Sea turtles usually found in the tropics have been spotted nesting on California beaches — a historical first, according to officials.
Olive ridley sea turtles are one of the smallest of the sea turtles and have distinctive olive-green, heart-shaped shells. They are typicallyfound in tropical parts of the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Oceans. But this month, two have come ashore in California.
An olive ridley turtle was seen digging a nest near Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge in northwest Orange County last week, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Advertisement
A few days later, a nesting olive ridley was spied near the Huntington Beach Pier, also in Orange County. Originally, it was believed they were the same turtle, but an expert analysis of body shapes and unique shell patterns confirmed these were two different turtles.
The sightings mark “the first-ever documented natural sea turtle nesting on the US West Coast,” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said in a social media post.
Olive ridley turtles are known for mass nesting, called “arribada,” where thousands come ashore at the same time to lay their eggs on a certain beach — a phenomenon that’s been observed in countries such as Costa Rica and Mexico. But it’s more common for the turtles to nest in a solitary way, which is what appears to have happened in California.
Scientists are still working to understand what pushed the turtles northward and whether this is an anomaly or potentially a more long-term expansion of their range as the human-driven climate crisis warms the oceans.
Their behavior was very likely influenced by the current super El Niño weather pattern, which has driven up ocean temperatures, said Jeffrey Seminoff, leader of the Marine Turtle Ecology & Assessment Program at NOAA.
Advertisement
But this is likely not the only reason. Sea turtles navigate the oceans “using multiple internal and environmental cues, including their own internal compass — sort of an on-board GPS — as well temperature, wave direction, time of year, etc.,” Seminoff said.
He believes a confluence of factors, including sustained warm water and “malfunctioning GPS,” likely led them to think they were coming ashore at nesting beaches in Mexico.
Another theory is that Pacific storm activity could have pushed the turtles off course. The Pacific Ocean has been particularly busy recently as the exceptionally warm water brought by El Niño supercharges its hurricane season.
“Nothing is off the table in terms of causation. It will be so hard to unravel the specific reasons,” Seminoff said.
Each olive ridley nest usually contains around 100 eggs, and the sex of the baby turtles is affected by temperature. Warmer temperatures tend to produce more female turtles. For olive ridleys, temperatures around 87 degrees Fahrenheit and above will mean almost all hatchlings will be female.
Advertisement
An interagency team will monitor the California nests for the next 45-60 days, the typical incubation period. The nest sites have already been fenced off and people are being asked to give them space and avoid disturbing them, to give the baby turtles the best chance of hatching. In the US, sea turtles are protected under the Endangered Species Act.
“As animals adapt in unexpected ways to changes in their natural world, humans will need to adapt and make space to ensure endangered and threatened species are given a fighting chance,” said Jeff Flocken, president and CEO of the Aquarium of the Pacific, a non-profit institution, in a statement.
“If they successfully hatch, these baby turtles will likely one day return to nest to carry on future generations on these very same beaches, giving us a remarkable opportunity to help a species expand its range and thrive.”
Newsom has until September 30, 2026, to sign the bill, veto it, or let it lapse into law. Coming two weeks after Utah’s SB 73 took effect and days after Rep. Darrell Issa introduced the American Copyright Protection Act at the federal level, AB 1709 is the third piece of the same broader move: state and federal lawmakers building a new layer of internet regulation that reaches through platforms, ISPs, and identity itself. If Newsom signs, the enforcement architecture that ships with it changes what every California adult’s online session looks like, not just their kids’.
What AB 1709 Actually Does
The bill targets “addictive features” on covered platforms. In practice, that means the personalized algorithmic feeds that power TikTok’s For You page, Instagram’s home tab, YouTube’s recommendations, and similar surfaces on Snapchat and Reddit. It also targets autoplay of the next video and push notifications sent outside a defined nighttime window. When a user is identified as under 16, those features would have to be turned off by default. The knowing-violation penalty is set at up to $50,000 per affected minor. For a platform with millions of teen users in California, the math scales fast.
How the Platforms Know Who’s a Minor
The mechanism is what makes this bill different. AB 1709 does not require users to upload an ID. It relies on the OS-level age signal established by a separate California law, AB 1043, which takes effect January 1, 2027. Under AB 1043, Apple, Google, and Microsoft would collect age information during device setup and pass a simple minor-or-adult signal to installed apps. AB 1709 then requires apps to act on that signal.
Advertisement
A companion measure, AB 1856, adds a narrow open-source exemption to AB 1043. Illinois passed a broader device-level law (P.A. 104-0664, effective 2028) unanimously in both chambers, and Colorado’s SB26-051 lands the same year with its own open-source carveout. The pattern is clear: identity verification is moving from the website to the phone.
Protect Your IP With NordVPN
Why Adults Should Care About a Bill Aimed at Teens
The stated target is under-16 users. The practical footprint is bigger. Building the OS-level infrastructure that identifies minors also builds the infrastructure that identifies everyone else, and that infrastructure feeds a growing list of state and federal laws layered on top of it: age-verified adult sites in Utah and Texas, the Issa piracy-site blocking bill, and the ongoing FTC probe into surveillance pricing that keys off the same personal signals.
Once your device broadcasts an authenticated age signal to every app, that signal becomes another data point that platforms can log, cross-reference, and hand to advertisers or data brokers. The EFF and other civil-liberties groups have raised exactly this concern in their public comments on California’s device-level bills.
Where a VPN Actually Fits, and Where It Doesn’t
Direct on the limits: a VPN does not intercept the OS-level age signal AB 1709 would rely on. That signal comes from the device you’re using, not from your IP address. If you’re logged into your Apple ID or Google account and the OS has flagged your age, no VPN changes that at the app layer.
Advertisement
Where a VPN does help is on the layers that sit around the age signal. NordVPN masks your IP address from every site you visit, which cuts the geolocation signal used by adjacent age-verification schemes (state-level porn laws, geo-fenced compliance zones) and by the pricing engines flagged in the FTC’s ongoing study. Threat Protection Pro, included in the higher tiers, blocks the trackers and ad-tech beacons that pair your identifiers across sites. NordVPN sits near the top of most best VPN guides for that layered approach.
NordVPN Basic at $3.49 per Month
NordVPN’s Basic plan is available at $3.49/month, which works out to $94.23 billed once for 27 months of service (24 + 3 free). That is a 69% discount off the standard rate, with annual renewal at $139.08/year, cancelable at any time. The plan covers up to 10 devices with apps for Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android, browsers, and router installation. Threat Protection Pro sits in the Advanced and Ultra tiers rather than in Basic.
Every plan is backed by a 30-day money-back guarantee, refunded through 24/7 chat support within 5 to 10 business days.
California voters will decide in November whether to approve a first-in-the-nation wealth tax, but the fate of the contentious ballot measure will rest on how much support two competing initiatives receive.
Proposition 40 — a one-time, 5% levy on the state’s more than 200 billionaires — was proposed by SEIU United Healthcare Workers West last year as a way to address the state’s lost revenue from federal cuts, with 90% of the dollars raised going to healthcare and 10% to food assistance or education-related programs.
Propositions 1 and 37 put $36 billion to housing effort
Advertisement
The initiative has roiled California politics for months, dividing state leaders and labor unions. The measure’s backers say the tax is necessary to prevent hospitals and clinics from closing and low-income residents from losing coverage from Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program, while critics argue it will drive wealthy residents out of the state and inflict long-term damage to the state’s economy.
But winning a simple majority might not be enough for Prop. 40 to take effect. Propositions 41 and 42 have provisions that could void the wealth tax if either also passes and receives more yes votes.
Prop. 41 would require the state auditor to review proposed special taxes before they’re placed on the ballot and invalidate taxes that don’t comply with the state spending limit, while Prop. 42 would prohibit new state personal property taxes.
Thad Kousser, a professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, said it poses a “triple challenge” for the proponents of Prop. 40.
“They don’t know where the end zone is,” he said. “They’re going to have to both make an argument for a wealth tax that has split the progressive coalition, but also make an argument against two other initiatives that may be appealing to voters who see them probably for the first time when they open their ballots.”
Advertisement
The latest statewide survey from the Public Policy Institute of California, a nonpartisan research group in San Francisco, found that Prop. 40 had the support of 52% of likely voters. Support stood at 51% for Prop. 41 and 54% for Prop. 42. The poll had a margin of error of 3.8 percentage points.
Prop. 40
Prop. 40 would levy a 5% tax on individuals with more than $1 billion in net worth. Real estate and some pensions and retirement accounts, however, would be excluded. The tax would only apply to billionaires living in California as of Jan. 1, 2026, and those subject to the tax have the option of either paying it in full in 2027 or making annual payments for the next five years, which would have added interest.
The initiative was proposed as a solution to the looming budget crisis facing the state following President Donald Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” that makes major cuts to healthcare and food assistance. California could lose at least $30 billion in annual federal funding as a result, according to the California Budget and Policy Center.
The estimates of just how much money the tax will bring into California’s coffers vary. Proponents claim that it will raise $100 billion. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates its yield at “tens of billions of dollars,” but said it could also reduce ongoing state income tax revenues by less than $1 billion per year if billionaires decided to leave.
Without a way to fill the budget gaps, the measure’s backers warn that some Californians on Medi-Cal could lose their coverage. Hospitals and community clinics that rely on federal revenues targeted by the cuts could also face closures, they argue.
Advertisement
Dave Regan, the president of SEIU United Healthcare Workers West and the architect of the tax, said in an interview that the tax will prevent a “healthcare catastrophe” in California.
U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), left, listens as SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West President Dave Regan speaks during a rally for Prop 40, also known as the “Billionaire Tax,” at the South Bay Labor Council headquarters on Aug. 18, 2026, in San Jose, Calif. (Dai Sugano/Bay Area News Group)
“We’re either going to watch this train wreck or we’re going to pass Proposition 40,” he said. “It’s a solution to a problem that was put in all of our laps.”
But opponents of the billionaires tax argue that the money will only temporarily stem the budgetary bleeding. The No on Prop. 40 coalition, which includes the California Medical Association, the California Teachers Association, the California Chamber of Commerce and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, positions the initiative on its website as a “flawed, reckless tax.”
Francisco Silva, the president and CEO of the California Primary Care Association, called Prop. 40 a “gimmicky solution that doesn’t really address the core issues in healthcare.”
“It creates temporary revenues that don’t really allow us to build the infrastructure to sustain it,” he said.
Advertisement
Silva also raised concerns about the measure’s “safeguards and accountability.” The tax revenue would be deposited into a reserve fund, but there is no specificity as to how the money will be spent beyond it being used for “health care funding” and “education-related and food assistance expenditures.” The measure, however, does note that the money can’t be used to replace existing state funds for healthcare, education or food assistance.
Other opponents of the tax, like Gov. Gavin Newsom, have raised concerns about Prop. 40 driving billionaires out of the state, which they said would hurt the state’s tax base. The top 1% of California earners pay nearly 40% of the state’s personal income tax, and personal income tax currently makes up 61% of the state’s general fund revenues. The governor, who is eyeing a potential presidential bid, recently called for a national wealth tax instead.
“Wealth is movable, and it shops for the state with the lowest taxes,” Newsom wrote in a June Substack post. “The fight belongs at the federal level, where this broken system was created in the first place.”
Regan, however, argues that it will give California five years to “figure out a long-term solution” for healthcare funding. The labor leader also brushed off the claims it would push wealthy residents and businesses out of California, calling it a “disingenuous argument.”
“A one-time tax creates no incentive for billionaires to leave the state and we felt that was important,” Regan said. “We wanted to take that issue away to the extent we control it. It doesn’t stop them from making a dishonest argument, but it’s not true.”
Advertisement
Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin are among the billionaires who moved out of the state last year as talk of the billionaires tax grew. Brin has shelled out more than $100 million to Building a Better California, a newly formed group that’s opposing Prop. 40 and supporting Props. 41 and 42.
The billionaires tax has been endorsed by Rep. Ro Khanna, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont; the California Democratic Party and the California Federation of Labor Unions. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has also voiced his support, recently saying he’s “perfectly fine” with having to pay more in taxes. Forbes estimates that Huang is worth $198 billion.
Prop. 41 and Prop. 42
Prop. 41 would require the state auditor to review any proposed special tax before it goes in front of voters by auditing each program that would receive funding. The audit would include an analysis of whether each program is maximizing the dollars it’s currently spending, whether it’s achieving its intended goals and recommendations for how it could save at least 10% annually. The initiative would also prohibit any new tax that excludes its revenues from a state spending limit.
Tracy Hernandez, the co-founder and CEO of the New California Coalition that was an early supporter of the measure, said the initiative is about “accountability and transparency” and will ensure that voters are “better armed with information” about new proposed taxes.
“A lot of people find that we’re a little short on the proof points of how much more money we’re spending and that’s taxpayer money that all of us are contributing,” she said.
Advertisement
The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the fiscal impact of the measure is currently unknown. The state auditor is likely to see increased costs to implement the new rules; however there could be possible savings by implementing recommendations from the audits, according to the office.
The initiative has been endorsed by the California Chamber of Commerce, former state Controller Steve Westly and the California Taxpayers Association.
Prop. 42 would prohibit new taxes on personal property, including those on retirement accounts and assets.
Rob Gutierrez, the president and CEO of the California Taxpayers Association, said in an interview that the measure will help residents plan for their retirement and “protect California’s business climate.” He said that while the state has the right to change tax policy, it shouldn’t be able to move the “goalposts” after people have already earned income and saved for retirement.
“It really comes down to certainty,” he said. “What does the future look like, how do you plan, and how do you make decisions so that you know you can stay in California.”
Advertisement
Prop. 42 is also being backed by the State Building & Construction Trades Council of California, the Peace Officers Research Association of California and the California Chamber of Commerce.
SEIU United Healthcare Workers West opposes both Props. 41 and 42, and Regan, the union president, said that they were “drafted specifically to confuse voters and intended as poison pills to Prop. 40.”
“Prop 40 can only affect 250 people — nobody else,” Regan said, noting the estimated number of billionaires in California. “Props. 41 and 42 if they ever got effectuated would undermine existing funding streams for things like public education.”
Responding to Regan’s criticism, Hernandez said the billionaires tax “motivated really talented people to get Prop. 41 written and pulled together,” while Gutierrez attributed Prop. 42 to “efforts to go after retirement or go after wealth.”
With a little over a month until Election Day, Kousser, the political science professor, expects the three measures will trigger a massive amount of spending that will blanket the airwaves and fill voters’ mailboxes. While the opposition to the billionaires tax, funded largely by billionaires like Brin, will almost certainly outspend the yes campaign, Kousser said it gives the tax’s supporters an opportunity to make a David versus Goliath argument.
Advertisement
But the outcome at the ballot box for Prop. 40 could also have impacts that reverberate long past Election Day.
“Many of the progressives who’ve been uneasy about Prop. 40 have said we simply need to do this on the national level, and so one reaction could be if it fails to push for it where it could be most effective at the national level,” Kousser said. “But my hunch is that if this fails in progressive California, it slows down the momentum for this as a policy nationwide.”
Hundreds of healthcare workers rally outside Dignity Health Mercy General Hospital in Sacramento, Calif., on Aug. 28, 2026, in support of Proposition 40, which would levy a one-time tax on California billionaires. (Renée C. Byer/The Sacramento Bee/TNS)
