-era coverage gains, increase churn and administrative burden, and disproportionately harm working poor people and those experiencing homelessness. Committee members asked about implementation, notification, state mitigation options, and the effect on hospitals and patients; no votes were taken. The second panel addressed community health impacts of recent immigration enforcement actions. CHIRLA described raids as a public health crisis that creates fear, trauma, family separation, and avoidance of health care. Los Angeles County Department of Health Services reported declines in emergency, urgent care, and clinic visits in immigrant-heavy areas after enforcement actions, and said it has responded with multilingual outreach, patient navigation, telehealth, and assurances that patient information remains protected. The Children’s Partnership said enforcement also disrupts children’s access to early childhood education and schools, citing increased absences and fear among families, and urged stronger protections, legal services, and funding for child care and school-based supports. Members asked for more data on visit declines, the effects on children and families, and how to reduce the chilling effect on care-seeking and benefit enrollment.