Trump’s Nick Shirley claim leaves out California’s fraud prosecutions

An absence of patients at a hospice office is not, by itself, evidence of fictitious care: hospice agencies can provide care in patients’ homes, as the audit explains. That does not rule out fraud at a particular provider. [4]

What Shirley is challenging

Shirley’s legal fight concerns AB 2624, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on 22 August 2026 and due to become operative on 1 October 2027. It expands address-confidentiality protections to qualifying immigration-service providers, employees and volunteers. Republican opponent Carl DeMaio coined the nickname “Stop Nick Shirley Act”; the statute does not name Shirley. [2] [7]

The law’s main prohibition on publishing personal information or images requires specific intent to threaten protected people or incite imminent serious harm likely to occur. It also preserves law-enforcement access to participants’ addresses on request. It is not a blanket ban on fraud reporting. [2]

Shirley sued Bonta and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber on 4 September, seeking to block future enforcement. His complaint argues that broad definitions — covering names, images, employment histories and financial information — expose legitimate reporting to liability. He says he has already held back work he would otherwise publish. That lawsuit is a challenge brought by Shirley, not a prosecution against him. [3]

America First Legal, which represents him, said on 2 October that it had sought a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement while the constitutional challenge proceeds. [6]

His lawyers portray the legislation as retaliation, pointing to official criticism of his work and the bill’s introduction days after a February fraud video. There has also been documented personal hostility: CalMatters reported that Terry Schanz, chief of staff to Democratic Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, confronted Shirley outside the state Capitol and insulted him. [6] [7]

The bill’s author, Democratic Assemblymember Mia Bonta, says it is intended to prevent threats and misuse of personal information, not restrict lawful speech. Angelica Salas, head of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, told CalMatters that a stranger had gone to her mother’s home looking for her. Her organisation supported the bill amid threatening calls to her and her staff. [8]

The announced fraud prosecutions make Trump’s either-or framing misleading. They do not decide whether Shirley’s challenge to the privacy law should succeed, but political hostility and a contested speech restriction do not establish that California substituted retaliation for pursuing suspected fraud.