Newsom signs “Stop Nick Shirely act”. Why it is designed to stifle independent investigation
By Easton Martin | August 24, 2026
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a controversial new law that has been called the “Stop Nick Shirley Act,” escalating a political fight over investigative journalism and the limits of free speech.
Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2624 on Saturday. Authored by Democratic Assemblywoman Mia Bonta, the law expands California’s Safe at Home program to employees and volunteers of nonprofit organizations that provide immigration services. It allows eligible workers to shield their home addresses from public records and makes it unlawful to publish their personal information with the intent of encouraging threats or violence against them. The law takes effect October 1, 2027.
Republicans gave the legislation its unofficial nickname after conservative independent journalist Nick Shirley began investigating organizations and businesses connected to government-funded immigration and social services. Shirley became nationally known after publishing videos investigating alleged fraud involving taxpayer-funded programs, including investigations in Minnesota and California.
California Republicans argue the law could make it more difficult for independent journalists and ordinary citizens to investigate organizations receiving public money. Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, one of the bill’s most vocal opponents, argued that taxpayers deserve the ability to examine what organizations receiving their money are doing.Democrats claim the legislation is aimed at protecting workers from doxxing, stalking and threats, not preventing legitimate journalism.
The biggest concern is not whether people should be protected from genuine threats. They should. The question is what happens when laws designed to prevent harassment begin affecting the ability of journalists and citizens to investigate organizations that receive public funding.
Government-funded organizations should face scrutiny, particularly when taxpayers are footing the bill. Independent journalists should not have to rely exclusively on government-approved media outlets to investigate allegations of fraud or misconduct.
There is also a troubling optics problem here from a political perspective. The law became nationally associated with Shirley precisely because his investigations created political embarrassment for California Democrats. Even if the law’s supporters insist that it is not directed at him, conservatives are justified in asking whether California would have moved this quickly if an independent journalist had not started asking uncomfortable questions.
