Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill that critics say criminalizes independent journalism and shields potentially fraudulent immigration nonprofits, just days after a taxpayer-funded Capitol aide disrupted the journalist's interview with a crude stunt.
Newsom put his signature on Assembly Bill 2624 on Saturday, expanding California's Safe at Home program to cover employees of nonprofits that serve people navigating the immigration system. The law, which takes effect October 1, 2027, provides substitute mailing addresses to shield those workers' personal information from public disclosure. Democratic Assemblywoman Mia Bonta of Alameda introduced the measure in February, citing what she described as increased threats against immigration service providers.
Republicans have a different name for it. Assemblyman Carl DeMaio of San Diego coined the label "Stop Nick Shirley Act," tying the legislation directly to the independent journalist and YouTuber whose viral videos have exposed alleged fraud in immigrant-run nonprofits across California and Minnesota. The nickname stuck, and the controversy around it has now reached the U.S. Senate, where Florida Republican Sen. Ashley Moody referred to the measure as the "Protect Fraudsters Act."
Bonta rejected that characterization, saying the law does not conflate legitimate journalism with the doxxing targeted by Safe at Home. At the bill's signing, she framed the issue as a matter of safety for nonprofit workers:
"Our immigrant service providers are living in fear because of extremists looking to demonize the work that they do and the populations they serve. That is an intolerable consequence of the anti-immigrant rhetoric that exists right now."
The bill's penalties tell a sharper story than its supporters' framing suggests. Breitbart reported that AB 2624 penalizes the distribution of information or images of immigration workers that "incites violence or threats," with fines ranging from $10,000 to $50,000 and potential jail or state prison time. Civil penalties of up to $4,000 per violation compound the financial exposure.
DeMaio laid out the practical consequences in blunt terms. He told Fox News that the bill targets journalists and citizens who try to hold taxpayer-funded organizations accountable:
"AB 2624 would allow activists and taxpayer-funded organizations to demand the removal of video evidence, even if it captures misconduct in plain view, and threatens journalists with massive financial penalties."
Shirley himself described the stakes from a reporter's perspective. He said the law would punish anyone who tries to verify whether a neighborhood nonprofit is operating legitimately:
"They're literally willing to impose a $10,000 fine or imprisonment if you go and seek to find out the truth about a location that could potentially be fraudulent inside your own neighborhood."
The bill passed the California Senate 30, 10 along strict party lines before landing on Newsom's desk. No Republican voted for it. That margin makes it difficult to argue the measure reflects any bipartisan consensus about protecting vulnerable workers, it reads instead like a party-line effort to shield immigration nonprofits from public scrutiny.
The legislation did not emerge in a vacuum. Shirley's reporting in Minnesota produced videos documenting alleged fraud among Somali daycare providers that went viral. Newsom himself acknowledged the impact in February, saying the providers were "under siege" following Shirley's arrival, a characterization that framed the journalist's work as the problem rather than the alleged fraud he uncovered.
Shirley then traveled to San Diego, where he continued investigating California-based nonprofits. His work drew federal attention. Fox News reported that Vice President JD Vance announced the suspension of 447 hospices and 23 home health agencies in Los Angeles following Shirley's fraud investigations, with estimated fraud exceeding $600 million. A $170 million hospice care fraud case led to the federal suspension of hundreds of agencies.
That federal response, suspensions, investigations, and a fraud estimate in the hundreds of millions, makes the timing of AB 2624 difficult to dismiss as coincidence. The state moved to protect the very category of organizations that federal authorities were simultaneously scrutinizing for massive fraud. Shirley said the bill was created after he "exposed widespread fraud in immigrant communities" in both states.
The fraud allegations Shirley's work helped surface extend well beyond California. Vice President Vance sent Minnesota fraud allegations to the Department of Justice, naming Governor Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison in a criminal referral, a sign that the investigative trail Shirley helped open now reaches the highest levels of Democratic state leadership.
The signing came just days after a Capitol incident that crystallized the hostility Shirley faces from California's Democratic establishment. Terry Schanz, chief of staff to Democratic Assemblywoman Tina McKinnor, allegedly barged into Shirley's sidewalk interview outside the California State Capitol on Wednesday. Schanz held up a printed flyer and, according to witnesses, made a crude remark about Shirley's anatomy.
The alleged statement, as reported: "Did you guys hear that Nick Shirley has a small penis allegedly?" Schanz earns $17,319 per month, $207,828 per year, in taxpayer-funded compensation. Multiple complaints were filed with the California Legislature's HR department following the incident, and KCRA reported that Schanz was expected to face consequences.
Shirley responded on the spot: "Wow that's so adult of you. You have never seen it. You would never see it."
Schanz's record extends beyond the Capitol sidewalk. Her name surfaced in a 2025 wrongful-termination lawsuit containing allegations of political bullying and a toxic workplace culture within top Assembly leadership. Separately, McKinnor's office faced scrutiny in January over allegations it pressured CalMatters, a nonprofit newsroom, to alter footage after a reporter asked McKinnor about an expensive designer handbag.
A pattern runs through these episodes: a Democratic legislative office that responds to press attention not with transparency but with pressure, intimidation, and now a crude public stunt. The fact that Schanz draws more than $200,000 a year from taxpayers while allegedly harassing a journalist on state property makes the conduct harder to excuse as a one-off lapse in judgment. It is the behavior of someone who believes there will be no real accountability, a belief that California's political culture has done little to challenge.
California's Safe at Home program already covers domestic violence survivors, elder abuse victims, reproductive health care workers, and gender-affirming health care workers. AB 2624 adds nonprofit immigration workers to that list. The program's original purpose, protecting people facing genuine physical danger, is not in dispute.
What critics dispute is whether extending those protections to immigration nonprofits will function as a shield for organizations engaged in fraud. When federal authorities have already suspended hundreds of agencies and estimated fraud in the hundreds of millions, giving those same organizations a state-backed tool to suppress video evidence and penalize reporters who film their operations is a policy choice with obvious consequences.
Bonta insists the law targets doxxing and threats, not journalism. But the bill's penalties, fines up to $50,000 and prison time for distributing images that allegedly "incite violence or threats", hand enforcement discretion to the same state bureaucracy that has shown little appetite for holding its own officials accountable. The standard of what "incites" a threat is vague enough to chill exactly the kind of street-level investigative work Shirley does.
Newsom has shown a consistent willingness to sign legislation that draws sharp criticism for its real-world consequences, and AB 2624 fits that record. The governor framed Shirley's journalism as an attack on vulnerable communities. He did not address the fraud that journalism uncovered.
The broader dynamic is familiar. Democratic leaders across the country face growing scrutiny over how public money flows through nonprofit networks, scrutiny that independent journalists, not legacy newsrooms, have driven. When public figures face uncomfortable questions about money and accountability, the institutional response is rarely to answer the question. It is to change the rules so the question cannot be asked.
AB 2624 does not take effect until October 2027. Between now and then, the law will face legal challenges, public pressure, and the continued work of journalists like Shirley who operate outside the institutional media apparatus that Sacramento has learned to manage. Whether the law survives that scrutiny will say as much about California's commitment to transparency as it does about its commitment to protecting nonprofit workers.
When a state's response to evidence of fraud is to punish the people who found it, taxpayers everywhere should pay attention.
