Meta will give its investors free shares if Mark Zuckerberg hits certain "extraordinary" targets.
It will pay 1:1 share dividends each time Meta stock doubles and has compounded at over 10% a year.
Meta is rolling out Class C shares to address Zuckerberg's tax concerns and keep him in California.
Meta stockholders are set to receive free shares if Mark Zuckerberg absolutely crushes it as CEO.
The social-media giant revealed in a Wednesday filing that if its upcoming Class C shares double from a baseline price of $580.60 to just over $1,161, and their compound annualized return since September 10 has been at least 10%, shareholders will receive a dividend: a Class C share for every Meta share they own.
If Meta stock — specifically its 30-day volume-weighted average price — doubles again to around $2,322, and has risen by at least 10% on average per year, shareholders will receive the same dividend again, and so on.
Meta, which owns Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, and the AI agent Muse, acknowledged how difficult it will be to unlock those dividends, describing the stock price targets as "extraordinary" in its filing.
Its stock has already surged more than sevenfold from its November 2022 low, giving Meta a nearly $1.8 trillion market capitalization that ranks it among the 10 most valuable companies in the world.
The additional dividends would be paid on top of the initial dividend declared by Meta's board on Wednesday, which will see Class A and Class B shareholders receive Class C shares on a 1:1 basis, likely in late January.
Meta is rejigging its share structure in response to Zuckerberg's concerns about California's so-called billionaire tax: a one-off, 5% wealth tax on the roughly 250 billionaires living in the state.
Zuckerberg, who ranked fifth on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index with a $247 billion net worth at Wednesday's close, will be able to sell the Class C shares to access the liquidity needed to pay the tax, avoiding a sale of his existing shares that would erode his voting power.
Meta's board took action after Zuckerberg said he was considering moving out of California because of the potential tax, and cautioned that the steps involved in relocating, such as listing his home for sale, could spark questions from employees about the company's management, the filing says.
The main investigative unit of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been vigorously promoting on social media an effort it considers crucial in the final weeks before the midterms: pursuing alleged large-scale election fraud by noncitizens — a claim that has obsessed President Donald Trump despite a lack of evidence.
Former San Jose State University (SJSU) volleyball coach Melissa Batie-Smoose alleges a school official told her transgender player Blaire Fleming could not compete at one point during the 2023 season because Flemingâs testosterone level exceeded the eligibility limit.
In a new interview with OutKick, Batie-Smoose, who is now the head volleyball coach at Cisco College, claimed SJSU associate athletics director Laura Alexander informed her of Fleming's failed test before the womenâs volleyball team left for its first conference match.
"So it was told to me by our associate AD, confirming to me that Fleming was not showing up for the test, the blood test," Batie-Smoose said.
"And that Fleming had one day left before we were going to leave for our first conference match, and that he needed to come in and test. And then, then she proceeded to tell me the next day that after the test, that the testosterone levels were too high, and Fleming is ineligible to play and will not be going on the trip that day."
The coach added that the alleged failed test was kept "a secret" from the rest of the team.
The allegation also appears in Batie-Smooseâs Oct. 13 federal lawsuit against the California State University (CSU) trustees and 11 SJSU employees.
Fleming then missed a long stretch of the 2023 season. SJSUâs athletics website claimed the player had not competed since Sept. 16 of that year "due to injuries," in a November 2023 game recap.
Batie-Smoose said, "The injury happened the day that Fleming went to go get tested, and it was very questionable."
Batie-Smoose believes the injury explanation helped keep the alleged eligibility issue secret. Her lawsuit also describes that conclusion as her belief.
"Around the same time the testosterone results were revealed, Fleming thereafter missed conference matches because of a reported hand injury, which Plaintiff believes was an excuse to hide his ineligibility to play because of his hormone level," the lawsuit states.
SJSU's own game records confirm that Fleming missed matches, but they do not establish whether a testosterone test result played a role in the absence.
In 2023, NCAA rules allowed transgender women to play on womenâs teams, but they had to meet requirements for hormone treatment and testosterone levels. The NCAA kept that policy, known as Phase Two, in place through the 2023â24 school year.
Under that framework, transgender women had to complete at least one year of testosterone suppression treatment before competing on a womenâs team. They also had to provide blood-test results that met the NCAAâs limit for their sport. For womenâs volleyball, the Phase Two limit was below 10 nanomoles per liter of total testosterone in the blood.
The requirements applied before an athleteâs first competition in each season segment, including nonconference games. Schools had to submit eligibility documents for an NCAA medical panel to review before the athlete competed. The requirement did not begin only when conference play started.
Schools also had to certify athletesâ eligibility before allowing them to compete. If an athlete became ineligible, NCAA rules required the school to immediately keep that athlete out of competition.
Batie-Smooseâs account does not establish that Fleming played while ineligible. Fleming did return in November of that season, missing 17 matches.
SJSU has declined to respond to a request for clarification.
"Due to pending litigation, San Jose State is unable to respond to your inquiry," a university spokesperson told OutKick.
OutKick also reached out to Fleming, the NCAA, the Mountain West and the CSU for comment, but did not receive a response.
Batie-Smooseâs allegations extend beyond Flemingâs eligibility. She also says her relationship with head coach Todd Kress unraveled as their political views grew apart â and accuses him of using her support for Trump to turn players against her.
She described Kress as a longtime friend who once shared her conservative beliefs.
"Todd was a conservative Republican, and we shared the same views on a lot of things. And thatâs why we were friends for so long," she said. "And then somewhere in the craziness, he went left and really extreme left."
Asked when she noticed that change, Batie-Smoose said it happened "before the first Trump election."
The two continued discussing politics, she said. But she alleges Kress began raising their differences in front of athletes, crossing a boundary she wanted to keep between their personal disagreements and their coaching jobs.
"Oh, yeah. We talked about politics all the time," she said. "You know, once he turned, it was more, um, he would bring it up in settings that I felt like it was very inappropriate."
"We can talk and debate on those subjects when weâre in a room together, but not in front of student athletes. I feel like that is not the time and the place to speak on that."
Batie-Smoose said the treatment intensified after they arrived at SJSU in 2023. She believes Kress brought up her political and religious views to mock her and weaken her relationships with the team.
"Especially once we arrived at San Jose State, and Iâve referred to this before, this man was unrecognizable," she said.
She alleged that Kress knew which players would object to her views and raised the subject in front of them to create division.
Asked whether Kress told those players that he had once held similar conservative beliefs, Batie-Smoose replied: "Oh, no way. No way. He would never state that."
She said she did not share his past political views with the athletes herself.
"I do not talk about those things in front of athletes ever," she said.
Her lawsuit alleges that Kress called her a "Trump lover." It also says she repeatedly expressed her religious belief that "God made man and woman," and that she believes his treatment reflected hostility toward her faith.
She further alleges that he cornered and berated her during an office confrontation in about August 2023, after a canceled recruiting visit. The complaint says he threatened that he could get her fired.
Batie-Smoose says she reported the encounter to administrators and human resources. She alleges they told her Kress was her boss and she needed to listen to him.
Her attorney, Vernadette Broyles, described what she sees as a broader effort to silence her client.
"There was a watchdog that was assigned to be at every practice and to travel with Melissa to watch what she said, to watch what she did," Broyles said.
The lawsuit identifies a university administrator in connection with that allegation. The complaint presents the claimed purpose as Batie-Smooseâs belief.
CSU has defended its handling of Batie-Smoose in its March lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education.
The employment dispute grew as the volleyball controversy spread.
During the 2024 season, former SJSU co-captain Slusser publicly challenged Flemingâs participation, and several opponents refused to play against SJSU. Batie-Smoose filed a Title IX complaint Oct. 29 alleging unequal treatment and failures to address concerns inside the program.
SJSU placed Batie-Smoose on paid leave days later. Its suspension letter cited several grounds, including alleged disclosure of private student information, differential treatment of athletes and unprofessional conduct. Batie-Smoose disputes those grounds.
On Jan. 31, 2025, the university told her it would not renew her temporary appointment. Batie-Smoose then filed an employment lawsuit against SJSU last September.
Then, this year, on Sept. 4, Judge Noël Wise dismissed her second amended complaint in an earlier employment case. Wise found that her allegations did not adequately show that SJSU punished her because of her sex or for raising complaints protected by law. The judge emphasized the complaintâs account that SJSU acted after she shared student information with the media despite instructions to keep it confidential.
Wise allowed her to amend. The ruling addressed whether that complaint stated a valid legal claim. It did not decide the dispute after a trial.
The October filing accuses officials of violating her rights to speak, practice her faith and hold political beliefs. It also alleges unequal treatment under the law. Batie-Smoose seeks reinstatement or a comparable job, compensation and correction of adverse personnel records.
Federal investigators have separately challenged SJSUâs handling of the volleyball program.
In January, the Education Departmentâs Office for Civil Rights concluded that the school violated Title IX over athletic participation, facilities and its response to complaints. The agency also raised concerns about unequal treatment in employment, while acknowledging that incomplete records limited its conclusions.
CSU disputes the federal findings. The system sued the Education Department in March, arguing that SJSU followed the law and NCAA rules that governed the seasons under review.
Batie-Smoose says legal advice shaped how much she shared publicly as the dispute unfolded.
"When this all began, I did not have legal representation," she said.
Meta has struck a deal with Mark Zuckerberg to help him foot a possible California wealth tax targeting billionaires.
The social media company behind Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp revealed on Wednesday night that the arrangement would keep its chief executive living in California, where Meta’s headquarters are located.
House Democrats' No. 3 leader is under fire for his opposition to voter ID in his home state of California.
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., spoke at a press conference earlier this month criticizing a measure on Californians' ballot this Election Day that, if passed, would mandate that voters show government-issued photo ID at the polls.
He made the comments just weeks before the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a crime bust that saw several U.S. permanent residents accused of registering to vote despite not being citizens.
Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif., hammered Aguilar's opposition to voter ID and argued the DOJ's recent actions made it "obvious" that the ballot measure, called Proposition 39, was needed.
"Give me a break," Calvert told Fox News Digital. "You have to show an ID to board an airplane, cash a paycheck, rent an apartment or even buy cold medicine at the grocery store. Democrats claiming that requiring photo ID before casting a ballot is somehow 'racist' or 'voter suppression' is complete nonsense and an insult to every voter's intelligence."
Rep. Vince Fong, R-Calif., said voter ID "is basic election security that the vast majority of Americans support, and 36 states already require."
"While opponents are resorting to lies and fearmongering, Proposition 39 is commonsense reform in a world where you need an ID to rent a car, stay at a hotel, open a bank account or board a flight," Fong told Fox News Digital. "The DOJ's recent voter fraud bust in California is exactly why these safeguards matter."
Rep. Young Kim, R-Calif., similarly said showing photo ID is a "simple standard we already require to board a plane, purchase alcohol or pick up a prescription."
"This isn't controversial and it shouldn't be complicated. Our elections deserve at least as much consideration as a beer or a bottle of wine," Kim told Fox News Digital.
Aguilar, meanwhile, criticized Proposition 39 during a press conference with Democratic gubernatorial candidate and former Biden administration Cabinet Secretary Xavier Becerra earlier this month.
"We will not stand for this, because we will not stand for people to lose an opportunity to exercise their ability to vote. In Arizona, they tried this. They wanted folks to put their driver's license numbers on their ballots. Think about that. What if you miss one digit? Your vote doesn't count?" Aguilar proposed. "What if you're married in California? What if you're married, and you haven't changed your name and you go to vote? No longer will you be able to vote. That is what is at stake for Californians."
He called it a "voter suppression effort" pushed by Republicans.
"Republicans can win only when they suppress the vote. Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans know that they are bankrupt of ideas and solutions, and so they have to change the rules of the game," Aguilar said.
Meanwhile, the California government criticized the DOJ's operation while pointing to reports that said more of those charged were registered as Republicans rather than Democrats.
"For nearly a decade, Trump has baselessly alleged mass voter fraud rings were employed by Democrats and utilized 'illegal immigrants' to sway elections across the country â often pointing to California," a release on Gov. Gavin Newsom's state website read. "Courts at all levels have rejected the claims of vast voter fraud or that elections were rigged against the President."
Voter ID laws currently exist in 36 states and polls have shown they have a majority of Americans' support.
But in Congress, several efforts to pass federal voter ID legislation have been thwarted by Democrats in recent years.
EXCLUSIVE: Twenty-three years after Duane "Dog" Chapman chased fugitive Max Factor heir Andrew Luster to Mexico and tackled him on a Puerto Vallarta street, the convicted serial rapist is a free man â despite an initial sentence of 124 years.
"I hope he's smart enough â and he's smart â to never do anything like that again," Chapman told Fox News Digital Wednesday, more than two decades after the capture that helped make him a household name.
Chapman, his son Leland and several others went to Mexico after receiving a tip about Luster's whereabouts â months after he fled the U.S. in the middle of a California rape trial. They first identified him from the tipsters' photo, which showed a knee and a watch.
Chapman had been studying his face closely for weeks, but he also recognized the watch from a televised interview, he said. And he credits his son with first spotting Luster, who was speaking with a young woman in a bar on June 18, 2003.
"When I saw him, you talk about an adrenaline rush went through my body," Chapman told Fox News Digital Wednesday. "Tim got down . ..he snuck up behind him, and then I pushed him. He fell over. We all jumped on him, and I screamed, 'You're under arrest by the United States of America.'"
They pulled him into an SUV and drove off â only to be intercepted on the road outside town by Mexican authorities who arrested everyone amid the chaos.
Luster claimed he'd been kidnapped, Chapman said, so he handed the lead investigator what Chapman called a "bible" of information on the case.
Luster, the great-grandson of makeup mogul Max Factor, vanished during a recess in his trial and was convicted in absentia on 86 counts involving the drugging and raping of three women between 1996 and 2000 at his home in Mussel Shoals, California.
One of the victims, who asked not to be named out of concerns for her safety, said she's still struggling to comprehend Luster's release even though she knew it was
"Itâs very unsettling knowing that he is not behind bars, not in a closed facility," she told Fox News Digital Wednesday. "He is out in the public, in a community that just â it just doesnât feel very good at all."
She said she has concerns for her own safety, her family, Luster's other victims and even investigators after a notebook containing a "payback list" was recovered from his Mexican hotel room â with their names on it.
She said she dated Luster for five or six months without knowing she'd been drugged and raped the night they met â something detectives discovered years later, after they recovered videotapes from the home.
"It was me, comatose on his bed, wearing the clothes that I was wearing the first night I met him," she said. "Thatâs how I knew when it happened, because I had just bought that outfit, and I was wearing it the night that I met him. So thatâs how I figured out when it happened to me, which was absolutely horrifying."
Police found more than 100 videos, she said. Not all of them involved criminal activity, but those that did were "mortifying," she said, as Luster spoke to the camera like he were playing with "a toy."
"Theyâre pretty brutal," she added. "The things that he did to us while we were completely unconscious were things that, I mean, had we been able to feel anything, it would have been awful. He narrated the video and talked to the camera throughout and thoroughly enjoyed the whole entire thing."
He initially received consecutive sentences totaling 124 years â later reduced to 50, and he was released earlier this month after over two decades behind bars.
Prosecutors had opposed early release in 2024 and again in 2025. However, he was able to earn substantial early release credits under California's controversial Proposition 57 criminal justice reforms, and his prison term came to an end on Oct. 11.
"I did not know that [Prop 57] meant that it was gonna make Andrew Lusterâs crimes be deemed nonviolent," Doe No. 3 told Fox News Digital. "Thatâs just so baffling. I just feel like if anybody could watch these tapes of what he did to me and all of these other women, just to look at that and try to put the word nonviolent on it, that word could not come out of your mouth. It just would be impossible."
Doe was among those who successfully lobbied for changes to the law to close that nonviolent loophole.
Chapman said he never received the bounty for Luster and lost hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money for the operation and ensuing legal fallout.
Mexican law did not allow bounty hunters to apprehend fugitives. Chapman said he was arrested alongside his son Leland, longtime friend and associate Tim Chapman, who is not a blood relative, and members of a camera crew.
"He told me, 'Iâm going to get him for you,' and he did," Doe said of Chapman. So to help him get out after he put Luster back behind bars, she kicked off a legal fundraiser that she said attracted donations from around the country.
As part of the series, he plans to help bail out certain inmates with a history of good behavior and positive reports â but not for people facing serious felonies or sex abuse charges, he said.
"We'll call out the ones that deserve a second chance, right, and you can't be perfect OK, so if they run, yeehaw," he said. "I don't wish they would, but if they do, then I'm going to catch them."
A coaster dares riders to be daring, with steep drops, high speeds and improbably tight curves. But safety has become a concern again after a man was thrown from his seat and died in Georgia.
The California High-Speed Rail Authority's board voted 7–2 to strip CEO Ian Choudri of his authority to independently approve and manage contracts worth less than $25 million after an investigation uncovered questionable taxpayer-funded expenses by four consulting firms. An audit found that $593,000 in travel expenses lacked proper justification or violated state rules, including premium airline tickets and rideshare trips to places like a cigar lounge and an escape room. Consultants also billed taxpayers for rides to and from Choudri's home, sometimes late at night. The authority paid the four consulting firms roughly $2 million in travel costs; the inspector general reviewed about $1.15 million of that total and found $680,500 had no prior approval.
A California mayor insisted that handing out monthly cash payments is an effective tool to combat the state's soaring cost of living, even as local leaders face steep hurdles in securing permanent taxpayer funding to keep guaranteed income programs alive.
"I believe that guaranteed income programs like our Rise Up Alameda (RUA) pilot program are a valuable and effective tool to address the affordability crisis, based on the documented experiences of program participants," Alameda Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft told Fox News Digital.
"The average age of the 150 program participants was 49 years, with 26% being 62 years or older, and most participants were either employed or retired."
Ashcraft’s comments follow the completion of Rise Up Alameda, the city's first-ever guaranteed income pilot project. City staff presented the program's final 24-month evaluation report to the Alameda City Council on Oct. 6.
According to city documents, the pilot aimed to "reduce economic instability for program participants, help to change local narratives and perceptions surrounding poverty and the provision of public benefits and help to support and inform the national discussion regarding public benefits and anti-poverty policies."
The Alameda City Council previously allocated $4.6 million in federal pandemic relief funds from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) to finance the initiative, which provided 150 low-income households with $1,000 per month in no-strings-attached cash over two years. However, city notices confirm that because ARPA was a one-time federal allocation, the pilot has officially concluded, and the city has no plans or budget allocated for a permanent continuation.
"As mayor, I believe our responsibility is to advance practical, compassionate and evidence-informed policies that help residents meet their basic needs, preserve their dignity and build a more stable future for themselves and their families," Ashcraft told Fox News Digital when asked whether she planned to implement a permanent program.
Ashcraft highlighted several personal accounts of local residents who received monthly payments through the pilot.
Among them was Andrea, a certified nursing assistant who used the funds to stay afloat following the death of her mother. The financial boost helped cover medical bills, rent, gas and Bay Area bridge tolls while allowing her to care for her father and ailing brother.
Another participant, Dolores, a retiree in her 70s living in affordable senior housing after a 41-year career at AT&T, used the extra $1,000 a month to pay off credit card debt and build an emergency savings account.
Other recipients included Haroon, a rideshare and transit driver; Julia, a woman with a disability who was able to buy new mattresses, groceries and a set of car tires after an eviction forced her to move in with her sister; and Tyronne, a Navy veteran and former truck driver at the decommissioned Alameda Naval Air Station who relied on the extra money to cover medical bills and stabilize his housing.
While Ashcraft praised these personal outcomes, she acknowledged that direct cash payments are not a full remedy for California's economic pressures.
"These stories demonstrate the value of direct, unrestricted cash in helping residents navigate financial hardship, maintain stability and improve their overall well-being," Ashcraft said.
"While guaranteed income is not a stand-alone solution to the affordability crisis, programs like Rise Up Alameda can provide meaningful support as we pursue longer-term solutions to the high cost of housing, health care, transportation and other basic needs."
Alameda's program underscores a funding challenge local governments face across the nation regarding how to sustain guaranteed income pilot programs now that temporary federal pandemic relief funding is ending.
Many local guaranteed income pilots were underwritten by temporary pandemic-era ARPA allocations. With federal deadlines requiring municipalities to spend remaining relief funds, mayors and advocacy groups are searching for ways to convert short-term experiments into permanent, taxpayer-funded government programs.
A major organization advocating for guaranteed income is the Economic Security Project (ESP). Founded in 2016 by a network of entrepreneurs, activists and researchers, ESP has helped support more than 100 guaranteed income pilots nationwide. California leads the country with more than 60 pilot launches.
ESP has urged governments to consider taxpayer-funded measures to establish permanent minimum-income guarantees.
When asked by Fox News Digital whether local pilots are transitioning into permanent public policies, ESP indicated that multiple municipalities are actively working on legislative proposals.
"We can say, however, that there’s an active and growing movement for cash in hundreds of communities across the country," Shafeka Hashash, director of cash initiatives at the Economic Security Project, told Fox News Digital.
"We regularly take calls from some of the 1,500 members of the Guaranteed Income Community of Practice — researchers, nonprofits, local government officials and community leaders all interested in bringing cash to their neighborhoods," Hashash added.
"We just can’t announce any pilots or policies before the localities do."
One pilot program has become permanent in Cook County, Illinois. To sustain the initiative without federal aid, the Cook County Board of Commissioners approved $7.5 million for guaranteed income in the county budget, signaling a shift toward long-term local funding.
Republican state officials and conservative policy groups have sought to block guaranteed income programs. Critics argue unconditional handouts discourage work, increase dependence on government assistance and misuse taxpayer funds.
"The affordability crisis is hitting Americans across backgrounds, geographies and party lines, and it's imperative that state and federal leaders adopt a solutions-focused approach," Mayors for Guaranteed Income founder Michael Tubbs told Fox News Digital.
"Banning policies that have proven effective at the local level is not only undemocratic, it is incredibly counterproductive to solving the key problem facing American families," he added.
"We should be unlocking innovation at the local level to boost economic security, stabilize households and restore faith in the American dream."
The billionaire told Meta’s board that he planned to list his Silicon Valley home for sale. The company remade its stock structure to help him pay the tax if voters pass it.
Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Meta, at his home in Lake Tahoe, Calif. He has another California home in Palo Alto, close to Meta’s headquarters.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg considered moving out of California because of a proposed billionaire tax.
Zuckerberg would get $20 billion in "immediate liquidity" if the billionaire tax passes.
Meta made the offer to Zuckerberg to help keep him in California after he considered leaving.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg considered moving out of California because of its proposed billionaire tax, Meta disclosed in a new SEC filing on Wednesday.
Next month, Californians will vote on Proposition 40, a one-time tax on the assets of the state's billionaires.
The filing said that Zuckerberg told a special committee formed by Meta that he was considering moving.
In response, the committee concluded that it was "critically important" for Zuckerberg to keep running Meta close to its Silicon Valley headquarters — particularly to its AI division, Meta Superintelligence Labs.
The filing said the committee got Zuckerberg to agree to remain in California or any other jurisdiction where Meta has its corporate headquarters for eight years, barring unforeseen circumstances.
As part of its efforts to ensure he can remain in charge as it raises more cash for its AI initiatives, the company is granting the Meta CEO a new stock class.
The shares would give Zuckerberg $20 billion in "immediate liquidity" to cover the tax by selling stock without losing control of Meta, if the tax passes. The new shares wouldn't add to Zuckerberg's net worth or increase his percentage ownership of Meta.
"The goal is to keep Mr. Zuckerberg continuing to lead the Company from California," the filing says.
Meta declined to comment. A person familiar with the matter said that the new class of shares, which totals $150 billion, is also intended to raise capital, compensate employees, and keep Meta's stock price on the right track.
Meta's filing showcases how tech billionaires are responding to the tax proposal. Some, including Google cofounder Sergey Brin and former CEO Eric Schmidt, poured hundreds of millions of dollars into attack ads against the proposal.
While Zuckerberg has taken a lower-key approach, it's clear he's been taking the proposed tax seriously.
The Meta CEO, who is worth about $240 billion according to Forbes, has multiple residences in California, including in Palo Alto and Lake Tahoe.
He also has a sprawling property portfolio outside the state, including a doomsday bunker in Hawaii, a waterfront mansion in Miami, and a castle in Ireland.
Have a tip? Contact this reporter securely on Signal at charlesrollet.12 or +1-628-282-2811. Use a personal email address and a non-work device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.
Governor Gavin Newsom and Bill Essayli, a Trump-appointed federal prosecutor in California, sparred on social media this week about whether the state is doing enough to prevent noncitizens from voting.
Essayli, the first assistant U.S. attorney for California's Central District, surfaced a court document filed Tuesday in which a Los Angeles County election official said the registrar's office "is not equipped or authorized to verify voter citizenship because it does not independently house citizenship-related information beyond the voter attestation."
The official, Monica Flores, made the declaration as part of a Justice Department lawsuit seeking to force California to verify the citizenship of more than 20,000 people the federal government believes are likely noncitizens who were sent mail ballots ahead of this year's midterm elections.
Essayli called Flores' statement a "massive concession" that shows election officials take voters' word on whether they are a citizen.
"American citizens’ votes are being diluted in California," Essayli wrote.
In response, Newsom's press office account on X said California adheres to a 1993 federal law that requires people registering to vote through the DMV to swear under penalty of perjury that they are eligible, including that they are U.S. citizens. Similar attestation requirements apply to federal mail-in voter registration forms.
"May want to brush up on your election law before tweeting," Newsom's office wrote in a jab at Essayli. "Perhaps Second Assistant is more apt from now on?"
The public spat highlighted the central dispute in the lawsuit against California: whether the state should take additional steps to verify the citizenship of voters when the federal government flags potential issues with the rolls.
According to the Justice Department's complaint, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) cross-checked California voter registration records with federal immigration data.
That investigative process, described by DOJ lawyers as "preliminary," yielded a list of more than 20,000 registered voters federal investigators identified as likely noncitizens. California voters were mailed ballots beginning Oct. 1.
In its initial complaint filed Oct. 15, the Justice Department asked a federal court to require California to set aside mail ballots associated with people on the list until their citizenship could be verified.
Flores, an official with the LA County Registrar's Office, argued that doing so is now virtually impossible because once a ballot's signature is verified, it is removed from its identifying envelope and processed alongside hundreds of thousands of others.
As of Tuesday, the county has processed 331,000 ballots, according to Flores' statement in court.
She also pointed out that the registrar's office is "not an investigative agency," adding that she was unaware of "any state or federal law granting it investigative authority."
Nonetheless, staff from the registrar's office reviewed a sample of 200 records from the Justice Department list that had LA County addresses.
"The October list is unreliable: 112 of the 200 records correspond to registrations that are canceled or inactive," according to Flores' statement. "Of the voters where birthplace was meaningfully reported, 38.9% indicate that they were born in the United States, which is strong evidence of citizenship; and 71.2% of the records have no voting history."
In a statement to Fox News, Essayli said these reported numbers "are meaningless because, by their own admission, they have no way to verify anyone's citizenship status or their birthplace."
There are indications that the Justice Department list does contain at least some individuals who could have broken the law.
On Monday, the Justice Department charged 28 individuals off that list, all lawful permanent residents, with making false statements on naturalization applications and fraudulently registering to vote. Most of them cast unlawful ballots in elections, officials said.
A “massive concession” claim emerged Tuesday in the federal dispute over California’s voter rolls after Los Angeles County officials told a court they cannot independently verify voters’ citizenship beyond what voters state on their registration forms.
Democrats are calling for an investigation into SpaceX CEO Elon Musk following a Wall Street Journal report alleging he ordered the Starlink slowdown in Ukraine. “Either the President was lying or Musk was lying, but the decision to slow down satellite speed and access has life or death consequences for Ukraine,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)…
Democrats are calling for an investigation into SpaceX CEO Elon Musk following a Wall Street Journal report alleging he ordered the Starlink slowdown in Ukraine. “Either the President was lying or Musk was lying, but the decision to slow down satellite speed and access has life or death consequences for Ukraine,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)…
SEIU Local 1000, representing nurses and teachers, pushing for higher wages, telework and affordable healthcare
Thousands of California state workers began a sweeping one-day strike on Wednesday, with workers set to rally outside government buildings in several cities, as tensions boiled over lapsed contract negotiations with Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration.
SEIU Local 1000, a union that represents roughly 100,000 public employees, including nurses and teachers, has been pushing for higher wages, flexible telework and affordable healthcare.
Editor's note: This op-ed is part of a series by Eli Steele exploring White guilt in America and the West. Steele is the director of the newly released documentary essay, "White Guilt." See the film at WhiteGuiltFilm.com.
I am a native Californian, and I will never get over the absurdity of seeing California and slavery in the same sentence. I believe I saw it for the first time during the height of the Black Lives Matter unrest. I remembered how I learned in my San Jose elementary school that California entered the Union in 1850 as a free state. Yet here we are again, this time with AB 2599, the Truth in Disclosure Act.
On September 30, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the act into law. "This is a bill that requires large companies that operated before 1965 to search their records for ties to slavery going back to 1849, and then we make it public," Newsom said. "These are insurance policies on enslaved people. Human beings used as collateral, quite literally as collateral for loans."
I first learned about these atrocities as a child, and they made me understand how total the dehumanization of slavery was. This history should be learned, but there is something profoundly different about turning history into a legal obligation, sworn under penalty of perjury. This comes at a time when most California students, including Black students, are underperforming in reading and math. So why does Sacramento want to excavate corporate records from 1849 rather than fix the classrooms today?
I believe the point of this investigation is not to discover more history, since we have historians for that, but to unearth confessions that can be commodified as grievances. To see why, you have to understand that White guilt is transactional.
When I mention White guilt, many people tell me they feel none. Of course, they don't. You cannot feel guilt for what you have not done. But, that is not White guilt. "White guilt doesn't have anything to do with actual feelings of guilt," my father, Shelby Steele, author, columnist and Hoover Institution senior fellow, says in our new documentary, "White Guilt." White guilt is the collective guilt that says all Whites must carry the sins of the slave masters and segregationists forever.
Activists on the Left have leveraged this accusation for power since the 1960s, and it has produced a terror in many Whites, the terror of being tied to this racist past. Those Whites, especially liberal Whites, want innocence most of all, the ability to say, "I am not like those racist Whites."
Black leaders understood early on, as my father did in the 1960s, that Whites would do anything out of their deep, existential desire for innocence. That is what gives White guilt its transactional nature.
My father has said that White guilt is "quite literally the same thing as Black power." From Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton to Black Lives Matter, these leaders knew their power was in selling Black victimization. Whites bought innocence with everything from endless programs of dependency to lowered education standards. Both sides of this White guilt — Black power symbiosis get what they want, and that is the trap.
In order to keep the lucrative White guilt grift alive, Black leaders have to keep Blacks locked into permanent victimhood, and Whites have to remain condemned as eternally guilty. As America continues to make racial progress, this symbiosis has moved further left, and further into the past, in search of more grievances.
It was California’s reparations task force that demanded AB 2599. This new law applies to any company doing business in California that takes in more than $100 million a year worldwide and existed in some form by the end of 1964.
Once the legislature funds it, any such company will be legally bound to go through its records, and the records of its parent companies, subsidiaries and predecessors, back to 1849. It must report any findings that the company sold or leased slaves, used them as collateral for loans or insured them. The first filings are due as early as January 15, 2029, and the records will be kept online indefinitely. Every filing will be a confession made under oath, and every confession becomes one more grievance on the public record, available to the activists for as long as the database exists.
Newsom bought his own racial innocence by signing into law the demand that more Black victimization be found. Imagine if Newsom had refused to sign. He would have been blasted as the governor who protected the companies that exploited slaves.
Right there is the very terror that White guilt deploys to kill any reasonable objections. And the corporations on the target list will confess to the sins of their predecessors and buy their innocence with statements of regret and funding for programs and initiatives. None of them will risk the stigmatization that comes with fighting a slavery disclosure law.
On the same day, Newsom vetoed a bill to exempt reparations payments from state income tax. Where there was no innocence to be gained, he refused to cost his state actual revenue.
On the other side of the bargain are the sellers, and their product is Black victimization. The author of the bill, Democratic Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, told CalMatters which companies he expects to file. "I'm thinking agriculture. I'm thinking banking, insurance. I'm thinking anything in the financial sector." Then he said about what comes next. "Once the public has this disclosure and we have a full accounting of the impact, then it's up to us to decide what that means and what we're going to do about it."
If that last line comes off as a threat, it is because it is. Bryan is telling these companies that once the grievance is documented, lawmakers will set the price of penance. And what this statement also reveals is that this is nothing more than a fishing expedition to find the crime to fuel the White guilt-Black power symbiosis.
That is why the left will never let the White guilt — Black power symbiosis die out. Kristin Nimmers, policy and campaign manager for the California Black Power Network, told Fox News Digital that "a single check is not going to holistically repair our communities." She wants "a harm-based approach, so whoever was harmed should be entitled to that repair."
The rest of us are chum in this transaction, Black children most of all. California released its new test scores on October 15. Only 33.7% of Black students met the state standard in English. In math, it was 21.5%. Our state is busy chasing the ghost of past crimes while ignoring the very crimes of miseducation taking place today.
But the White guilt-Black power symbiosis never had any interest in doing the hard work of developing young minds into individual talents. Instead, this symbiosis will wait for the companies to report back on the sins of their predecessors, and then its elites will hold up the evidence as yet more proof that California and America are systemically racist.
The past will be dragged into the present as if no progress had ever been made, the accusation refreshed and sharpened for another generation. And worst of all, the Black children who needed a state that believed in their future will instead be told that the sins in that database, from 1849, are what has been holding them back all along.
It is no surprise that a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit just enjoined the blatantly unconstitutional attempt by the "No-Longer-So-Golden State" to impose restrictions on the ability of ICE and other federal agents to enforce federal immigration law. That panel was doing exactly what federal courts are supposed to do — uphold the U.S. Constitution.
On October 14 in U.S. v. California, the court tossed the so-called "No Vigilantes Act" (NVA) onto the ash heap. This law was part of the state’s continuing effort to obstruct federal immigration enforcement, which has included relentless public attacks by the governor and state officials on federal agents just trying to do their job of enforcing the law. That includes noxious claims like Newsom likening them to the thuggish "secret police" of an "authoritarian" state.
The NVA required any non-uniformed "federal law enforcement officer" operating in California to "visibly display identification" when carrying out federal law enforcement duties. A federal agent violating this requirement could be criminally prosecuted by the state.
As the Ninth Circuit pointed out, the Supremacy Clause in Article VI makes the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … the Supreme Law of the Land." In other words, federal law not only overrides any state law to the contrary, but it requires what is called "intergovernmental immunity." Under "the intergovernmental immunity component of the Supremacy Clause … states may not directly regulate the Federal Government’s operations or property." The panel cites to a 1996 Ninth Circuit decision, Blackburn v. U.S., on this issue, but then points out that this basic legal principle — that states cannot interfere in federal functions — goes all the way back to one of the most seminal Supreme Court cases in our history, McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). "It is the very essence of Supremacy," said the Court in McCulloch, "to remove all obstacles to its action within its own sphere, and so to modify every power vested in subordinate governments, as to exempt its own operations from their own influence." That is why "States have no power … to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the General Government."
California tried to argue that the NVA was constitutional because it did not "substantially burden" federal law enforcement. But the Ninth Circuit shot that down, too, saying any attempt by a state law to directly regulate "the conduct of the United States … is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations, and irrespective of the degree to which the state law interferes with such functions or operations."
What made this law even worse was its threat to criminally prosecute federal agents. This is especially ironic because California attempted to do with the NVA what the Supreme Court specifically told the state it couldn’t do 136 years ago in another seminal case, In re Neagle (1890), also cited by the Ninth Circuit panel. That decision reads like a Hollywood movie but also demonstrates just how bizarre state officials have acted in California for a long time, not just in today’s heated political arena.
In re Neagle involved the state of California trying to prosecute a U.S. Marshal for murder. Marshal David Neagle was acting as a bodyguard for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field, a job the U.S. Marshal’s Service still carries out today. He shot and killed the former chief justice of California’s state supreme court, David Terry, at a railway station in the San Joaquin Valley, after Terry tried to assassinate Field. Terry was known for his violent temper and apparently had a grudge against Field for a court decision involving the prior divorce of Terry’s current wife.
The Ninth Circuit quoted the Supreme Court’s opinion in Neagle that even the "most unquestionable and most universally applicable of state laws, such as those concerning murder, will not be allowed to control the conduct a marshal of the United States acting under and in pursuance of the laws of the United States." California couldn’t prosecute a U.S. Marshal then for doing his job, and it cannot criminally prosecute federal agents now who are "acting under and in pursuance of the [immigration] laws of the United States." End of story, end of case, end of unconstitutional state law.
By the way, a second law enacted by California’s constitutionally ignorant legislators, the "No Secret Police Act," was already enjoined by a lower court for the same reason. That law made it a criminal offense for federal agents to wear "a facial covering that conceals or obscures their facial identity." You know, the same agents who have been villainized, doxxed, followed home, harassed, run down by cars, and shot at by thugs who masquerade as protesters.
As the Ninth Circuit correctly recognized, the lawlessness occurring in California is not limited to thugs. Perhaps some remedial courses on the Constitution for Governor Newsom and the California legislature may be in order.
The statement revealed in court papers raises questions about the reliability of the list of 20,000 people in California
The justice department’s list of suspected non-citizens in California includes a “high percentage” of people born in the United States, Los Angeles election officials said on Tuesday.
The statement, made in court papers, raises further questions about the reliability of a list of 20,000 people the justice department provided to election officials in Los Angeles last week. The department sent the county and California secretary of state the list last week and gave them a 48-hour deadline to segregate ballots cast from anyone on the list unless they could verify their citizenship. California election officials refused and the Department of Justice sued them on Thursday.
A proposed "wealth tax" on California's billionaires could backfire and cost the state tens of billions of dollars in the long run.
If the proposed tax drives wealthier residents out of the state, California could end up losing between $1 billion and $3.5 billion annually in income taxes, according to a working paper published this week. A pair of researchers at Stanford University warn that the state could end up losing an estimated $39 billion because of the consequences of the wealth tax.
"These findings suggest that the Billionaire Tax Act will not fulfill the primary functions for which it was designed," write researchers Benjamin Jaros and Joshua Rauh.
Voters in California will decide next month whether to impose the one-time, 5 percent tax when they vote on Proposition 40. The ballot measure is dividing Democrats—Gov. Gavin Newsom opposes it, while progressive Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.) claims it is the "most important ballot initiative in America and a fight for the soul of our party."
And it's already spurring some billionaires to flee the state—including venture capitalist Peter Thiel and Google co-founder Larry Page. Including those two, the seven billionaires who have publicly said they are leaving the state represent more than $539 billion of the nearly $1.9 trillion aggregate net worth of California's billionaires, the researchers note.
With other departures likely happening more quietly, the new study estimates that the tax will generate about $30 billion, a far cry from the $100 billion that the tax's supporters expect. The "behavioral response" from billionaires in California "has eroded most of the projected tax base," write Jaros and Rauh.
That's still a pretty big pot of revenue. In the long run, however, the state is likely to lose out.
After running 100,000 simulations using different assumptions, the two researchers report that "85 percent of plausible outcomes produce a negative" result in state revenue.
Capital is always mobile, despite the best efforts of politicians. And if you were a billionaire living in California, why would you stick around?
Polls show voters are narrowly divided over Proposition 40. A Politicopoll published earlier this month showed 46 percent of voters plan to vote for the measure, while 43 percent oppose it. Voters were similarly divided when asked if they expected it to pass or not.
Login
