[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6540184,"mediaKeyId","3445831-b9cdfdfaaf09de7c6680c9045b5fcdb1","parentId",3445831,"title","High‑speed rail authority says Merced‑to‑Bakersfield can be completed within revised cost range; lawmakers press for more detail","audioSeconds",707,"startMs",2167000,"endMs",2874000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3445831-b9cdfdfaaf09de7c6680c9045b5fcdb1&start=2167&end=2874","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3445831-b9cdfdfaaf09de7c6680c9045b5fcdb1/thumbnail_2167000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6540184/California/Highspeed-rail-authority-says-MercedtoBakersfield-can-be-completed-within-revised-cost-range-lawmakers-press-for-more-detail","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6540184-52ebbc71fa67f20e746c76031ff68df4/orig.mp4?Expires=1773564810&Signature=VbTDZ0Gj5AD8B88qc0xxAOKRIk783H7t~I~qEVgOFjPbGE~J~AOy-YfzG2cUZqyBHuMf22GwJacoi9JBaS4dRxwfb~IuZXy6i0sIr-jv9DBqc-ep8T9Ve30M9vVe4zu60h4yJvDMmIxGUoeY9uKBXgtGpV9NZAPMkep~D8cx7LzTn7AfoLxDjBCcn45fSwACTFr~d~0rkSH2nrunp~9vAvWcjTzFkW~CsHJtzdu5c~ERpDjgX~-YAZs~m7x8J14rgQxPxuMZJ1kvhRx5bcfYYTZSmKYFXmBqHf6Zq6PB1npv6bMoMFiraXoIa1KLuf9EYQfnHHSzVy4fBgs2~MH0Eg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","California State Senate","date","2025-05-21T00:00:00Z","article","The California High‑Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) provided the Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 an updated cost estimate for its Merced‑to‑Bakersfield segment and answered lawmakers’ questions about a May Revision proposal that would guarantee at least $1 billion per year for the program under a cap‑and‑invest reauthorization.

HSRA Chief of Staff Mark Tolleson told the committee the Authority has produced a new bottom‑up estimate for Merced‑to‑Bakersfield: “we do have updated numbers for that Merced to Bakersfield segment. So at this point we do have updated numbers for that that we have shared with the committee. So we are looking at a $34,900,000,000 at the low end to $38,500,000,000 on the high end to complete that segment,” he said on the record.

HSRA finance and legal witnesses and the LAO described how the administration’s proposed $1 billion annual floor differs from the historic statutory approach (25% of GGRF revenues). HSRA officials said a reliable floor could make securitization or loan programs more attractive to lenders and private investors, while legislators warned securitization would increase long‑term interest costs and shift risk to taxpayers.

Why the update matters

- HSRA said it has a cash balance in the GGRF set‑aside (HSRA stated about $4.2 billion in the fund) and that a multiyear GGRF commitment could be used as a basis for securing financing and accelerating construction. The authority said that with the proposed administration commitment through 2045, it would have funding capacity beyond the estimated Merced‑to‑Bakersfield cost.

- Several senators expressed strong skepticism about extending a guaranteed revenue stream for multiple decades without additional legislative oversight, and some members said they oppose further large commitments absent clearer evidence the project is viable and fiscal terms are acceptable.

Committee exchange and main claims

- HSRA’s Mark Tolleson: provided the updated Merced‑to‑Bakersfield number and said the estimate includes local support costs for projects such as Los Angeles Union Station improvements and prior Caltrain modernization contributions.

- HSRA’s CEO Ian Choudhury (introduced at the hearing) said stop‑and‑start funding in prior years has increased costs and schedule uncertainty. He described efforts to reduce cost and accelerate procurement for commodity materials and to pursue private sector partnerships where feasible.

- LAO: staff recommended withholding action on a long‑term funding commitment until the legislature receives a fuller project update report with schedule, cost, and a clear securitization plan. LAO staff also noted that HSRA’s current numbers leave a funding gap under some scenarios depending on federal participation and future cost growth.

Lawmakers’ views

Committee members split: some pressed HSRA for immediate, detailed project update reporting, including schedule, risk‑adjusted cost estimates and information on any proposed securitization or bond plans. Others said they would oppose a multi‑decade guaranteed floor without stronger assurances and legislative controls.

Ending

HSRA committed to provide fuller documentation (the Authority said a more comprehensive project update report would be delivered in the summer) and the committee asked the LAO and Finance to continue vetting the numbers. No appropriation or change to law was voted on at the hearing; senators said they expect further briefings and a more detailed project update prior to any multi‑year funding decision.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 5 on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor, and Transportation","oneSentenceSummary","High‑Speed Rail Authority staff told the Senate budget subcommittee the Merced‑to‑Bakersfield cost is now estimated between $34.9 billion and $38.5 billion and defended the authority’s plan to use a predictable multiyear funding stream as a financing foundation.","taxTitle","California State Senate, Senate, Legislative, California","taxId",77650,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6540179,"Budget panel hears concerns about pretrial cuts, interpreter coordinator change and court facilities backlog",839,4319000,5158000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3445831-b9cdfdfaaf09de7c6680c9045b5fcdb1&start=4319&end=5158","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3445831-b9cdfdfaaf09de7c6680c9045b5fcdb1/thumbnail_4319000.jpg","/articles/6540179/California/Budget-panel-hears-concerns-about-pretrial-cuts-interpreter-coordinator-change-and-court-facilities-backlog","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6540179-1f4c3e749f7e667379461c998a35849b/orig.mp4?Expires=1773564810&Signature=nTf~2LhWRGKprWYTNZtdDxjKUFVqr2tTvIZhGVmvszCzKE3d3ptnuFGU4pgJfycu2gHAFJHGJ81SnSgFkWfQcvf6MVn3yfnp8cxkkPdKeBvDRHX3g6x8WTOkSh~lBTgc1478-dT4dh2PunSC~ojQdhle7mPHt0MH6bAMXbfH~RLVDCrER1oZpbJco874R4XOFh-8-yeW~g3yLgh9P59Xve4IoVNjmkfZigBfeQky5u9j0Z-MhaK3z51i6GCFDAFwG07gNlZ~iRWj9B85rrVYHh6QkOdLxV8xbzmSkv8ED4D9iYsGV3Qf0HT1V5HjUUYOtt4u7ftK0yIO18zv7gvYnQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 reviewed multiple judicial‑branch items in the governor’s May Revision, including proposed reversions and reductions to trial court funding, a technical change to the court interpreter coordinator requirement, and continued concern about deferred maintenance and courthouse construction lists.

The Department of Finance presented the May Revision adjustments, including a one‑time transfer of $38 million from the trial court trust fund to the general fund, a proposed $20 million ongoing reduction to the Pretrial Release Program, and reappropriations and technical budget language related to court facilities and other programs.

Why it matters: Pretrial services were funded in recent years to expand community‑based alternatives to detention. Judicial Council staff and the LAO warned the committee that reducing ongoing pretrial funding from $70 million to $50 million could reduce service capacity in some jurisdictions. Separately, the Judicial Council and interpreter stakeholders flagged a proposed change that would remove a statutory requirement that court interpreter coordinators be certified interpreters, which labor representatives said would degrade interpreting quality and could harm litigants who need precise legal language translation.

Key details

- Pretrial Release Program: Finance and LAO described the proposal as aligning ongoing budgeted authority with historical spending; Finance said historical spending has averaged nearer $50 million and therefore requested a $20 million reduction (bringing the ongoing total to $50 million). LAO and Judicial Council witnesses cautioned that ramp‑up issues in earlier years led to reversions but that current operations appear to be spending more of their allocations and a reduction could reduce services in some counties.

- Court‑appointed counsel (court of appeal): Several public commenters representing appellate projects pressed the committee to provide $25 million requested by the Judicial Council for court‑appointed counsel; the May Revision included a smaller increase ($6.25 million in the May Revision materials) that providers say is insufficient to stem attrition among panel attorneys.

- Court interpreter coordinator requirement: Department of Finance characterized the change as a technical correction removing language that coordinators must be registered court interpreters; interpreter unions and some committee members said the requirement matters for quality and accuracy, especially for court proceedings with specialized legal terminology.

- Court facilities and deferred maintenance: Judicial Council witnesses described a large backlog of deferred maintenance (multi‑hundreds of millions to billions over time) and said the May Revision pauses a new Tracy courthouse project for one year but leaves other ongoing projects intact. Committee members asked for the Judicial Council’s deferred maintenance list to be provided to the committee so legislators can better assess long‑term funding needs.

Voices and requests

- Anita Lee (LAO) recommended stronger budget bill language to provide the legislature with notice before transfers from the trial court trust fund and urged sensitivity about pretrial service reductions because the program could reduce detention if fully implemented.

- Francine Verne (Judicial Council, Criminal Justice Services) said the pretrial reduction “would reduce services” and urged the committee to include provisional language that allows reallocating unused county allocations to courts with unmet needs.

- Interpreter unions and advocates urged the committee not to remove the coordinator certification requirement and provided examples where language nuance can materially affect cases.

Ending

Committee members requested more written detail on deferred maintenance and the specific implementation plans for pretrial funding reallocations. No final decisions were made in the hearing; members signaled concern about cuts that could reduce service levels or create implementation gaps at the local level.","The Subcommittee reviewed May Revision judicial‑branch proposals that would revert one‑time funds and cut ongoing pretrial funding; LAO and Judicial Council witnesses warned such reductions could reduce services in some counties.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6540189,"Legislators, agencies spar over May Revision’s GGRF cuts, transit grants and a $1 billion high‑speed rail pledge",10519,100000,10619000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3445831-b9cdfdfaaf09de7c6680c9045b5fcdb1&start=100&end=10619","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3445831-b9cdfdfaaf09de7c6680c9045b5fcdb1/thumbnail_100000.jpg","/articles/6540189/California/Legislators-agencies-spar-over-May-Revisions-GGRF-cuts-transit-grants-and-a-1-billion-highspeed-rail-pledge","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6540189-44c4a1617afcb328d1bcc388f527eda0/orig.mp4?Expires=1773564810&Signature=XWype37QHpRI-kY2PB~f9rZuT8ytE4YOw~WbmajkLY-KNawZkWd-GSI0H4ifY7IQezaJOcJBuZ~URogiAgZ6ktYbhcknaP06pytbgxoy7Hvr4u-nKPv2f~mw1gpITkF85KYJpH37FrRYkiTmso0h10S0sC1L-HVPRHr2sckoyLfcLjEcrVUNh3TNW8rVrIYYnya6sQtrnpMDAjPsHkNwuhVl2pzg9Ucmpy3NqG1Cnp3X4dhKWumRmuApBaOYCSjWHiis06ovNnWOdjsf6KzTJfDcV81e6jyUnQ-B6k2Gaz0wNkzaJNZQObDVYVJKZq7~9Pj~Wwh~zLwz1xl0al5umA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Chair Senator Richardson convened the Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 hearing to review the governor’s May Revision proposals affecting transportation funding, including a reauthorization proposal for the cap‑and‑trade program now called “cap and invest.” Department of Finance and Legislative Analyst’s Office representatives told the committee the administration has zeroed out discretionary Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) allocations in the May Revision while proposing a multiyear funding approach that, as drafted, would guarantee at least $1 billion per year for the California High‑Speed Rail Authority.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office cautioned the committee the May Revision leaves the legislature to prioritize multiple constrained funding sources. “Overall, you’re faced with a situation where general fund, greenhouse gas reduction fund, and motor vehicle account, which are 3 of the key funding sources for many transportation programs, all do not have sufficient resources to fund all of the plans that are in place for them,” Rachel Ehlers of the LAO said.

Why it matters: The administration’s plan would remove a number of discretionary GGRF commitments the legislature and regions had previously programmed. That includes formula and competitive Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) awards and the 0‑Emission Transit Capital Program allocations that local transit operators have planned to use to shift bus fleets to zero‑emission technology. Transit agencies, regional officials and labor groups told the committee those commitments are already being relied on for capital projects and operations.

Key details

- The administration proposes a multiyear GGRF expenditure plan and a reauthorization of the cap‑and‑trade program (referred to in the hearing as “cap and invest”), but the May Revision contains no discretionary GGRF set‑asides for the budget year. LAO representatives and Finance staff said that approach is intended to open negotiations with the legislature on how to prioritize a constrained fund.

- Department of Finance staff told the committee the May Revision would move about $1 billion per year toward high‑speed rail (HSR) as a minimum funding commitment; the administration’s materials describe that as a guaranteed annual amount under the proposed reauthorization.

- LAO and multiple transit officials warned a simple dollar reallocation could reduce funds available to local transit capital projects and ongoing programs. The LAO highlighted that historically the HSR set‑aside has been 25% of GGRF revenues and that a fixed $1 billion floor could have different impacts depending on allowance prices and future revenue trajectories.

- Transit officials and union representatives repeatedly urged preservation of existing, programmed awards. Michael Pimentel of the California Transit Association told the committee that the exposure for transit could be far larger than the single‑year figure the administration highlighted: “That figure is actually $3,000,000,000 total representing the GGRF commitments to transit agencies through fiscal year 28, 29, both one‑time and ongoing,” he said during public comment.

Perspectives and concerns

- Administration/Finance: Finance witnesses framed the proposal as a negotiation posture — zeroing out discretionary GGRF in the May Revision to leave creation of a multiyear plan to legislative negotiations. James Moore (Department of Finance) said the administration’s priorities include at least $1 billion a year to HSR and an allocation to Cal FIRE intended to achieve general fund savings.

- Legislative Analyst’s Office: The LAO recommended withholding action on the HSR funding commitment until additional information is provided (costs, securitization plan, schedule and how that funding interacts with continuous appropriations). Helen Kersting (LAO) told the committee there are still “key information missing about the scope, the cost, the plan for potentially securitizing a specific financial plan on that.”

- Transit agencies and labor: Transit agencies and unions urged the legislature to protect previously committed awards and to avoid cutting funds that local agencies are already using to meet state mandates (for example, zero‑emission bus conversion). Labor representatives emphasized jobs tied to capital programs and HSR construction.

What was not decided

- The May Revision is an informational proposal. No votes or final allocations were taken. Committee members signaled they expect to negotiate with the administration as the budget process moves forward and asked for more detailed costing, implementation and legal language related to the HSR funding proposal.

Next steps and takeaways

- The LAO asked for additional, specific information on the HSR plan, including the administration’s securitization approach and how the proposed $1 billion minimum would relate to the existing statutory 25% set‑aside. Several senators requested updated cost and schedule documents from the High‑Speed Rail Authority and said they expect the legislature to weigh HSR funding against other GGRF priorities.

- Transit agencies requested the legislature preserve awards already programmed through 2030 and urged consideration of alternate solutions (including federal fund flexing) so capital projects and zero‑emission transitions are not disrupted.

Ending

Committee members recessed the transportation portion of the hearing after extended questions; the discussion will continue as the May Revision negotiations proceed and additional cost and financing details become available.","Chair Senator Richardson convened the Budget Subcommittee to review transportation items in the governor’s May Revision; Finance and LAO witnesses said the administration eliminated discretionary GGRF allocations for the budget year and proposed at least $1 billion annually for high‑speed rail, prompting transit agencies and legislators to warn of cuts to TIRCP and zero‑emission transit grants.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6540174,"Cal OES asks for FEMA reimbursement authority and NextGen‑911 rollout support; victim assistance funding faces a reversion",1237,6682000,7919000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3445831-b9cdfdfaaf09de7c6680c9045b5fcdb1&start=6682&end=7919","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3445831-b9cdfdfaaf09de7c6680c9045b5fcdb1/thumbnail_6682000.jpg","/articles/6540174/California/Cal-OES-asks-for-FEMA-reimbursement-authority-and-NextGen911-rollout-support-victim-assistance-funding-faces-a-reversion","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6540174-bc3edbdfbd9276b121e744769fd36648/orig.mp4?Expires=1773564810&Signature=Ob2KUNDOlyEZ9YacUS64A5NCZIq24h1d0tdb5PZ5VLnsEI3r00qN~siqvlpMgSbwW2Np1zDJ-mnQPkyrMmVkwAH2JzjP8mOILmxeXThDr6ZJrQ2UwgfxavePPVt31Lb22~-irFjZ9DJGiiMhGcrQHClc9v6a3YCDjhHBsibRMiLse2ETMD4rI-xOyyg-3JdW23PSCYIoDZ-gAM0HtagzWYSoKQEv69eWOUA~i8YRT0XnoMqhL6Dir9Wz4AM0l34LBWdOQS17A6V50DKRTBjOrSq6kQhxb0FviWYB4g1mwKlMYrRGneDEVciHlwyGnP1OHQ3wHufwJ16F4sB-QMgpyg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Cal OES and the Legislative Analyst’s Office briefed the Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on a set of May Revision changes that cover disaster recovery, next‑generation 9‑1‑1 (NG911) and victim services.

Cal OES deputy director Eric Swanson summarized the department’s May Revision requests: an increase in federal trust fund authority to reflect anticipated FEMA reimbursements, provisional language (control section 90) to allow Finance to augment state agency appropriations in the budget year for ongoing recovery costs from the Eaton and Palisades fires, and a request that the state emergency telephone account be augmented to ensure NextGen‑911 rollout and operations without raising the 9‑1‑1 surcharge above the January 1, 2025 level (41¢ per line).

At the same time the May Revision proposes a $49.7 million one‑time reversion of the flexible cash assistance for survivors grant (a $50 million one‑time appropriation in 2022); the reversion would remove the one‑time funding unless the legislature restores it.

NextGen‑911 pause and follow‑up questions

Cal OES and LAO staff described the NG911 rollout as technically complex and multi‑vendor. Lisa Mongott, Cal OES chief deputy director, told the committee the department paused additional PSAP migrations to the NG911 network so staff could spend more time with local public safety answering points (PSAPs) and vendors to work through vendor interdependencies and migration impacts on operations. “We paused the additional migration of additional PSAPs so that we could spend time with the PSAPs to make sure that we understood the impacts of their operations and also speak with the vendors,” she said.

LAO recommended the committee adopt the NextGen 9‑1‑1 augmentation but asked for quarterly reporting on costs and a clearer estimate of the expense to sustain legacy 9‑1‑1 for an additional year (if needed) while migrations continue.

FEMA reimbursements and control section 90

Finance and LAO staff explained the federal trust fund authority request is for cash‑flow authority only — to receive FEMA reimbursements for eligible disaster costs — and said the Department of Finance and Cal OES are willing to provide more detailed quarterly expenditure reports if the committee requests them. On control section 90, Finance and OES explained how AB 100 and prior special‑session actions established earlier emergency funding and how the May Revision seeks continued authority to cover recovery costs that would otherwise lapse at the end of the fiscal year.

Victim services reversion

Several victim‑services groups, prosecutors’ offices and county representatives testified in public comment opposing the proposed reversion of the flexible cash assistance for survivors program. Speakers said the program provides rapid emergency help for survivors (moving, locks, funeral expenses, hotel nights, etc.) and that community partners had structured payment processes and vendor relationships in anticipation of grant distributions; they urged restoration of the one‑time funding.

Ending

Committee members asked for more written detail on NG911 timelines, the vendor engagement plan and a clearer accounting of FEMA reimbursement expectations. They asked Cal OES to provide quarterly reports if the committee approves expanded trust fund authority and to provide a list of PSAPs migrated to NG911 versus those pending migration. No final budget action was taken in the hearing.","Cal OES asked for federal trust fund authority for FEMA reimbursements, control section authority for ongoing fire recovery costs and state emergency‑telephone account authority to support NG911, while the May Revision proposes reverting a $49.7 million one‑time victim assistance allocation.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6540169,"DOJ asks for staff and funding to defend state programs; committee weighs limited‑term vs. ongoing resources",1186,8804000,9990000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3445831-b9cdfdfaaf09de7c6680c9045b5fcdb1&start=8804&end=9990","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3445831-b9cdfdfaaf09de7c6680c9045b5fcdb1/thumbnail_8804000.jpg","/articles/6540169/California/DOJ-asks-for-staff-and-funding-to-defend-state-programs-committee-weighs-limitedterm-vs-ongoing-resources","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6540169-da2c95977e9397db34815413faae126f/orig.mp4?Expires=1773564810&Signature=m~9TAEqvmFQyzAVTsS4cq0EuzDr3i68Xwfz22aoZSalvteHgqpM~Ri3-KXwr1Zh7T2J3pOhCXruaMqq~3cVOv-gSKLLUKD0I-lAktYJgOmnQ5nRp0p2eq9-kNa8PBPvH9nhjhet1sqiFSHgZNojdpSpwn0hiPgkoWReRO1d2R3QCUh9sxnbfBAh7bPkZYQsR3Pxs6wXkTXMtV-j0HEeLuZhXceqpZa90UGZlU7TxTD47K--N5WvHNKe7aOxDPMeID70RwzbJtwTIsqZFs1pZdfK-YSYk-655DtAsuxD7sR~~QVXz5A8ZCxIbDPODE~xPfpWab72Wu4Z83Ws7OxSGqQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Department of Justice (DOJ) representatives told the Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 their office needs additional resources to respond to a surge of federal administrative and policy changes that could affect state programs and funding.

Mark Jimenez (Department of Finance) presented a May Revision overview for DOJ that included a request described as funding to “defend California against adverse federal actions,” with new positions and general fund support noted in the governor’s materials. DOJ said the request supplements resources provided earlier in the year and would be used for litigation and defense work in areas such as environmental protections, federal grant terminations and other federal actions affecting the state.

Why it matters: DOJ explained that defending federal funding streams and administrative decisions can directly protect billions of dollars in federal funds that support state programs (Medicaid, education, public health, transportation grants, etc.). DOJ counsel Christina Bull Arnn told the committee DOJ has filed numerous multistate suits to protect funding and programs and that coordinated litigation has kept federal funds flowing to California in several important examples.

Key details and recommendations

- DOJ request: The May Revision included funding to expand DOJ’s capacity to litigate and respond to federal actions and to add IT and other administrative resources (the presentation listed multi‑year staffing and costs in the DOJ materials; the hearing record contains the administration’s requested amounts).

- LAO recommendation: LAO staff recommended considering limited‑term funding (up to four years) because the scale and duration of federal actions are uncertain, and they recommended reporting consistent with special‑session accountability language so the legislature can track use of funds.

- DOJ staffing concerns: DOJ cautioned that limited‑term staffing makes hiring and retaining experienced litigation attorneys more difficult given private‑sector pay differentials; the department requested consideration of ongoing resources to ensure continuity and institutional knowledge.

- Litigation activity: Christina Bull Arnn, Chief Counsel for Special Litigation at DOJ, summarized active matters and the stakes for federal grants. She said DOJ and multistate partners had filed dozens of lawsuits in recent months to protect federal funding and to challenge administrative actions, citing examples where federal cuts would have affected hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in state funding if not enjoined.

Budget mechanics and the litigation deposit fund

Committee members also asked about the use of litigation‑related special funds and recent loans from the fund commonly called the litigation deposit/Unfair Competition Law fund. Department and Finance staff explained how settlement receipts flow into the litigation deposit fund and are later transferred by statute to special funds (for example, Unfair Competition Law fund) when settlement terms and conditions are met. The hearing included questions about prior borrowings from special funds and how much remains available for budgetary loans.

Ending

LAO recommended limiting the new funding’s term and requiring public reporting; DOJ urged the legislature to consider the operational challenges of short‑term attorney funding. The committee asked DOJ and Finance to supply more detailed, written information about caseload expectations, the funds requested, and how the department will report spending and legal outcomes.","The Department of Justice requested additional positions and funding to defend California against federal actions affecting environmental protection, education and federal grants. LAO recommended limited‑term funding and stronger reporting; DOJ warned limited‑term allocations make recruitment of experienced attorneys harder.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

High‑speed rail authority says Merced‑to‑Bakersfield can be completed within revised cost range; lawmakers press for more detail

Budget panel hears concerns about pretrial cuts, interpreter coordinator change and court facilities backlog

Legislators, agencies spar over May Revision’s GGRF cuts, transit grants and a $1 billion high‑speed rail pledge

Cal OES asks for FEMA reimbursement authority and NextGen‑911 rollout support; victim assistance funding faces a reversion

DOJ asks for staff and funding to defend state programs; committee weighs limited‑term vs. ongoing resources