LAKE COUNTY, Calif, — The Lake County Board of Supervisors and agency leaders last Tuesday discussed the potential local setbacks that looming federal cuts and layoffs could bring to the county’s most vulnerable residents.
During the 90-minute session, leaders from the county’s Social Services Department and several care-providing agencies outlined the local consequences of the proposed federal spending cuts to health care and food banks among other vital programs.
They also voiced concerns over layoffs in the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as the elimination of the Administration for Community Living, which could disrupt the support system to the most vulnerable groups.
These funding streams and agencies support essential services for vulnerable populations — including children and elders in Lake County — and cuts at the federal level are expected to directly impact local partnering agencies across a wide range of programs, speakers noted.
“These federal cuts, layoffs, tariffs and this proposed budget will be putting our most vulnerable, our seniors, veterans, disabled individuals, children and families at risk,” Social Services Director Rachael Dillman Parsons said during her presentation to the Board of Supervisors. “They will also create a barrier to economic self-reliance.”
Speakers at the board meeting identified a variety of programs impacting Lake County residents, including but not limited to Medi-Cal, CalFresh, CalWORKs, Meals on Wheels, the Older Americans Act, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, Head Start, Foster Care, and Child Support.
Some local agencies such as the Lake Family Resource Center and the Area Agency on Aging of Lake and Mendocino Counties may face immediate funding loss in May.
District 2 Supervisor Bruno Sabatier commented on the immediacy of local fallout and the unpredictable federal politics.
“I appreciate the presentation,” Sabatier said. “Unfortunately, what’s said today could be completely different tomorrow. It’s very chaotic. It’s on and off and on, litigated against, paused, frozen. It’s hard to track exactly where we are and what’s going on.”
He added, “I’ve never seen anything like this. We talk to folks that are representing the entire nation, and they have never seen this before. It’s a mess.”
Federal cuts’ impact on local programs
On April 5, the Senate passed an amended budget that included cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, the Affordable Care Act, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, and various other programs that serve the public, Dillman Parsons reported at the start of her presentation.
Dillman Parsons noted that the current budget plan “does lack specifics,” which allow for negotiation between the Senate and the House. It is, however, expected to be finalized next month, she said.
In fact, as early as February, Congressman Mike Thompson, Lake County Board of Supervisors Chair EJ Crandell and local health care leaders warned against the proposed budget cuts that included $880 billion in potential Medicaid cuts and $230 billion from SNAP and the potential impact on Lake County services.
At the state level, such cuts, once approved, will slash funding for safety-net programs such as Medi-Cal and CalFresh — services that thousands of Lake County residents and families heavily depend on for basic needs such as health care and food.
Dillan Parsons reported that one in four Lake County residents receives CalFresh benefits, costing approximately $3 million each month. Another 892 families rely on CalWORKs, which amounts to $900,000 monthly. In-Home Supportive Services serves 2,716 individuals, with a monthly cost of $6 million.
Altogether, the abovementioned welfare programs total nearly $10 million every month in support for local residents in need.
In addition, half of Lake County’s 68,000 residents rely on Medi-Cal for health coverage.
Every month, Lake County also receives 112 reports on child abuse or neglect, and 49 on elderly or disabled. The federal Housing and Urban Development department currently assists 189 Lake County families and issues Section 8 Housing vouchers of $145,000 per month.
She said there are 70,895 meals served monthly through the Area Agency on Aging in partnership with senior centers.
“There is a lot at stake,” said Dillman Parsons.
“I'm presuming it'll pass in May. That's what people are predicting,” Dillman Parsons said of the budget timeline at Congress. “Whatever happens there will immediately, potentially impact our operations.”
Enacted federal layoffs in departments supporting children and elders
In addition to pending funding cuts, local leaders are already grappling with layoffs that have been enacted at the federal level.
“The data is easy — 25% to 38% of staffing is gone,” Dillman Parson said of the cuts of over 20,000 federal employees in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or the HHS.
The mission of the HHS is to “enhance the health and well-being of all Americans, by providing for effective health and human services and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services,” said the department website.
Such mass layoffs will potentially delay funding and cause disruptions to programs even though funding is not cut, Dillman Parsons said.
“Even though funding is not cut, there will most likely be funding delays because of the people who handle issuing that funding are no longer there,” she explained of the mass layoff’s impact. “There’s certainly going to be program disruptions — it’ll be harder to get guidance, get waivers around operations.”
The disruption is particularly concerning for programs supported by the Administration for Children and Families, an HHS branch whose funding is used to support Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, which is locally known as CalWorks.
Dillman Parsons noted that 24% of the Administration for Children and Families funding goes to CalWorks and Tribal TANF; 17% each to Head Start and Child Care; and 16% to Foster Care.
“It is a large portion of the funding we pass on. I want to say it's more than double our staffing costs — is what we put towards foster care payments,” she added.
Dillman Parson also drew attention to the Administration for Community Living, a federal agency that has been entirely eliminated.
The Administration for Community Living was created in 2012 to “help older adults and people with disabilities maintain their health and live in their communities,” the agency’s website said.
“It no longer exists,” Dillman Parsons said. “This is directly a concern for our Area Agency on Aging and our senior centers.”
Dillman Parsons explained that if access to the programs that Administration for Community Living oversees is hindered, older adults and people with disabilities will lose the ability to choose where and how they want to live and fully participate in their communities; day programs that provide food, social services and basic preventative care will cease to exist; transportation services to senior centers and doctors appointment as well as free legal services for the abused will not be available.
“The way I see it is — a cut in staffing is effectively a cut to funding,” said Deputy Director of Social Services Kelli Page.
Agency leaders raise concerns about elder and child care
Frontline agencies that rely on federal funding to deliver care voiced urgent concerns about the local impact of the cuts and layoffs.
“The senior center isn't just a place for our elders to go, but for a lot of seniors, it's a lifeline,” said Lucerne Alpine Senior Center Executive Director Amanda Gonzalez during public comment.
Every dollar contributed to the senior center “yields a return when we help sustain our elders and their health through nutrition and their cognitive improvement through socialization and activities. They're better able to remain independent and contribute to our local economy as they make up over a quarter of Lake County's economy,” Gonzalez said.
“It would be detrimental to our community to lose any sort of funding for the seniors and the people who frequent the center,” she said. “It’s a source of livelihood for a lot of people who would otherwise be housebound or depressed if they didn’t have a community to live for and be involved in.”
Lake Family Resource Center Executive Director Lisa Morrow said their most pressing concern is securing timely approval of their grant reapplication before their program ends on April 30, two weeks from now.
“A delay could lead to a service gap, that is 74 children in our community who would be impacted immediately May 1 if our funding is delayed for any reason. And we are looking at possible employee furloughs, which are 22 individuals within our organization. This isn't just an administrative issue. It directly affects the family and children that we serve,” Morrow said.
“Lake County has one of the highest percentages of seniors in California, the need for these services is growing, not shrinking. We simply cannot afford to lose the systems that support our aging population,” warned Morrow, whose agency also administers the Lakeport Senior Center.
First 5 Lake County Executive Director Samantha Bond also warned that the budget cut will result in more children at their critical age of 1 to 5 getting dropped off Medi-Cal.
“We see a lot of them dropping off, and we're going to see a lot more dropping off with immigration scares, as well as these cuts to Medi-Cal funding at the federal level,” Bond said. “So there's a lot of direct impact that will come down.”
Neighboring agencies in the same boat
The situation isn’t unique to Lake County; partners from Mendocino echoed Lake County’s concerns.
“If there were any cuts or reduced funding, it would make it nearly impossible to continue wellness checks for isolated seniors — checks that often detect falls, illness or emotional distress. Staff hours, community programs are being scaled back, threatening everything from transportation to social connection,” said Rebecca Stewart, executive director of Coastal Seniors.
The senior center serves the “very isolated, rugged territory” of Point Arena and the surrounding communities in Mendocino, Stewart said.
“The idea of funding being cut even more is just really weighing on our seniors. They're very concerned. They reach out constantly,” she said. “I think what is happening now is more than more than a fiscal issue. It's a public health concern and a community emergency.”
“I'm trying to be optimistic that the budget will pass and include the OAA,” Executive Director of Redwood Coast Senior Center Jill Rexrode said of the Older Americans Act. “People on the coast are very panicky about the situation.”
The Redwood Coast Senior Center serves over 55,000 meals a year between its Meals on Wheels program and congregate dining, Rexrode said. “That’s a lot of food going out our door,”
She added, “We have a really small staff. We are rocking it every day, providing good services to our community. I really hope that the funding can continue.”
“Although that story is from Mendocino County, it does tell the story of our senior centers too,” District 5 Supervisor Jessica Pyska commented.
Call for advocacy and Plan B
While some mentioned that they have started seeking alternative funding sources in the event that the budget gets cut, all speakers called for action and advocacy.
“I respectfully ask this board to stay informed on this issue and to continue formal advocacy through a letter to our congressional delegation, a local resolution or participation in broader statewide efforts,” Morrow said. “Your leadership can help ensure our seniors continue to live with the dignity and independence they deserve.”
“I just hope that everyone understands and tries to prioritize and advocate for senior center funding, not just to maintain basic support, but to protect the dignity, health and the lives of our elders,” Stewart said.
“I want to let everybody know that we are in constant contact with Congressman Thompson's office and with our lobbyists, with Paragon, our advocacy groups … because the No. 1 thing that we have to do is look out for our people,” Pyska said.
Supervisor Sabatier expressed pessimism over the situation.
“We have a community that has a lot of needs. Unfortunately, our poverty rate creates that, our lack of opportunities creates that. And there's a lot of work that's being done, and it's good work and it's hard work,” said Supervisor Sabatier.
“I've been seeing things that are coming across this board, where I don't know how sustainable it is that what we are doing can be continued,” he said.
“I think we're working really hard, trying to do the best we can with what we have, but the numbers are just not getting better. The system isn't working,” he said. “I don't see this changing at this moment in time, maybe two years down the road. But for now, I don't think this is changing, and I know that today we're talking about the needs and the advocacy, but it also sounds like we are looking to continue as is.”
At the end of his comment, Sabatier asked Dillman Parsons: What's Plan B?
“I don't want to scare the people with what those Plan Bs are. I mean, I have the very best-case scenario, and the worst-case scenario — like how long can we survive with no federal funding?” said Dillman Parsons.
“The answer is two months,” she said.
Email staff reporter Lingzi Chen at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — The Lake County Symphony Association Wine Club is now taking applications for home brewers, winemakers and food and craft vendors for the 2025 Winefest coming to Library Park on June 7.
Participants are urged to register early to ensure a spot.
Home brewers and winemakers throughout Northern California have attended past Winefests, supplying samples of their product for judging by the public, in hopes of winning a coveted “Peoples’ Choice” award for their homemade beverages.
Home winemakers will also have the chance to enter their creations for judging by experts the evening prior to the Winefest.
Vendors selling food, arts and crafts, agricultural products, clothing and other products are another important part of the Winefest and help make it more enjoyable for everyone.
Vendor booth fees are $35. There is no booth fee for amateur wine and beer makers. Vendors and wine/beer makers may bring their own canopies or rent one for $25 to provide shade.
Home winemakers, beer makers and vendors wishing to participate should visit the Winefest website to download applications for the 2025 event.
You can also reach the Winefest website by going to the LCSA website and clicking on the Wine Club/Winefest tab.
Questions? Send to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
On Wednesday, Gov. Gavin Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to enact broad-sweeping tariffs that hurt states, consumers, and businesses.
The lawsuit argues that President Trump lacks the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs through the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, creating immediate and irreparable harm to California, the largest economy, manufacturing, and agriculture state in the nation.
These tariffs have disrupted supply chains, inflated costs for the state and Californians, and inflicted billions in damages on California’s economy, the fifth largest in the world.
“President Trump’s unlawful tariffs are wreaking chaos on California families, businesses, and our economy — driving up prices and threatening jobs. We’re standing up for American families who can’t afford to let the chaos continue,” said Newsom.
“The president’s chaotic and haphazard implementation of tariffs is not only deeply troubling, it’s illegal,” said Bonta. “As the fifth largest economy in the world, California understands global trade policy is not just a game. Californians are bracing for fallout from the impact of the President’s choices — from farmers in the Central Valley, to small businesses in Sacramento, and worried families at the kitchen table — this game the President is playing has very real consequences for Californians across our state. I am proud to go to bat alongside Governor Newsom to fight for California’s vibrant economy, businesses, and residents.”
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, requests the court to declare the tariffs imposed by President Trump void and enjoin their implementation.
Since early February, the Trump Administration has issued over a dozen executive orders under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA, to impose tariffs that have sent shockwaves through financial markets, businesses, and consumers in every corner of the globe.
The IEEPA gives the president authority to take certain actions if he declares a national emergency in response to a foreign national security, foreign policy, or economic threat. The law, which was enacted by Congress in 1977, specifies many different actions the president can take, but tariffs aren’t one of them. In fact, this is the first time a president has attempted to rely on this law to impose tariffs.
Claiming authority under the IEEPA, President Trump has issued multiple executive orders to impose, pause, re-start, and modify 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada and a universal 10% tariff on every other U.S. trading partner.
The president’s actions have goaded China into a full-blown trade war, with tariffs reaching 145% on Chinese goods, and China imposing reciprocal 125% tariffs on U.S. goods.
Additionally, President Trump has imposed individualized reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on nearly 90 specific countries; they are currently paused for 90 days before going into effect. Once the 90-day “pause” expires, the harm will only compound further. And new tariffs are being contemplated or announced nearly every day.
To justify his tariffs, the president has declared national emergencies and extended prior declared emergencies beyond the bounds of reason. But with or without emergencies, the president does not have the power to levy tariffs under the IEEPA, according to Bonta and Newsom.
In the lawsuit filed Wednesday, Bonta and Newsom challenge the president’s use of the IEEPA to levy those tariffs, arguing that the IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose these tariffs.
The emergency tariffs challenged under the lawsuit are projected to, at a minimum, shrink the U.S. economy by $100 billion annually, increase inflation by 1.3%, and cost the average American family $2,100.
The economic impact of the president’s tariffs could have resounding impacts on California’s economy, budget and consumers, Bonta and Newsom argue. California is a significant and frequent purchaser of goods impacted by the tariffs and the projected increase in cost to the state is significant.
California’s gross domestic product was $3.9 trillion in 2023, making it 50% bigger than the GDP of the nation’s next-largest state, Texas. The state drives national economic growth and also sends over $83 billion more to the federal government than it receives in federal funding.
California is the leading agricultural producer in the country and is also the center for manufacturing output in the United States, with over 36,000 manufacturing firms employing over 1.1 million Californians.
The Golden State’s manufacturing firms have created new industries and supplied the world with manufactured goods spanning aerospace, computers and electronics, and, most recently, zero-emission vehicles.
California engaged in nearly $675 billion in two-way trade in 2024, supporting millions of jobs throughout the state. California’s economy and workers rely heavily on this trade activity, particularly with Mexico, Canada, and China — the state’s top three trade partners. Over 40% of California imports come from these countries, totaling $203 billion of the more than $491 billion in goods imported by California in 2024.
These countries are also California’s top three export destinations, buying nearly $67 billion in California exports, which was over one-third of the state’s $183 billion in exported goods in 2024.
The lawsuit invokes the U.S. Supreme Court’s major questions doctrine, which holds that in novel matters of vast economic and political significance, federal agencies and the executive branch must have clear and specific authorization from Congress.
In recent years, the court has applied this standard to strike down major initiatives, including President Obama’s Clean Power Plan and President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, ruling that novel executive actions with broad impacts on the national economy cannot rest on vague statutory authority.
The complaint filed Wednesday alleges that the Constitution expressly gives the authority to impose tariffs to Congress, not the president, and the IEEPA does not provide the required congressional authorization for President Trump to impose tariffs — Congress enacted the IEEPA to limit Presidential authority and to prevent Presidential abuse of power — not to give the President these powers.
The complaint asks the court to declare that tariff orders made under the purported authority of the IEEPA are unlawful and void and to halt DHS and CPB from implementing and enforcing these orders.
Americans at all wealth levels are more likely to die sooner than their European counterparts, with even the richest U.S. citizens living shorter lives than northern and western Europeans. That is the key finding of our new study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
We also found that while the wealthiest Americans live longer than the poorest, the wealth-mortality gap in the U.S. is far more pronounced than in Europe.
We analyzed survey data from 73,838 adults ages 50 to 85 across the United States and 16 European countries over a 12-year period and compared how long people across the wealth spectrum lived during the course of our study. The 16 European countries are grouped into European regions: northern and western, southern and eastern Europe.
Our research revealed that people in the wealthiest 25% of the study population across the U.S. and Europe were 40% less likely to die during the study period than the poorest quarter of people. The wealthiest 25% of people in northern and western Europe had mortality rates that were about 35% lower than participants in the wealthiest quartile in the U.S. For those from southern Europe, during the study period this value ranged from 24% to 33%. For those from eastern Europe, the value ranged from 1% to 7%. The poorest individuals in the U.S. appear to have the worst survival, including when compared with the poorest quarter of people in each European region.
Our study also reveals a wider wealth-mortality gap in the U.S. when compared with Europe. In other words, personal wealth does buy more years of life in the U.S. than in Europe. These findings suggest that personal wealth alone is not enough to compensate for other factors that tend to affect how long people live, such as health behaviors like smoking or heavy drinking, education or social support.
At its core, our research suggests that health outcomes are shaped by much more than just health care systems. It is likely that economic and social policies − from education and employment to housing and food security − play a crucial role in determining how long people live, including across the wealth distribution.
European countries have found ways to reduce health disparities without dramatically increasing health spending. By distributing health-promoting resources more equally across wealth groups, these nations may have created environments where longevity is less dependent on individual wealth.
What still isn’t known
While our study shows clear longevity differences between Americans and Europeans across wealth levels, more work still needs to be done to determine which specific aspects of European social systems − whether health care delivery, education access, retirement security or tax policies − most effectively protect health regardless of personal wealth.
Pinpointing exactly how these factors interact with wealth to influence health outcomes would allow researchers to identify which European policies could be most successfully adapted to improve longevity for all Americans.
What’s next
Looking ahead, we plan to identify which of those policy levers might be most effective in reducing mortality gaps.
The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
