Connect with us

Politics

Newsom vetoes bill that would have granted priority college admission for descendants of slavery

Published

on

Newsom vetoes bill that would have granted priority college admission for descendants of slavery

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday vetoed legislation that would have allowed public and private colleges to provide preferential admissions to applicants directly descended from individuals who were enslaved in the United States before 1900.

The governor thanked the bill’s author for his commitment to addressing disparities and urged educational institutions to review and determine “how, when, and if this type of preference can be adopted.”

“This bill clarifies, to the extent permitted by federal law, that California public and private postsecondary educational institutions may consider providing a preference in admissions to an applicant who is a descendant of slavery,” Newsom wrote Monday in his veto. “These institutions already have the authority to determine whether to provide admissions preferences like this one, and accordingly, this bill is unnecessary.”

The legislation would not have required applicants to belong to any particular race or ethnicity — a crucial detail that proponents said distinguished it from affirmative action, which is banned at California colleges. Critics, however, argued the term “slave” was used as a proxy for race.

Advertisement

Legal experts told The Times last month the measure probably would have faced challenges in court if the governor signed it into law.

“The question with this sort of provision is does this count as on the basis of race?” said Ralph Richard Banks, professor at Stanford Law School and the founder and faculty director of the Stanford Center for Racial Justice. “A secondary issue is going to be whether, even if it is not formally about racial classification, was it really adopted to get around the no-racial-classification rule? The law prohibits indirect methods of doing something that would be prohibited if you were to do it directly.”

Race-based college admissions are banned by federal and state law.

Proposition 209, which California voters approved nearly three decades ago, amended the state Constitution to bar colleges from considering race, sex, national origin or ethnicity during admissions. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 in effect ended race-conscious college admissions nationwide, ruling in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard that such policies violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Newsom on Monday also vetoed bills that would have assisted descendants of slaves for some state programs. Those included legislation that would have required licensing boards within the Department of Consumer Affairs to expedite applications from people who are descendants, and a bill to set aside funds from a state program providing financial assistance for first-time home buyers.

Advertisement

California became the first state government in the country to study reparations, efforts to remedy the lingering effects of slavery and systemic racism, after the 2020 killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer sparked a national conversation on racial justice.

Newsom and state lawmakers passed a law to create a “first in the nation” task force to study and propose effective ways to help atone for the legacy of slavery. That panel spent years working on a 1,080-page report on the effects of slavery and the discriminatory policies sanctioned by the government after slavery was abolished, and the findings became the genesis for a slate of legislation proposed by the California Legislative Black Caucus.

Last week, Newsom signed Senate Bill 518, which will create an office called the Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery. That bureau will create a process to determine whether someone is the descendant of a slave and to certify someone’s claim to help them access benefits.

Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles), who introduced Assembly Bill 7, said his legislation would have allowed colleges to grant preference to the descendants of enslaved people in order to rectify a “legacy of exclusion, of harm.”

Andrew Quinio, an attorney specializing in equality issues for the Pacific Legal Foundation, believes AB 7 was blatantly unconstitutional. The foundation is a conservative public interest law firm that seeks to prevent government overreach.

Advertisement

“This was a bill that was born out of the Reparations Task Force recommendations; it was part of the package of bills of the Road to Repair from the California Legislative Black Caucus, so this has a very clear racial intent and racial purpose and it will have a racial effect,” he said. Legislation “doesn’t have to benefit the entirety or even the majority of a demographic in order for it to be unlawfully based on race.”

Lisa Holder, a civil rights attorney and president of the Equal Justice Society, a progressive nonprofit that works to protect policies that promote diversity, argued the measure’s framing made it highly likely to satisfy legal challenges.

“This [legislation] is very specifically tailored to correct the harms that we have seen, the harms from the past that continue into the present,” she said. “… Because this bill seeks to erase those harms by focusing specifically on the descendant community, it is strong enough to establish a compelling interest.”

Gary Orfield, a law and education professor and co-founder of the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA, agreed the legislation was carefully written in a way that could have withstood legal challenges. He pointed out that California allows university programs that support Native American students because they were narrowly tailored to focus on tribal affiliation — which is considered a political classification — instead of race or ethnicity.

Orfield said applicants of various races could have potentially benefited from the new admissions policy, as many Native Americans were enslaved and Asiatic coolieism, or Asian indentured servitude, was declared a form of human slavery in the state Constitution in 1879.

Advertisement

“All Black people weren’t slaves and all slaves were not Black,” he said. “I think there is a good argument to say that slavery isn’t defined strictly by race and is not just a proxy for race and there certainly is a legitimate concern when you are thinking about remediation for historic violations.”

Orfield, however, said convincing the public was a different matter.

“I don’t think all people will easily understand this,” he said. “Americans tend to think that discrimination doesn’t cross over multiple generations. But I think that it does — I think there has been a long-lasting effect.”

Staff writer Melody Gutierrez contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Biden, Blinken take credit for groundwork behind Trump’s Gaza ceasefire deal

Published

on

Biden, Blinken take credit for groundwork behind Trump’s Gaza ceasefire deal

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Former President Joe Biden and former Secretary of State Antony Blinken both claimed some credit for President Donald Trump’s Israel-Hamas ceasefire agreement on Monday.

On X, Biden – who is undergoing treatment for cancer – said that he was “deeply grateful and relieved” that the Gaza war is approaching its end.

“The road to this deal was not easy,” the Democrat wrote. “My Administration worked relentlessly to bring hostages home, get relief to Palestinian civilians, and end the war.”

But Biden also gave Trump credit for getting “a renewed ceasefire deal over the finish line.”

Advertisement

BEFORE AND AFTER IMAGES SHOW DEVASTATING DESTRUCTION IN GAZA

President Joe Biden and Antony Blinken each took some credit Monday for Donald Trump’s Israel-Hamas cease-fire deal, arguing it followed groundwork laid by the Biden administration. (Getty Images)

“Now, with the backing of the United States and the world, the Middle East is on a path to peace that I hope endures and a future for Israelis and Palestinians alike with equal measures of peace, dignity, and safety,” he concluded.

On Monday, Blinken said Trump’s 20-point peace plan for the Gaza Strip was based on one developed by the Biden administration.

In a lengthy post on X, Blinken, who served in the Biden administration, outlined how Trump was able to secure the peace agreement. He noted that Arab states and Turkey have said “enough” to Hamas, and said the response also showed that other Iran-backed groups — Hezbollah and Yemen’s Houthi rebels — were not coming to Hamas’ aid.

Advertisement

“It starts with a clear and comprehensive post-conflict plan for Gaza,” Blinken wrote. “It’s good that President Trump adopted and built on the plan the Biden administration developed after months of discussion with Arab partners, Israel and the Palestinian Authority.”

NETANYAHU ADVISOR EXPRESSES ‘DEEP FAITH’ IN TRUMP’S GAZA CEASEFIRE PLAN FRAMEWORK APPROACH

Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken at a speaking engagement.

Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken said President Donald Trump’s 20-point ceasefire agreement was based on the one developed by the Biden administration. (Armend Nimani/AFP via Getty Images)

Blinken said the Biden administration briefly secured a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in January, resulting in the release of 135 hostages before the deal fell apart.

He also questioned how Trump could secure a permanent peace plan.

Fox News senior White House correspondent Peter Doocy asked Trump about Blinken’s remarks aboard Air Force One.

Advertisement

“Everybody knows it’s a joke,” Trump said. “Look, they did such a bad job. This should have never happened.”

“If just a decent president — not a great president like me — if a decent president were in, you wouldn’t have had the Russia-Ukraine (war),” Trump said. “This was bad policy by Biden and Obama.”

Trump was in Egypt on Monday to work on the second phase of the cease-fire while meeting with more than 20 world leaders.

TRUMP’S WEEK IN REVIEW: PRESIDENT SECURES HISTORIC PEACE DEAL TO BRING HOSTAGES HOME AS SHUTDOWN CONTINUES

trump's speech at peace summit

President Donald Trump delivers a speech at the Gaza International Peace Summit, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, Monday, Oct. 13, 2025. (Yoan Valat, Pool photo via AP)

“We’ve heard it for many years, but nobody thought it could ever get there. And now we’re there,” Trump said.

Advertisement

“This is the day that people across this region and around the world have been working, striving, hoping and praying for,” he added. “With the historic agreement we have just signed, those prayers of millions have finally been answered. Together, we have achieved the impossible.”

In his post, Blinken said the postwar plan for Gaza should be implemented immediately, “with eyes wide open about its challenges: pulling together the international stabilization force, fully demilitarizing and disarming Hamas, dealing with insurgents, and expeditiously securing a phased but full Israeli withdrawal.”

Antony Blinken at UN Security Council meeting

Secretary of State Antony Blinken, center, speaks with U.N. Secretary General António Guterres, right, and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield, left, at the U.N. headquarters in New York City on Oct. 24, 2023. (Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

He also credited Trump for reaffirming “the key principles we established for Gaza at the outset of the war — no platform for terrorism, no annexation, no occupation, no forced population transfers — and for making clear the overall goal is to create the conditions for a credible pathway to a Palestinian state.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Senate Republicans target Obama-era trucking rule with new English proficiency bill

Published

on

Senate Republicans target Obama-era trucking rule with new English proficiency bill

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

FIRST ON FOX: A Senate Republican wants to add stricter English proficiency requirements for truck drivers after an Obama-era rule change loosened standards.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., plans to introduce legislation that would add more stringent English proficiency rules for commercial truck drivers and an enforcement mechanism that would deem them “out of service” should they not meet the proposed standards.

The bill would add several standards, including ensuring that truck drivers can converse with the public, understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, respond to official inquiries and make entries on reports and records.

GOP REP TARGETS TRUCKER’S ENGLISH SKILLS AFTER ILLEGAL MIGRANT CHARGED IN DEADLY FLORIDA CRASH

Advertisement

Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., plans to introduce legislation that would add stricter English requirements for commercial truck drivers. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

“Wyoming families and travelers deserve safe highways,” Lummis said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “I’m introducing this commonsense legislation to ensure commercial truck drivers operating heavy vehicles can simply read signs, understand traffic laws and communicate effectively with law enforcement and emergency responders.”

The bill also comes on the heels of President Donald Trump’s executive order from earlier this year, which similarly added stricter English language requirements.

Trump’s order and Lummis’ bill would also require that a person driving a commercial motor vehicle who does not meet those standards will be deemed out of service, a move meant to add enforcement following a change made in 2016 under then-President Barack Obama.

‘ENGLISH ISN’T OPTIONAL’: SENATE GOP BILL TAKES AIM AT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT TRUCKERS AFTER FLORIDA CRASH

Advertisement
Donald Trump answers questions in Oval Office

The bill comes on the heels of President Donald Trump’s executive order from earlier this year. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

“This legislation will correct the major mistake the Obama administration made in undermining these rules and will codify President Trump’s Executive Order to make our highways safer for all Americans,” Lummis said.

While English proficiency requirements have existed for truck drivers for decades, a 2016 memo from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration instructed inspectors to give warnings and citations to commercial vehicle drivers who did not meet the English proficiency requirements, rather than place them out of service.

Lummis’ bill, which she and Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., plan to introduce, also has a companion version in the House, introduced by Rep. Harriet Haggeman, R-Wyo.

TRUMP ADMIN THREATENS TO CUT MILLIONS IN FEDERAL FUNDING FROM 3 STATES OVER TRUCKER ENGLISH LANGUAGE RULES

Singh next to Florida deadly crash scene

Harjinder Singh, a 28-year-old illegal immigrant from India, was arrested on Aug. 16, 2025. (United States Marshals Service)

Both are named Connor’s Law, after 18-year-old Connor Dzion was killed in standstill traffic in Florida in 2017 when a Canadian truck driver, Yadwinder Sangha, slammed into the gridlocked vehicles.

Advertisement

There was a similar incident earlier this year when Harjinder Singh, an illegal immigrant from India, allegedly struck and killed three people in a tractor-trailer while making an illegal U-turn on a Florida highway on Aug. 12. The trailer jackknifed and collided with a minivan, killing all three of its passengers.

Sen. Ashley Moody, R-Fla., introduced legislation that would crack down on commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) going to illegal immigrants and bolster English proficiency requirements to get a commercial license.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump claims Democrats want to use federal funds to give undocumented residents healthcare. That’s misleading

Published

on

Trump claims Democrats want to use federal funds to give undocumented residents healthcare. That’s misleading

Though raging thousands of miles to the east, the entrenched stalemate in Washington over federal spending and the ensuing government shutdown has thrust California’s expansive healthcare policies into the center of the pitched, partisan debate.

The Trump administration and the Republican leaders in Congress continue to use California, and the benefits the state has extended to eligible immigrants regardless of their legal status, as a cudgel against Democrats trying to extend federal subsidies for taxpayer-funded healthcare coverage.

President Trump claimed recently that Democrats “want to have illegal aliens come into our country and get massive healthcare at the cost to everybody else.” Democrats called Trump’s assertion an absolute lie, accusing Republicans of wanting to slash federal healthcare benefits to Americans in need to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy.

“California has led the nation in expanding access to affordable healthcare, but Donald Trump is ripping it away,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said.

In return for their votes to reopen the government, Democratic leaders in Congress want to reverse Medicaid cuts made in Republicans’ tax and spending bill passed this summer and continue subsidies through the Affordable Care Act, a program long targeted by Republicans. The subsidies, which come in the form of a tax credit, help lower health insurance costs for millions of Americans.

Advertisement

Can immigrants in the country illegally enroll in federal healthcare programs?

No. Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program or Medicare, or coverage through the Affordable Care Act, according to KFF, an independent health research organization.

Rep. Kevin Mullin (D-South San Francisco) held a virtual town hall last week in which he highlighted the “misinformation” about immigrants and healthcare.

“I just want to be completely clear that federal funding does not pay for health insurance for undocumented immigrants, period,” Mullin said.

Jessica Altman, executive director of Covered California, said the debate is really over “who can benefit from the federal dollars that are flowing to all states, including California,” to help lower costs for health insurance.

Covered California serves as a marketplace exchange for state residents seeking healthcare insurance under the Affordable Care Act, widely known as Obamacare, allowing them to select from name-brand insurance providers and choose from a variety of coverage plans. The vast majority of Californians receive federal subsidies to lower their premiums, including many middle-income families who had become eligible when Congress expanded the financial assistance in 2021.

Advertisement

Those expanded subsidies will expire at the end of the year, and Democrats are demanding that they be extended as part of any deal to reopen the government before they vote in favor of what is known as a continuing resolution, or a temporary funding bill to keep the federal government running.

“From the very beginning, undocumented or illegal — whatever terminology you want to use — individuals were never eligible for those tax credits, never eligible for those cost-sharing reductions, and in fact, and not even eligible to come onto a marketplace and buy coverage if they paid the full costs,” Altman said.

California does offer state healthcare coverage for undocumented immigrants

Through Medi-Cal, the state’s version of the federal Medicaid program, some medical coverage is offered, regardless of immigration status. The majority of that money comes from the state.

H.D. Palmer, deputy director for external affairs at the California Department of Finance, said the cost to provide Medi-Cal to undocumented immigrants in the current fiscal year is just over $12.5 billion.

State money accounts for $11.2 billion and the remaining difference is reimbursed with federal funding because it’s used to cover emergency services, Palmer explained.

Advertisement

“Under current law, hospitals that receive Medicaid are required to provide emergency care, including labor and delivery, to individuals regardless of their citizenship status,” he said. “That goes back to a budget law that was approved by Congress in 1986 and signed by President Ronald Reagan.”

The 1986 law is called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, and allows for emergency healthcare for all persons.

Some Republicans have raised other concerns about the state’s use of managed care organization taxes.

The MCO tax is a federally allowable Medicaid funding mechanism that imposes a tax on health insurance providers that charge fixed monthly payments for services and is based on the number of people enrolled in plans each month. The revenue from the tax can then be used to support Medicaid expenditures with federal matching funds.

Critics say California exploits a so-called loophole: By increasing the MCO tax, and subsequently bringing in more matching federal funds, California can then put more of its own state money toward healthcare for undocumented immigrants.

Advertisement

“We are bringing in all those additional federal dollars and then reallocating other money away so that we can provide about $9.6 billion for Medi-Cal for undocumented and illegal immigrants,” said Assemblymember David J. Tangipa (R-Fresno). “The MCO tax was never supposed to be weaponized in that process.”

White House officials also contend that California could not afford to put resources toward benefits for undocumented immigrants if it had not received the extra federal money — a claim Newsom disputes.

“What the president is saying, he’s lying,” Newsom said at a recent event. “Speaker [Mike] Johnson’s lying. They’re lying to the American people. It’s shameful. … I guess they’re trying to connect their displeasure with what California and many other states do with state resources in this space, and that is a very separate conversation.”

California is not alone in offering such healthcare to immigrants in the country illegally

A “small but growing” number of states offer state-funded coverage to certain groups of low-income people regardless of immigration status, according to KFF.

California became the first state in the nation last year to offer healthcare to all low-income undocumented immigrants, an expansion spearheaded by Newsom.

Advertisement

Newsom has since partially walked back that policy after the costs exceeded expectations. Starting in January, most adult Medi-Cal applications will be blocked — although current enrollees can continue to renew — and some adults will be required to pay monthly premiums. Undocumented minors under age 19, who became eligible for Medi-Cal nearly a decade ago, will not be affected by the changes.

The upcoming changes to the state’s policies and the enrollment freeze will help decrease the overall costs, which are projected to fall to about $10.1 billion during the next fiscal year, according to the California Department of Finance.

While the governor’s shift angered his most progressive allies and renewed speculation that he is tacking to the political middle ahead of his expected run for president in 2028, the Democratic-led Legislature approved the Medi-Cal eligibility changes in June.

Public opinion on the issue may also be changing.

Fifty-eight percent of adults in California were opposed to providing healthcare for undocumented immigrants, according to a poll released in June from the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. This was a notable shift, as previous surveys from the institute conducted between 2015 to 2023 showed the majority approved.

Advertisement

Who would lose coverage if the tax credits end and Medicaid cuts aren’t reversed?

Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed by Republicans this summer, ends healthcare subsidies that were extended during the pandemic and makes other cuts to programs. According to the White House, the bill “contains the most important America First healthcare reforms ever enacted.”

“The policies represent a comprehensive effort to address waste, fraud, and abuse to strengthen the healthcare system for the most vulnerable Americans, ensuring that taxpayer dollars are focused on American citizens and do not subsidize healthcare for illegal immigrants,” the White House said in a statement on Oct. 1.

Among other things, the law limits Medicare and other program eligibility to certain groups, including green card holders, effective July 2025. Other lawfully present immigrants, including refugees and asylees, are no longer eligible, according to KFF.

It’s estimated that the eligibility restrictions will result in about 1.4 million lawfully present immigrants becoming uninsured, reduce federal spending by about $131 billion and increase federal revenue by $4.8 billion as of 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

At the same time, a broader group of lawfully present immigrants, including refugees, will lose access to subsidized coverage through the ACA marketplace by January 2027.

Advertisement

Covered California’s Altman estimated that there are about 119,000 immigrants in California who are covered and would lose eligibility for financial assistance.

More broadly, Altman and other healthcare experts predict that healthcare premiums will skyrocket if the ACA tax credits expire.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending