This is strange behavior.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a controversial new law that Republicans say could make it more difficult for journalists and government watchdogs to investigate certain organizations connected to immigration services.
The legislation, Assembly Bill 2624, expands California’s Safe at Home address-confidentiality program to include qualifying employees of nonprofit organizations that help people navigate the immigration system.
Republican opponents have given the measure a politically explosive nickname: the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.”
The name refers to independent journalist and YouTuber Nick Shirley, whose investigations into alleged fraud, government spending and immigrant communities have generated millions of views and fierce political debate.
The new California law is scheduled to take effect Oct. 1, 2027.
What Does California’s AB 2624 Do?
California’s Safe at Home program allows eligible participants to use a substitute mailing address to help keep their residential location private.
The program was created to protect people considered particularly vulnerable to stalking, harassment, threats or violence.
Existing protections cover groups including domestic violence victims, elder abuse victims and certain health care workers. AB 2624 expands eligibility to qualifying nonprofit employees who provide services to people dealing with the immigration system.
Supporters say the change is about privacy and personal safety.
Critics, however, are raising questions about government transparency, investigative journalism and taxpayer accountability.
Those competing concerns have turned what might otherwise have been a little-noticed California law into another major political dispute surrounding Newsom.
Democrat Says Immigration Workers Face Threats
Democratic Assemblywoman Mia Bonta of Alameda introduced AB 2624 in February following reports of increased threats and harassment targeting immigration service providers.
Bonta argued that workers assisting immigrant communities have increasingly faced intimidation because of their jobs.
“Our immigrant service providers are living in fear because of extremists looking to demonize the work that they do and the populations they serve,” Bonta said Saturday.
She called the situation an unacceptable result of what she described as increasingly hostile rhetoric surrounding immigration.
Supporters of the legislation argue that nobody should have to worry about a home address being publicly circulated simply because of where they work.
Republicans say there is another side to the debate.
Republicans Call It the ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’
Republican Assemblyman Carl DeMaio of San Diego helped popularize the nickname “Stop Nick Shirley Act.”
The name reflects concerns among opponents that expanding confidentiality protections could make it harder for independent journalists and watchdogs to investigate organizations accused of misconduct.
Shirley has gained a substantial online following through videos examining suspected fraud, government programs and taxpayer spending.
His reporting involving immigrant communities in California and Minnesota has been especially controversial.
Shirley has argued that AB 2624 followed his investigations into what he describes as widespread fraud involving immigrant communities.
Supporters of the legislation reject the suggestion that the law is designed to silence him or other journalists.
That disagreement has become the central question surrounding the new law: Does AB 2624 simply protect workers from harassment, or could it have unintended consequences for public accountability?
Bizarre Capitol Confrontation Fuels Controversy
The political battle became even more unusual just days before Newsom signed the legislation.
Shirley was conducting a sidewalk interview outside the California State Capitol in Sacramento on Wednesday when Terry Schanz, chief of staff to Democratic Assemblywoman Tina McKinnor, allegedly interrupted the encounter.
Schanz reportedly displayed a printed flyer containing a crude personal insult directed at Shirley.
According to reports, Schanz earns $17,319 per month, amounting to more than $207,000 annually in taxpayer-funded compensation.
Multiple complaints were subsequently filed with the California Legislature’s human resources department, according to KCRA.
The incident attracted additional attention because supporters of AB 2624 have repeatedly emphasized protecting people from harassment and intimidation.
Republican critics quickly pointed to what they viewed as an uncomfortable contradiction: a controversy involving alleged harassment erupted while California lawmakers were defending legislation promoted partly as protection against harassment.
The episode does not establish wrongdoing by Newsom, Bonta or other supporters of AB 2624. But it has provided opponents with additional ammunition in the political battle surrounding the law.
Previous California Capitol Controversies Resurface
The confrontation has also renewed attention on previous controversies involving Schanz.
His name surfaced in connection with a 2025 wrongful-termination lawsuit containing allegations involving political pressure and workplace culture within California Assembly leadership.
His office also faced scrutiny earlier this year over allegations involving nonprofit news organization CalMatters and footage of McKinnor following questions about an expensive designer handbag.
Those allegations have returned to the spotlight as Republicans argue that California voters deserve greater transparency from their elected officials and taxpayer-funded government employees.
Newsom Previously Criticized Reaction to Shirley’s Reporting
The dispute between California Democrats and Shirley did not begin with AB 2624.
Shirley gained national attention after videos examining alleged fraud in Minnesota spread widely online.
He later traveled to California, bringing his investigative approach to San Diego.
Newsom entered the controversy in February when he said Somali daycare providers in Minnesota had been placed “under siege” following the attention generated by Shirley’s reporting.
Shirley has continued defending his work, arguing that journalists have a responsibility to investigate potential fraud, government waste and misuse of taxpayer dollars regardless of the communities involved.
The disagreement has therefore grown into something considerably larger than a fight over one California bill.
It now touches on immigration policy, taxpayer spending, government accountability, privacy protections and freedom of the press.
Florida Senator Joins Fight Over California Law
The controversy has even reached Washington.
Republican Sen. Ashley Moody of Florida attacked AB 2624 by calling it the “Protect Fraudsters Act.”
That description reflects Republican concerns that additional privacy protections could potentially interfere with efforts to uncover wrongdoing involving nonprofit organizations.
Bonta has firmly rejected that argument.
She says AB 2624 does not treat legitimate investigative journalism as doxxing and maintains that the legislation is specifically designed to protect people from having sensitive personal information used to threaten or intimidate them.
That distinction could become increasingly important once the law takes effect.
Privacy vs. Government Transparency
Beyond the partisan fight, AB 2624 raises a legitimate policy question with implications extending beyond California.
How should government balance personal privacy with the public’s right to demand accountability?
Protecting workers and their families from credible threats is an important government responsibility.
But journalists, whistleblowers and independent watchdogs also perform an essential role by investigating fraud, waste, government spending and potential misuse of taxpayer money.
For older Americans who have watched government spending and immigration become increasingly important national issues, that balance could be particularly significant.
California officials maintain that AB 2624 protects personal residential information without preventing legitimate journalism.
Republicans and other critics remain unconvinced.
They argue lawmakers must ensure that privacy laws never become an unintended shield against scrutiny—especially when taxpayer-funded programs or organizations receiving public money are involved.
Newsom Makes AB 2624 California Law
Whatever the political arguments, Newsom’s signature means the debate is no longer merely theoretical.
AB 2624 is officially California law and is scheduled to take effect Oct. 1, 2027.
Supporters believe it will provide needed protection for nonprofit workers who face threats because of their immigration-related work.
Opponents will be watching closely for any indication that the measure makes legitimate investigations more difficult.
And after the bizarre Capitol confrontation involving Shirley, the controversy surrounding the so-called “Stop Nick Shirley Act” is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
The larger question now is whether California has found the right balance between protecting private citizens and protecting the public’s ability to uncover fraud, waste and abuse.