California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation expanding the state’s address-confidentiality program to immigration nonprofit workers, a measure opponents have labeled the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” and warned could impede journalists and others investigating suspected fraud.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed Assembly Bill 2624 into law, expanding a state confidentiality program to cover employees of immigration nonprofit organizations amid a dispute over whether the measure protects workers from harassment or could be used against people investigating suspected misconduct.
The legislation extends eligibility for California’s long-established Safe at Home Program, which allows certain people considered at risk of threats or targeted attacks to use substitute mailing addresses rather than disclose their home addresses.
The program already provides those protections to groups including survivors of domestic violence and elder abuse, as well as healthcare workers. Under the new law, employees working for immigration nonprofits will also qualify for its protections.
Assembly Member Mia Bonta, D-Alameda, introduced the measure in February after reports of increased threats and harassment directed at immigration service providers.
The legislation became the subject of a political fight as conservative lawmakers and commentators raised concerns about its potential effect on investigations into nonprofit organizations and government-funded services.
Assembly Member Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, dubbed the proposal the “Stop Nick Shirley Act,” referring to citizen journalist Nick Shirley, whose videos examining suspected fraud have attracted millions of views. Other opponents have called the legislation the “Protect Fraudsters Act.”
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Republicans in California and Washington attacked the legislation for months, while the newspaper characterized claims that the measure would obstruct journalists investigating fraud as false.
Newsom had said in early February that Somali daycare providers in San Diego were “under siege” after Shirley traveled to the community to produce content following the widespread attention generated by his investigations in Minnesota.
Shirley gained national prominence in late 2025 through videos examining healthcare fraud in Minnesota involving members of the state’s large Somali community. His reporting from Minneapolis drew millions of views before he turned his attention to suspected healthcare fraud in California.
The controversy surrounding the California legislation has consequently become closely tied to Shirley’s work, with discussion of the measure circulating on X as critics argued that increasing confidentiality protections could make it more difficult to identify or scrutinize people associated with organizations receiving public attention.
Conservative lawmakers in California and elsewhere have said the law could be used to intimidate people “trying to shine light on bad behaviour.”
Supporters, however, have framed the legislation as an expansion of an existing safety program rather than a restriction on investigative activity. The measure does not create the Safe at Home system; it adds immigration nonprofit employees to categories already eligible for substitute addresses because of potential threats.
The dispute developed against the backdrop of Shirley’s increasingly high-profile investigations.
After his Minnesota reporting drew widespread online attention, Shirley conducted an exposé focusing on healthcare fraud in California. His work has also taken him to Washington, where he has testified before Congress about fraud and participated in discussions at the White House.
One of Shirley’s widely circulated investigations on X helped propel him into the national debate over alleged misuse of public funds and the role of independent journalists in uncovering potential wrongdoing.
With Newsom’s signature, the legislation has now moved beyond the political fight over its nickname and formally expands Safe at Home protections to a new class of workers, even as opponents continue to argue that its application could affect efforts to investigate organizations and individuals involved in publicly funded services.
Comments