Able-bodied must now document 80 hours a month of work, job training or volunteering

By Tyler McCarthy, Outreach Associate and Eve Birge, CEO, White Pony Express

Until this June, if you were 55 to 64 and on CalFresh, you were exempt from the program’s strictest work rules. Not anymore.

Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law in July 2025, adults in that age range who are considered able-bodied and don’t have a child under 14 at home must now document 80 hours a month of work, job training or volunteering — or lose their food assistance after three months. California’s rules changed June 1.

Think about who that catches. Too young for Medicare. Too early for full Social Security without a permanent cut to the check. Often job-hunting in a market that stopped calling back the moment their resume showed 20 years of experience.

Learn about the new rules for other age groups, here.

Nationally, SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) enrollment has dropped by four and a half million people since the law passed — about 11 percent. Fewer people getting help is not the same as fewer people needing it, and this is exactly the age group already reporting the most hardship. Food insecurity among adults 50 and older has been climbing for two decades, and it shows up later as worse health, poorer diets and a harder time managing chronic disease. Meanwhile, groceries cost around 30 percent more than they did before the pandemic. More than 4 in 10 older adults now say prices at the store have outrun their budget, according to AARP.

White Pony Express meets them where they already are. Nearly all its 144 partner agencies serve older adults; 18 serve seniors exclusively. Its drivers bring fresh produce, dairy and protein to senior housing and community centers, and set it out like a farmers’ market, not a handout, so people choose what they want and stay to visit, share recipes and build community.

The program coordinator at a food pantry in San Pablo explained it best: “We serve seniors who have a fixed income and use it to pay bills and rent. Food is something they have to find. They survive through this kind of service.”

Since 2013, White Pony Express (WPE) has done this at no cost to its nonprofit recipients and no cost to the people they feed. Help WPE reach more neighbors: volunteer or donate at whiteponyexpress.org.

White Pony Express is a food rescue nonprofit based in Concord, California.

Sources:

1. Until this June, if you were 55 to 64 and on CalFresh, you were exempt from the program’s strictest work rules. Not anymore.
   1. “OBBBA raises the age limit for ABAWD (Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents) work requirements, from 55 to 64.” (Think Global Health, 2026)
2. Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law in July 2025, adults in that age range who are considered able-bodied and don’t have a child under 14 at home must now document 80 hours a month of work, job training or volunteering — or lose their food assistance after three months.
   1. “Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, more adults need to prove they work or volunteer for at least 80 hours a month to access food benefits. These work requirements now apply to veterans, homeless individuals, young adults aging out of foster care, parents with a child between 14 and 17, and people between 55 and 64.” (NPR, 2026)
   2. “People who have to meet the work or community engagement requirement must participate in qualifying activity for up to 20 hours per week, or 80 hours averaged monthly. Qualifying activities include:
3. Paid employment
4. Volunteer work or community service
5. Job training or work programs
6. Education
7. Workfare
8. Combination of any of the above.” (CDSS, 2026)

3. California’s rules changed June 1.
   1. “Starting June 1, 2026, the federal government’s rules on CalFresh work and community engagement requirements are changing in California. This means that some CalFresh recipients between the ages of 18-64 will have to meet work and community engagement requirements to keep their CalFresh benefits.” (CDSS, 2026)
4. Nationally, SNAP enrollment has dropped by four and a half million people since the law passed — about 11 percent.
   1. “We estimate that SNAP participation nationwide fell by more than 4.5 million people (11 percent) between the law’s July 2025 enactment and April 2026, based on the latest month of data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and data from the Georgia Department of Human Services provided in an open records request.” (CBPP, 2026)
5. Food insecurity among adults 50 and older has been climbing for two decades, and it shows up later as worse health, poorer diets and a harder time managing chronic disease.
   1. “Food insecurity among older adults has risen over the past two decades, contributing to poorer diet quality, declining physical health, heightened risk of cognitive impairment, and more challenging chronic disease management.” (Think Global Health, 2026)
6. Meanwhile, groceries cost around 30 percent more than they did before the pandemic.
   1. “The price of food purchased for home use rose 33% from 2019 through June 2026.” (AP News, 2026)
7. More than 4 in 10 older adults now say prices at the store have outrun their budget, according to AARP.
   1. “In a December 2025 AARP survey, more than 4 in 10 adults ages 50-plus said grocery prices now cost more than they can afford, compared with one-third of adults under 50.” (AARP, 2026).

Vote in Senate as early as Thursday

New language by Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee chaired by Senator Scott Wiener also exempts crimes against disabled victims and, in some cases, children under 14.

WARNING: Graphic content

By California Family Council

SACRAMENTO, CA — AB 2691, the Public Trust Protection Act, could be voted on the Senate floor as soon as tomorrow morning, Thursday, Aug. 13, 2026. On August 4, the bill’s authors quietly rewrote its central definition. They did not fix the problem California Family Council (CFC) raised in June. They made it bigger, and harder to see.

Background

AB 2691, authored by Assemblywoman Dawn Addis (D-Dawn Addis), passed the Assembly floor 67 to 0. It would bar people convicted of felony sexual assault or human trafficking from holding public office, a policy CFC supports. On June 24, the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee, chaired by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), added language exempting felony sodomy, oral copulation and sexual penetration when the victim is a minor age 14 to 17.

CFC Vice President Greg Burt testified against that exemption on June 30 and asked the committee to restore the bill to the form the Assembly passed unanimously. The committee advanced the bill anyway, 4 to 1, with only Senator Steven Choi (R-Irvine) voting no.

What Changed on August 4, and How California’s Sex Offender Registry Actually Works

The named exemption for ages 14 to 17 is gone from the bill text. In its place, Addis rewrote the bill to define “sexual assault” using California’s sex offender registration system, and only the most severe part of it.

California sorts every registerable sex offense into one of three tiers, based on how serious the offense is:

• Tier 1 requires registration for 10 years. It covers misdemeanor sex offenses and the least serious felony sex offenses.
• Tier 2 requires registration for 20 years. It covers felony sex offenses that state law separately classifies as “serious” or “violent”, along with a short list of specifically named crimes.
• Tier 3 requires registration for life. It is reserved for the most serious sex crimes: forcible rape, forcible sodomy, aggravated sexual assault of a child, and similar offenses.

Under the bill the Assembly passed, a felony conviction under any of six penal code sections covering rape, sodomy, oral copulation, and sexual penetration disqualified a candidate, full stop. Under the August 4 rewrite, a conviction only disqualifies a candidate if it happens to fall into Tier 3 of the sex registry list. A conviction that falls into Tier 1 or Tier 2, no matter how serious the underlying crime actually was, no longer counts.

That single change does not narrow the original exemption. It widens it.

• Crimes against minors age 14 to 17 remain exempted. The specific carve-out is gone by name, but the conduct it covered, non-forcible sodomy, oral copulation, and sexual penetration of a 14-to-17-year-old, is a Tier 1 offense. It still falls outside the bill’s new definition.
• Sex crimes against disabled victims are now exempted. Non-forcible sodomy and sexual penetration of a victim who cannot legally consent because of a mental disorder or a developmental or physical disability are Tier 2 offenses and fall below the bill’s new threshold.
• Under certain circumstances, so do sex crimes against children under 10. A first-time, non-forcible conviction for molesting a child under 14, which includes children under 10, is a Tier 2 offense and no longer disqualifies a candidate under the bill’s new language, unless the act specifically involved intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, or penetration, which remain covered under a separate, Tier 3 statute.

“We asked this Assemblywoman Addis in June to send this bill back to the form the Assembly passed unanimously. Instead, she took the exemption we objected to, deleted the sentence that named it, and buried the same result inside a much bigger loophole,” said CFC Vice President Burt. “Sex crimes against 14 to 17-year-olds are still exempted. Now sex crimes against people with disabilities are exempted too. And under the right circumstances, so is molesting a child under 14. This bill was supposed to keep sex offenders out of public office. As written, it tells some of them they’re still welcome to run.”

Call to Action

The Senate could vote on AB 2691 as early as tomorrow morning. California Family Council urges senators to vote no on the bill as currently written and urges Californians to contact their state senator today.

About California Family Council

California Family Council works to advance God’s design for life, family, and liberty through California’s Church, Capitol, and Culture. By advocating for policies that reinforce the sanctity of life, the strength of traditional marriages, and the essential freedoms of religion, CFC is dedicated to preserving California’s moral and social foundation.

---

APPENDIX: Affected Crimes, With Penal Code Citations

This list is limited to items independently confirmed against the text of Penal Code section 290, subdivisions (d)(1) through (d)(3), and Penal Code section 667.5(c). Additional items appear in supplemental research from a California State Senate office; those are not included here pending independent confirmation.

No Longer Disqualifying: Tier 1 Offenses (10-Year Registration)

Penal Code 286(b) — sodomy, non-forcible, victim under 18

Penal Code 287(b), or former 288a(b) — oral copulation, non-forcible, victim under 18

Penal Code 289(h) and (i) — sexual penetration by foreign object, non-forcible, victim under 18

Penal Code 289.5 — fleeing to California to avoid prosecution or custody for a registerable sex offense committed in another state (misdemeanor)

No Longer Disqualifying: Tier 2 Offenses (20-Year Registration)

Penal Code 285 — incest

Penal Code 286(g) — sodomy of a victim who cannot legally consent due to a mental disorder or a developmental or physical disability

Penal Code 286(c)(1) — sodomy of a victim under 14, where the offender is more than 10 years older, without force

Penal Code 288(a) — a lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14, first offense, without force. This is California’s basic child molestation statute.

Penal Code 288.3 — contacting a minor with intent to commit a felony, specifically when the underlying intent was to violate 286(b), 287(b), or 289(h)/(i)

Penal Code 289(b) — sexual penetration of a victim who cannot legally consent due to a mental disorder or a developmental or physical disability

Penal Code 647.6 — annoying or molesting a child, second or subsequent offense

Still Disqualifying: Tier 3 Offenses (Lifetime Registration)

Penal Code 236.1(c) — human trafficking of a minor for a commercial sex act

Penal Code 266h(b) — aggravated pimping of a minor

Penal Code 266i(b) — aggravated pandering of a minor

Penal Code 266j — procuring a child under 16 for a lewd act

Penal Code 269 — aggravated sexual assault of a child

Penal Code 286(c)(2) and (d) — forcible sodomy of a child under 14, including in concert

Penal Code 287(c) and (d), or former 288a — forcible oral copulation of a child under 14, including in concert

Penal Code 288(b) — a lewd act on a child under 14 committed by force

Penal Code 288(c) — a lewd act on a 14- or 15-year-old, where the offender is at least 10 years older

Penal Code 288.2 — sending harmful matter to a minor with intent to seduce, felony

Penal Code 288.3 — contacting a minor with intent to commit a felony, except when the intent was to violate 286(b), 287(b), or 289(h)/(i)

Penal Code 288.5 — continuous sexual abuse of a child

Penal Code 288.7 — sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, or sexual penetration with a child age 10 or younger

Penal Code 289(a) — forcible sexual penetration

Penal Code 653f(c) — soliciting another person to commit rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or a lewd act on a child

A felony sentenced to a mandatory life term under Penal Code 667.61 (“One Strike” law)

Designation as a habitual sex offender under Penal Code 667.71

A second, separately tried conviction under Penal Code 288(a)

Sources: California Penal Code section 290, subdivisions (d)(1) through (d)(3), and Penal Code section 667.5(c), both available at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.

Adopts AI-powered weapons detection at medical facilities ahead of state law compliance deadline

By Kristen Aikey, JMG Public Relations

Toronto, ON –Xtract One Technologies (TSX: XTRA)(OTCQX: XTRAF)(FRA: 0PL) (“Xtract One” or the “Company”) announced recently multiple SmartGateway deployments across California healthcare facilities, reflecting growing demand from health systems across the state ahead of the March 2027 compliance deadline for California Assembly Bill 2975. Deployments are underway at Contra Costa Health in Martinez and Hazel Hawkins Memorial Hospital in Hollister, with expected completion by mid-August, in addition to the previous San Mateo Health deployment.

AB 2975 requires hospitals across California to implement enhanced security measures at high-traffic public entrances by March, 2027. The mandate reflects a broader recognition among healthcare administrators and state regulators that emergency departments and other public-facing hospital entrances require dedicated screening to protect staff and patients from weapons-related violence.

“California health systems are making real procurement decisions right now, and the facilities selecting Xtract One are doing so because the technology fits the environment,” said Peter Evans, CEO of Xtract One. “SmartGateway was built for high patient and visitor volumes, diverse populations, and clinical staff who need to focus on care. What we’re seeing across Hazel Hawkins, Contra Costa Health, and San Mateo – and more broadly with healthcare systems in general – is that once an organization sees accurate, high-throughput detection running in a real hospital environment, expanding the solution across the facility becomes an obvious next step.”

Xtract One’s presence in California healthcare predates the AB 2975 mandate. San Mateo Medical Center deployed SmartGateway at its main campus in 2025 following extensive testing of available solutions, with plans to expand to all satellite clinics. The Contra Costa Health deployments build on that established footprint as health systems across the state accelerate their procurement timelines ahead of the March 2027 deadline.

Xtract One’s SmartGateway is designed specifically for high-throughput environments with lower volumes of personal belongings. The system identifies concealed guns and knives while allowing individuals to walk through at a natural pace without divesting personal items, distinguishing it from traditional walk-through metal detectors that alert broadly on any metal object. For healthcare environments where speed and accessibility are

Contra Costa Health, Martinez, CA

Contra Costa Health has also selected three SmartGateway systems for deployment across its main entrance, emergency department, and psychiatric entrance in the primary hospital facility. The deployment is driven by a clear security mandate of detecting and intercepting firearms and bladed weapons before they reach clinical environments. Contra Costa Health has prioritized detection accuracy above all other operational considerations, implementing a bag check protocol alongside SmartGateway screening at its main entrance to ensure the most thorough possible security posture across all three entry points.

To learn more, visit www.xtractone.com.

About Xtract One

Xtract One Technologies is a leading technology-driven provider of threat detection and security solutions leveraging AI to deliver seamless and secure experiences. The Company makes unobtrusive weapons and threat detection systems that are designed to assist facility operators in prioritizing- and delivering improved “Walk-right-In” experiences while enhancing safety. Xtract One’s innovative portfolio of AI-powered Gateway solutions excels at allowing facilities to discreetly screen and identify weapons and other threats at points of entry and exit without disrupting the flow of traffic. With solutions built to serve the unique market needs for schools, hospitals, arenas, stadiums, manufacturing, distribution, and other customers, Xtract One is recognized as a market leader delivering the highest security in combination with the best individual experience. For more information, visit www.xtractone.com or connect on Facebook, X, and LinkedIn.

About Contra Costa Health

Contra Costa Health is the integrated public health system serving Contra Costa County. The system operates a network of hospitals, clinics and public health programs serving hundreds of thousands of residents across the county, with a focus on accessible care for all community members regardless of ability to pay. For more information, visit www.cchealth.org.

About Threat Detection Systems

Xtract One solutions, when properly configured, deployed, and utilized, are designed to help enhance safety and reduce threats. Given the wide range of potential threats in today’s world, no threat detection system is 100% effective. Xtract One solutions should be utilized as one element in a multilayered approach to physical security.

Forward Looking Statements This news release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of applicable securities laws. All statements that are not historical facts, including without limitation, statements regarding future estimates, plans, programs, forecasts, projections, objectives, assumptions, expectations or beliefs of future performance and customer contracts, are “forward-looking statements”. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as “plans”, “expects” or “does not expect”, “is expected”, “estimates”, “intends”, “anticipates” or “does not anticipate”, or “believes”, or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will” be taken, occur or be achieved. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results, events or developments to be materially different from any future results, events or developments expressed or implied by such forward looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the risks detailed from time to time in the continuous disclosure filings made by the Company with securities regulations. These factors should be considered carefully, and readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements. Although the Company has attempted to identify important risk factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements, there may be other risk factors that cause actions, events or results to differ from those anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in forward-looking statements. The Company has no obligation to update any forward looking statement, even if new information becomes available as a result of future events, new information or for any other reason except as required by law

Requires policy for handling technology disruptions, misconduct

Also, changes rules for officials’ remote participation in meetings and on social media, reporting of compensation for top staff

By Allen D. Payton

Just like during COVID, members of the public again have the opportunity to participate remotely in city council and other government meetings, either by phone call or online via videoconferencing. Passed in 2025 and signed into law last Oct. 3, Senate Bill 707 modernizes the Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, went into effect July 1, 2026, and lasts until January 1, 2030. It requires that “all open and public meetings include an opportunity for members of the public to attend via a two-way telephonic service or a two-way audiovisual platform.” In Antioch, the law applies to all public meetings “of the City Council and all eligible subsidiary bodies as directed by the City Council,” such as commissions, boards, committees and council subcommittees.

The Council previously voted to end remote participation by both officials and members of the public in February 2023.

In addition, the law requires, “an eligible legislative body, on or before July 1, 2026, to approve at a noticed public meeting in open session a policy regarding disruption of telephonic or internet services occurring during meetings subject to these provisions, as specified, and would require the eligible legislative body to comply with certain requirements relating to disruption, including for certain disruptions, recessing the open session for at least one hour and making a good faith attempt to restore the service.”

The new law also requires “that the eligible legislative body take specified actions to encourage residents to participate in public meetings.” District 3 Councilman Don Freitas suggested at the meeting on Tuesday, July 28th, that the council make an effort to inform the public of the new, remote process.

During their meeting on April 14, 2026, the Council was provided a presentation on SB707 (agenda Item 13) which included various changes to the state’s open meeting law.

Orderly Conduct – Mayor Can Cut Off Disruptive Remote Participants

The new law “Clarifies statutory authority to remove disruptive remote participants to maintain the orderly conduct of the meeting” for proper decorum. “The Chair must issue a specific warning before muting or disconnecting a disruptive user” to prevent “Zoom Bombers” as occurred during COVID with comments that included profanity and racial epithets by some who called in during public comments. The Council must also “Establish clear conduct rules (e.g., time limits, profanity) and apply them neutrally to all speakers.”

Technology Disruptions

The City Council approved Antioch’s policy regarding technology disruptions during their meeting on May 12, 2026 (See agenda Item 9). According to the staff report on the policy, it “ensures transparency, public participation, and continuity of government during technology disruptions if the City Council finds the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access.”

If a technology disruption occurs, “the meeting must remain in recess for up to one hour or until remote access is restored, whichever occurs first. If service is restored within that time, the Council will reconvene and proceed with the agenda.”

According to the April 14th presentation, technology disruptions require a:

• Mandatory Pause: If remote access service fails, the legislative body must recess to attempt to restore the connection before adjourning;
• Public Notification: Staff must immediately post real-time status updates on the meeting webpage and announce the delay on all available social channels.
• Physical Access to Meeting Room: The physical meeting room must remain open and accessible to the public during the entire recess period.
• The “Public Interest” Finding:If remote service is not restored after one hour, the Council may make a formal finding that the “public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the lack of remote access.” This finding must be adopted by a recorded roll call vote before any further business occurs.

Meetings of Other City Legislative Bodies

The presentation explains that meeting of other eligible city boards, committees, commissions and council subcommittees “include bodies that serve exclusively in advisory capacities, cannot take final action and do not have primary subject matter jurisdiction. (Example: APOC – Antioch Police Oversight Committee). These can include bodies constituted with elected officials. (Example: Cannabis Subcommittee).”

However, “the City Council must formally direct these bodies follow two-way requirements. To do so, the Council must find that circumstances justify use of two-way communication, such communication would enhance public access, and would promote attraction, retention and diversity of the bodies’ memberships. Findings would have to be made by resolution of the City Council.”

Finally, “if two-way communication is required, there must be one physical meeting location, at least one board and staff member must be present there and the present board member must appear on camera. Special standards apply if any member appears via teleconferencing.”

More Reasons & Opportunities for Officials’ Remote Participation in Meetings

SB707 also adds more reasons why public officials can participate in meetings remotely and increases from two to a maximum of five uses per year. Valid reasons labeled, “Just Cause” and “Emergency Circumstances”, now include family medical emergencies, childcare or caregiving needs, military service and contagious illness.

Members must “provide notice and public disclosure at the start of the meeting in accordance with local procedure” and

“explicitly disclose if any individuals over the age of 18 are present in the room with them, and state their relationships…during roll call.”

“The City is required to publish a member-by-member utilization report annually to ensure accountability,” the presentation added.

But a majority of the members must be present in-person to have a quorum to conduct a meeting.

Officials’ Participation on Social Media

The law also changes how public officials can engage with the public on social media. According to the April 14th presentation, officials may now engage with the public’s posts on city matters (e.g., answering questions on a resident’s post, but it includes a strict prohibition that “officials cannot respond to, like, share, or repost other council members’ content on the same topic to avoid ‘serial meetings’” of a majority of members outside the setting of a publicly noticed meeting.

Reporting of Staff Compensation Before Council Vote

Also, according to the presentation, the new law requires that the Council provide, “An oral report…in open session before taking final action on compensation” for all department heads not just for executives such as the City Manager and City Attorney. “The verbal report will include the position title, a summary of compensation elements, and any contract changes.”

Antioch Virtual Speaker Rules & Procedure

According to the Speaker Rules published in each council meeting agenda, “The public has the opportunity to address the City Council on each agenda item. No one may speak more than once on an agenda item or during ‘Public Comments’.

“To provide oral public comments during the meeting, please click the following link to register in advance to access the meeting via Zoom Webinar:

https://antiochca.zoom.us/j/85331467540?pwd=FBgvevB5PJqaMItpDMQhf9pNjqFNb0.1

Meeting ID: 853 3146 7540

Passcode: 167974

Dial-In Number: +1 (669) 444-9171

“You will be asked to enter an email address and a name. Your email address will not be disclosed to the public. After registering, you will receive an email with instructions on how to connect to the meeting. When the Mayor announces public comments, click the “raise hand” feature in Zoom.

“When calling into the meeting using the Zoom Webinar telephone number, press *9 on your telephone keypad to ‘raise your hand’. Please ensure your Zoom client is updated so staff can enable your microphone when it is your turn to speak. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.

“When you are called to speak, please limit your comments to the time allotted. The City cannot guarantee that its network and/or the site will be uninterrupted.”

To discuss Sheriff’s Office response to ICE civil immigration enforcement activities

By Kristi Jourdan, PIO, Contra Costa County & Jimmy Lee, PIO, Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office

(Martinez, CA) – The Contra Costa County TRUTH Act Community Forum to discuss civil immigration enforcement activities is scheduled for 10 a.m., Tuesday, Aug. 25, during the regular Board of Supervisors meeting.

The forum discussion will present Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office 2025 data on responses to ICE Requests for Notification for serious and/or violent offenders currently in custody, in compliance with state law. The annual forum has been held since 2017 in accordance with California’s Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act, which requires local jurisdictions to hold a public forum and report on certain interactions with federal immigration authorities.

Jourdan and Lee were asked why they are referred to as, “civil immigration enforcement activities” when the forum will discuss “responses to ICE Requests for Notification for serious and/or violent offenders currently in custody” and shouldn’t they be considered criminal immigration enforcement activities.

Jourdan responded, “we use ‘civil immigration enforcement’ in alignment with the definition of ‘ICE access’ under section 7283(d).”

“The annual TRUTH Act forum reflects our commitment to strengthening trust through open dialogue,” said Board Chair Diane Burgis, District 3 Supervisor. “By creating a space for the public to ask questions, hear information directly from local law enforcement, and share their concerns, we ensure these conversations are grounded in transparency that keeps our community informed and engaged.”

According to the California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General, “Effective January 1, 2017, California’s Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act ensures that local law enforcement agencies provide individuals in their custody with basic due process and information about their rights should federal immigration authorities seek to make contact with them. Specifically, the law requires:

• Before subjecting an individual in its custody to an interview by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) a local law enforcement entity shall provide the individual with a written consent form, in a language that is understandable to the individual, that explains all of the following:
  • The purpose of the interview;
  • That the interview is voluntary; and
  • That he or she may decline the interview or may choose to be interviewed only with his or her attorney present.
• Upon receiving any detainer, notification, or transfer request, the local law enforcement agency shall:
  • Provide a copy of the request to the individual; and
  • Inform the individual whether the law enforcement agency intends to comply with the request.
• If a local law enforcement agency chooses to provide ICE with notification that an individual will be released from custody on a certain date, the local law enforcement agency must promptly provide the same notification in writing to the individual and to his or her attorney or other person designated by the individual being held.
• All records relating to ICE access provided by local law enforcement agencies, including all communication with ICE, are public records for purposes of the California Public Records Act, but to protect the privacy of individuals, personal identifying information may be redacted prior to public disclosure.”

Ways to Participate:

• Attend the forum in person on August 25 at 1025 Escobar St. in Martinez 
• Watch live at www.contracosta.ca.gov or on CCTV:
  • AT&T U-verse Channel 99, Comcast Channel 27, or WAVE Channel 32.
• Provide comments or questions in person, by phone, or Zoom during the meeting, or provide public comment in advance by emailing it to TRUTHAct@cob.cccounty.us or mailing it to the Clerk of the Board, 1025 Escobar St., 1st Floor, Martinez, CA 94553.
• The meeting will include real-time closed captioning and live translation through Wordly.

Phone and Zoom participation details will be included in the Aug. 25 agenda, posted at least 96 hours before the meeting.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

“The law requires that every school campus have at least one all-gender restroom option available to students.”

By Greg Burt, Vice President, California Family Council

SACRAMENTO, CA — California is quietly moving toward mixed-sex bathrooms in K-12 public schools, and the state’s own Department of Education is leading the way.

A new law California Family Council opposed, SB 760, now requires schools to provide at least one “all-gender” restroom option on campus.

Passed in September 2023, the bill was cosponsored by then-State Senator Steve Glazer (D-Orinda). He, then-State Senator Nancy Skinner, now-State Sen. Tim Grayson and Assemblymembers Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Buffy Wicks, and Lori Wilson who represent Contra Costa County, voted for the bill.

The stated goal was to make transgender-identified students feel safer from bullying. But in the rush to accommodate those students’ feelings, lawmakers apparently gave little thought to a different safety question: what happens when boys are given access to girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms?

The State Is Already Building the Roadmap

The California Department of Education has an entire webpage dedicated to “All Access Restrooms,” describing it as a resource offering background information, planning and design resources, laws and regulations, and references for implementing “gender-inclusive” restrooms in K-12 schools.

The background information on that page acknowledges that “the designs of all-access restrooms have been trending in schools throughout the state, the country, and the world,” while noting there are currently no California design standards for these facilities. In other words, the trend is already underway, and the standards are still catching up.

The planning section of the CDE page is even more candid about the scope of what is being proposed. It describes “shifting from multi-user gendered restrooms and single-user all-gender restrooms to offering blocks of restroom facilities for all students;” meaning the goal is not just a single converted nurse’s bathroom tucked in a hallway. The ambition is to redesign entire blocks of school restroom facilities so that boys and girls share the same space.

What Would It Look Like?

The new all-gender bathroom designs typically eliminate urinals entirely, replacing them with individual private stalls accessible to everyone. The CDE’s resources page recommends an academic article published in the Education Sciences Journal titled “Expanding the Scope of Universal Design: Implications for Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation,” by Ellyn Couillard and Jeanne L. Higbee (2018), as a guide for implementation. That an academic paper on gender identity ideology is among the state’s recommended planning resources tells you something about the ideological framework driving these design decisions.

But keep in mind, SB 760 doesn’t require a complete redesign of a single-sex bathroom for it to become all-gender. 

You Already Saw It at the State Capitol

If you want to get a glimpse of what legislators have in mind when they convert a single sex bathroom into an all gender bathroom, take a look at one of the converted male bathrooms at the state capitol, used by legislative staffers, adult visitors, and elementary school children visiting on field trips. California Family Council recently took a video of the empty bathroom located to one side of the Capitol Dome.

“I’m pretty sure most parents would object to their young children sharing a bathroom while men are using the urinals,” Burt said. “Even without the adult issue, I’ve witnessed the chaos that occurs when young boys are pouring into the same bathrooms as the girls while visiting the Capitol. The girls are not happy about it.” (Watch video tour of Capitol bathroom https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okTcKcP3ACQ) 

So, what should parents expect when multi-stall bathrooms are converted to all gender at their child’s school?

What the Law Actually Requires — And What It Doesn’t

It is important to be clear about what SB 760 does and does not mandate. The law requires that every school campus have at least one all-gender restroom option available to students. It could be single-stall or multi-stall. It must be supplied with menstrual products starting in 3rd grade, and it must be unlocked and easily accessible. But there are no requirements that urinals be removed or that additional privacy measures be added to stalls.

Sex-separated restrooms are still permitted, and most schools will continue to have them.

Burt explained what this means in practice for families. “How each school fulfills this new requirement is entirely up to the local school board. A conservative district might simply relabel a single-occupancy nurse’s bathroom and call it done. A progressive district could use this law as a green light to convert entire multi-stall restroom facilities to mixed-sex use. Parents need to find out right now what their district is planning,” he said.

The CDE’s planning resources make clear that the broader vision goes well beyond a single-stall accommodation in the corner of the building. It points toward a wholesale redesign of school bathroom facilities, one that treats sex-separated restrooms as a problem to be solved rather than a common-sense protection for children.

The Question Nobody in Sacramento Answered

SB 760’s supporters argued the law was needed to protect transgender-identified students from harassment, but the legislature never seriously asked the parallel question: does giving boys access to girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms create new opportunities for harassment and assault of girls?

California has seen case after case in recent years where policies designed to accommodate gender identity have created unsafe situations for female students. The discomfort of girls sharing intimate spaces with biological males is not a lesser concern. Lawmakers who refused to weigh it have not protected children. They have simply chosen which children’s safety matters.

Parents: Now Is the Time to Speak Up

Because each school board will decide how to implement SB 760 on its own campuses, parents have a real opportunity to influence what happens at their child’s school, but that window will not stay open indefinitely. Decisions about restroom redesigns and facility changes get made early in the budget and planning process, often before most parents are even aware the conversation is happening.

If you want a say in how your district handles this new requirement, call your school board member and school administrators now. Ask them directly: how does our district plan to fulfill the SB 760 all-gender restroom requirement? Will existing sex-separated restrooms be preserved? Will multi-stall facilities be converted? Every parent deserves to know the answers. 

Here is one of the committee hearings from 2023, when SB 760 was discussed, and CFC provided opposition testimony. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwk7J82Prn8&t=1s

About California Family Council

California Family Council works to advance God’s design for life, family, and liberty through California’s Church, Capitol, and Culture. By advocating for policies that reinforce the sanctity of life, the strength of traditional marriages, and the essential freedoms of religion, CFC is dedicated to preserving California’s moral and social foundation.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Google, FBI partnering on lawsuit against major criminal scam syndicate in China

Google endorsing Harder’s Stop SCAMS Act to create all-of-government response to organized cybercrime

By Kevin Winslow, Communications Director, Office of Congressman Josh Harder

WASHINGTON – On Monday, June 15, 2026, Rep. Josh Harder (D, CA-09) announced that his anti-scam advocacy led to a major coordinated crackdown on international scammers. Google, major tech companies, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced a lawsuit today against the China-linked cybercriminal network “Outsider Enterprise” alongside Google’s endorsement of Harder’s “Stop Schemes, Cyberfraud, Abuse, Manipulation, and Swindles Act” or Stop SCAMS Act, H.R. 7215, which would establish a government-wide task force to respond to cyberscams.

Organized crime rings are overwhelming law enforcement and victims alike:

• Groups like Outsider Enterprise have created over 9,000 fake websites, 1 million fraudulent URLs, and supported over 2.5 million scam texts to Android users alone.
• Californians lost as much as $2.5 billion to online scams in 2024, in the form of robocalls, texts, fake tax collections, phony job ads, card-declined alerts, and cryptocurrency schemes targeting seniors, veterans, and working families.
• Severe scams like identity theft are growing rapidly and increasingly targeting previous victims multiple times.

“International cybercriminals are robbing our families of their hard-earned savings, and we need a permanent solution to bring them to justice,” said Rep. Harder. “My Stop SCAMS Act would bring every level of government together to aggressively crack down on scams and the organized crime rings behind them. I’m grateful to have Google’s support and look forward to partnering with law enforcement and industry partners to stop cyber scams once and for all.”

“We strongly support the Stop SCAMS Act,” said Halimah DeLaine Prado, Google General Counsel. “Shutting down scammers takes a coordinated effort, and this bill will help government agencies work better together to keep Americans safe. Thank you to Representatives Harder and Fitzpatrick for championing this vital consumer protection.”

How the Stop SCAMS Act cracks down on organized cybercrime:

• New Task Force – Directs the FBI to organize a coordinated, government-wide task force to prevent and respond to modern scams.
• Better Data – Aligns inter-agency actions, definitions, and data to improve the efficiency of scam-fighting efforts.
• Prevention – Measures the effectiveness of scam prevention efforts and improves public education campaigns. 

Harder represents California’s 9th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives. The new district boundaries under Prop 50 will include Antioch and other portions of Eastern Contra Costa County following the November election.

Funds new units across California

By Cameron Niven, Communications Director, Office of Congressman John Garamendi

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, U.S. Representative John Garamendi (D-CA-08) issued the following statement after the Senate passage of the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which includes his HOME Investment Partnerships Reauthorization and Improvement Act—a bill to significantly increase the amount of federal funding available for affordable housing across the country:

“Hardworking Californians face a severe shortage of affordable housing options, and minimum wage workers must work an average of 88 hours per week to afford a modest one-bedroom rental at fair market rates. The HOME Act will help change that,” said Representative Garamendi.

“The Senate’s affordable housing legislation includes my HOME Investment Partnerships Program, which, for the first time since 1994, will bring this crucial program into the 21st century,” Garamendi continued. “It will provide states and local governments with the funding needed to construct and rehabilitate affordable rental housing, as well as expand homeownership opportunities for working families. I’d also like to thank Senator Masto for introducing this bill in the Senate and Representative Beatty for co-leading in the House.”

On February 9th, Garamendi voted in favor of the Housing for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 6644), which passed the House with strong bipartisan support. Then, on March 12, the Senate overwhelmingly passed the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. The bipartisan bill combines elements of both the House and Senate-passed legislation. The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act includes 18 sections drawn from both the House and Senate bills, including Garamendi’s HOME Act.

This comprehensive housing package will take important steps to boost the nation’s housing supply, improve affordability, and increase oversight and efficiency of federal regulators and housing programs.

HOME Background

The HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) is the largest federal affordable housing block grant and is HUD’s flagship affordable housing production program.

Since 1990, HOME has helped state and local housing agencies support a wide variety of housing needs, from financing new construction and home repairs to funding down payment and rental assistance. It also provides additional funding to housing developments financed by the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, helping the program serve more extremely low-income people, including seniors, veterans, those experiencing homelessness, and people with disabilities.

Since 1992, the HOME program in California has:

• Invested $5.27 billion into housing across the state;
• Built or preserved 121,727 homes;
• Given rental assistance to 43,840 families;
• Supported 277,318 jobs; and
• Generated $19.2 billion in local income.

The program was last re-authorized in 1994 and needs critical updates to better address today’s housing crisis. Garamendi’s HOME Investment Partnerships Reauthorization and Improvement Act would reauthorize the HOME program and make several much-needed improvements. Specifically, it would:

• Authorize $5 billion in HOME funding for fiscal year 2024 and boost the funding for the program by five percent annually through 2028. Garamendi’s legislation would address chronic underfunding of the affordable housing investment program, which received only $1.5 billion in 2023;
• Improve HOME’s ability to provide downpayment assistance to homebuyers and home repair assistance to homeowners;
• Enable HOME funds to support Community Land Trusts and other shared equity homeownership programs; and
• Increase access to HOME funds for nonprofits and provide state and local governments loan guarantee options that would allow them to leverage their future HOME funds for investments today.

Representative Garamendi has spent his entire career advocating for affordable housing, robust homeowner protections, and rental assistance programs. As California’s first-ever elected Insurance Commissioner, Garamendi successfully implemented Proposition 103, which reformed the homeowner insurance industry and lowered homeownership insurance rates.

In 2023, Garamendi and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) led members of California’s congressional delegation in sending a letter to California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara urging him to use his power under state law to protect homeowners in the face of an insurance crisis. During his congressional tenure, Garamendi worked with Habitat for Humanity to establish a financing mechanism that utilized existing funding to build new veteran housing units.

Garamendi originally introduced the HOME Investment Partnership Reauthorization Act in 2020 and has continued to champion the legislation in Congress. He is also a cosponsor of the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act, which would support the financing of more affordable housing by expanding and strengthening the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit.

The Office of Congressman John Garamendi has also worked with local partners to increase access and support the development of affordable housing projects throughout California’s 8th Congressional District including: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, East Bay Housing Organizations, Tiny Village Spirit, Eden Housing, Multi-Faith ACTION Coalition (MFAC), Hope Solutions, Interfaith Council of Contra Costa, Crankstart Foundation, and the California Association of Housing Authorities.

The bill is endorsed by: Hercules Vice Mayor Alexander Walker-Griffin, Hercules Council Member Dilli Bhattarai, Richmond City Council Member Cesar Zapeda, National Council of State Housing Agencies, Institute of Real Estate Management, National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals, National Association of Realtors, Enterprise Community Partners, National Apartment Association, National Multifamily Housing Council, National NeighborWorks Association, National Community Development Association, National Alliance of Community Economic Development Associations, National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, Council of State Community Development Agencies, National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development, Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Grounded Solutions Network, and Habitat for Humanity.

Garamendi represents California’s 8th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives which includes the northern and western portions of Contra Costa County and a majority of Solano County.