admin
California just crossed a dangerous line when Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2624 into law, the very measure conservatives have rightly mocked as the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.” This bill, rushed through after a political tantrum over viral videos, hands special privacy protections to immigration support workers while raising serious First Amendment alarm bells for citizen watchdogs and reporters. Hardworking Americans who expect transparency should be alarmed that Sacramento would prioritize shielding institutions over exposing fraud.
Under the cover of expanding the long-standing Safe at Home program, AB 2624 quietly broadens confidentiality to include “immigration support services” providers, their employees and volunteers — protections that won’t take effect until October 1, 2027. What started as a program to protect victims of violence has been transformed into a legal moat around organizations that receive public funds, with real consequences for public oversight. The people footing the bill deserve to know whether taxpayer dollars are being wasted or stolen, not to have their watchdogs muzzled by legislative sleight of hand.
If you haven’t followed Nick Shirley’s work, you should: his viral reporting last year focused a national spotlight on alleged fraud in taxpayer-funded programs and sent investigators to take a hard look at abuses. Rather than answer those questions, Democrats in Sacramento and their allied nonprofits decided to cast Shirleys of the world as the problem and the people taking taxpayer funds as the victims. When Republican voices like Carl DeMaio warned that this law would chill citizen journalism, they were not crying wolf — they were pointing to the very language that could be used to silence scrutiny.
The legislative math was telling: AB 2624 moved through the Assembly and won floor approval by a lopsided margin, 57-19, a vote that should concern every taxpayer who believes in accountability. The bill’s backers insist it isn’t meant to stop investigators, but the definitions and penalties embedded in the text create an intimidating legal risk for anyone who posts footage or photos that bureaucrats deem harassing. This is how government protects the powerful: not by transparency, but by papering over oversight with statutes and euphemisms.
Proponents claim AB 2624 is merely a shield against doxxing, threats and harassment, and nobody wants volunteers or social workers terrorized at home. That’s a legitimate point — no decent person wants threats — but laws that swing so broadly end up protecting institutions more than individuals and give political actors a tool to silence critics. The legislature’s reassurances that law enforcement and the attorney general retain investigatory authority ring hollow when citizens and independent journalists are left facing the cost of defense in court.
Now is not the time for resignation. Conservatives, patriots and anyone who values open government must demand that this law be narrowly construed, challenged in court if necessary, and that Congress look closely at states that would use privacy as a pretext to hide corruption. We owe it to taxpayers and to the brave citizen reporters who expose waste to push back hard against any law that tips the balance in favor of secrecy. If we allow Washington and the states to fence off taxpayer-funded programs from public view, we will have traded republican self-government for patronage and protected fraudsters at the public trough.
