California Sues FEMA Over Sudden Shutdown of Major Disaster Preparedness Grant Program

This is a press release from the California Attorney General:California Attorney General logo

 California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit challenging the unlawful termination of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program. Since 2020, FEMA has made billions of dollars available under the BRIC program to prepare for and mitigate the risks from disasters before they happen. From flooding to wildfires to landslides to earthquakes, California is uniquely at risk from natural disasters and the largest beneficiary of this program; already, it has been awarded tens of millions of dollars, and if the program continues, could receive over a billion more for projects that FEMA had selected for grant funding. In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta, alongside a coalition of 19 other states, asks the court to compel FEMA to reverse the unlawful termination of the BRIC program so that communities across the country can protect themselves from natural disasters before they strike.

“Nearly thirty years ago, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress recognized a simple fact: Preparing for disasters, instead of just reacting to them, saves money and lives,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Yet in the name of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, President Trump and his lackeys have once again jeopardized public safety with their indiscriminate slashing of pre-disaster mitigation funding. We’re taking them to court – not because we want to, but because we have to. As we continue to build a climate resilient California, we deserve a federal government that is a partner, not a roadblock in our efforts – and that’s exactly what Congress intended.”

Across five Presidential administrations, Congress and FEMA have worked together to provide funding through FEMA’s pre-disaster mitigation program so that communities across the nation can invest in projects that reduce harm from natural disasters. The rationale is simple: by proactively fortifying our communities against disasters before they strike, rather than just responding afterward, we will reduce injuries, save lives, protect property, and, ultimately, save money that would otherwise be spent on post-disaster costs.

Given the program’s effectiveness in protecting both people and pocketbooks, it is little surprise that it has had broad bipartisan support. The bill codifying the program passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 415–2 and passed the Senate by unanimous consent before President Bill Clinton signed it. More recently, during President Trump’s first term, a bipartisan group of legislators overwhelmingly passed a bill by a vote of 398–23 in the House and 93–6 in the Senate that provided the program with an additional funding stream. And in 2021, Congress invested another $1 billion in the program through the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

In California, projects that have been awarded funding include:

  • A project in City of Rancho Palos Verdes to reduce geologic landslide movement that threatens most of the City’s residents and infrastructure, including a major arterial roadway that provides community and emergency access, sanitation sewer lines located along this roadway, electric and communication lines, potable water lines, and gas lines. Without this project, landslide movement will continue to threaten critical infrastructure, damage homes and property, and endanger lives.
  • A project in the City of Sacramento to mitigate flooding of five major interchanges, 3.9 miles of a major interstate highway, a runway at an airport, surface streets, 27,000 housing units, and more. Among other things, the project would have improved floodwall sections, improved levee sections, and relocated a pump station.
  • A project in Kern County to seismically retrofit the Kern Valley Healthcare District’s hospital that provides acute care and emergency medical services to a remote population in the mid-northern region of the Kern River Valley area. Unless seismically retrofitted, the hospital may soon need to close. This would force hundreds of thousands of Californians to seek services at hospitals over two hours away.

In Texas, where heavy rains turned into devastating floods earlier this month, FEMA was set to provide hundreds of million in federal funding for pre-disaster mitigation projects, including for several flood mitigation projects.

All that changed when Cameron Hamilton, who the Trump Administration unlawfully installed to act as FEMA’s Administrator, suddenly shut down the program. His unilateral decision to shutter the nation’s largest, most popular, and most cost-effective pre-disaster mitigation program is illegal. Neither Cameron Hamilton nor his successor, David Richardson, were lawfully appointed or qualified to run FEMA, as required by the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and statutory requirements. Their purported termination of the BRIC program flatly contravenes Congress’s decision to continue to fund it, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and Congress’s power of the purse. In their lawsuit filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Attorney General Bonta and a coalition urge the court to reverse FEMA’s unlawful decision to shut down this program – before the devastating impact of this loss of funding results in permanent damage to our communities.

Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as the state of Pennsylvania, in filing the lawsuit.

A copy of the lawsuit will be available here.

Facebooktwitterpinterestmail

Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules

Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

39 Please improve the conversation by disagreeing thoughtfully and backing your claims with facts
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
old guy
Guest
old guy
11 months ago

fema post serves at the president’s discretion, current head former military background, and is totally qualified. no points for bonta.

Angela Robinson
Member
Angela Robinson
11 months ago
Reply to  old guy

Dealing with countering weapons of mass destruction is not the same as emergency management.

Realist
Guest
Realist
11 months ago

Fema is a disgrace spent all their disaster preparedness money on illegal immigrants this article is pure socialist propaganda

Charlie
Guest
Charlie
11 months ago

WTF America! Bring back Democracy.

Truth Be Told
Member
Truth Be Told
11 months ago
Reply to  Charlie

Merits of the case aside, here’s another example of Bonta taking credit for the work of others.

The Bonta for Governor press release says Bonta filed the lawsuit when in fact California is one of twenty states that are parties to the lawsuit.

Bonta simply signed on to someone else’s work but wants to pretend he’s leading the charge — Bonta is a shameless self-promoter just like our current governor..

Ahuka of the Hashishim
Guest
Ahuka of the Hashishim
11 months ago
Reply to  Truth Be Told

Just like all professional politicians

Last edited 11 months ago
Country Joe
Member
11 months ago
Reply to  Truth Be Told

Bonta is a worthless political hack…

Unvaxxed and Overtaxed
Guest
Unvaxxed and Overtaxed
11 months ago

AI overview

The Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program is being terminated by FEMA due to concerns about “waste and political agendas” and a perceived failure to deliver meaningful disaster resilience despite significant federal investment.

Trump actually launched the BRIC program in 2020.

The Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program was launched in 2020 by FEMA. It replaced the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program.

FEMA’s Justification:FEMA stated that the program was “wasteful and ineffective” and that its termination would allow the agency to return to its core mission and better align grant funding with presidential priorities. 

Last edited 11 months ago
CsMisadventures
Guest
CsMisadventures
11 months ago

AI aside, the humans can also see where money is simply shifted around or better utilized, but is reported as “OMG they’re ending it all!”. You see this in large companies all the time.

CsMisadventures
Guest
CsMisadventures
11 months ago

Wasn’t it some years ago that people felt that the creation of FEMA was a bad idea in the first place, and since that time, people have had nothing but problems with them, hurricane Katrina disaster in particular? California would have best served itself by funding disaster preparedness on its own rather than a bazillion other highly-paid people in office cube farms. Not sure who to root for here.

Alf
Guest
Alf
11 months ago

So, Mr Bonta, what part of using up Billions of dollars kicking veterans and citizens out of housing and, instead taking care of illegals was proper use of FEMA funds? What part of skipping houses tgat displayed support for Trump was proper use of FEMA funds? Why should FEMA actually give liberal states run by trash like yourself funds of any kind for you to waste, commit fraud and abuse? Please get right back with me on that.

Country Joe
Member
11 months ago

How about another article detailing the waste and political agendas in California and other blue states.

The Real Guest
Guest
The Real Guest
11 months ago

Kym,

Bonta should be being thoroughly called out and admonished for his use of the offensive term, “lackeys” in reference to the members of the Trump Administration…

Yet, instead of properly objecting to Bonta’s offensive speech, you have instead chosen to have highlighted it as a featured example on your RHBB website, in an apparent show of full support for such offensive Liberal speech…

I’m certain that if your assistants were referred to as such, the perpetrator would be instantly banned or moderated…

Why are you giving Bonta a pass, for offensively referring to others as “lackey’s”, that you would not equally provide a pass for, for anyone else that used such a derogatory, offensive term…

Do you condone Bonta’s use of the offensive term…??

If not, why are you proudly featuring it in the excerpt that you have so chosen to highlight in association to the press release…???

Is that selected quote REALLY the most explanatory excerpt that might have been gleaned, featured, and highlighted from the press release…???

Asking for a friend…

It sure seems like this would have been a better, more informative, more relevant, LESS OFFENSIVE, more appropriate, less partisan, excerpt, that the excerpt illustrated in the screenshot, that you chose instead to feature and highlight, for whatever reason…

“California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit challenging the unlawful termination of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program.”

Screenshot_20250716-143405
Last edited 11 months ago
melanopsin
Member
11 months ago
Reply to  The Real Guest

“Bonta should be being thoroughly called out and admonished for his use of the offensive term, “lackeys” in reference to the members of the Trump Administration…”

Never have I ever heard Donald Trump use offensive terms in reference to anybody. That’s just not his style. “Bonehead” comes to mind.

The Real Guest
Guest
The Real Guest
11 months ago
Reply to  melanopsin

I get your drift…

But you missed my point,and took one sentence out of context, and ran with it rebelliously, like it was a pair of scissors…

My point was, I don’t ever recall any such offensive term that Trump has used inappropriately in reference to Democrat leadership in a press release at all, let alone actually being also featured and highlighted in a preferentially chosen and hand selected excerpt quote on the RHBB website…

It wasn’t as descriptive of the press release, as it was the Trump Administration…

And that mudslinging, I noticed, was a little out of character for the website, in my opinion…

Normally RHBB sticks with the facts, not the derogatory condescending offensive slights and mere opinions…

Call it a new low…

melanopsin
Member
11 months ago
Reply to  The Real Guest

What quote would you have chosen, or what copy you would have written?

It’s a stretch to think Kym’s intent includes an agenda, I agree.

The Real Guest
Guest
The Real Guest
11 months ago
Reply to  melanopsin

I already posted it…

But, here is the comparison , again…

Kym inexplicably chose to highlight this derogatory, offensive quote, for whatever reason, to paraphrase the jist of the press release…

#(1) “Yet in the name of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, President Trump and his lackeys have once again jeopardized public safety with their indiscriminate slashing of pre-disaster mitigation funding. We’re taking them to court – not because we want to, but because we have to.”

…as shown in the screenshot above of the press releases RHBB advertisement, or “billing”…

As I have already indicated, the first paragraph of the press release…

#(2)”California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit challenging the unlawful termination of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program.”…

Would be an entirely better representation of he jist of the press release…

Comparing the excerpt quote RHBB chose to use #(1), to the excerpt quote I would have chosen if I were to have put myself in the RHBB neutral non partisan editor’s role, #(2), as I have indicated…

Which chosen quote would would you say was chosen with a intent towards an agenda, if an agenda WERE ACTUALLY to exist…???

Quote #(1)…???

#(1) “Yet in the name of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, President Trump and his lackeys have once again jeopardized public safety with their indiscriminate slashing of pre-disaster mitigation funding. We’re taking them to court – not because we want to, but because we have to.”

…or, quote #(2)…???

#(2)”California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit challenging the unlawful termination of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program.”…

Because, IF there WAS a political agenda at play, ( A VERY BIG IF, if I may add), the answer seems crystal clear to me…

AND, as far as this Bonta statement, which Kym Kemp has also chosen to highlight, feature, and reiterate…

“We’re taking them to court – not because we want to, but because we have to.”

Is a fucking lie of Bonta’s, AFAIAC…

They are taking Trump, etc., to court not because they HAVE to, but because they WANT TO…

Let’s not kid ourselves…

Bonta, and any of the other 19 attorneys general that are parroting that lie, are all completely full of shit, IMO…

melanopsin
Member
11 months ago
Reply to  The Real Guest

The text in the screenshot is called the “copy”, similar to what is seen in say, a book catalog — a Copy Writer writes the description.

To be clear, as editor you would have used what whoever wrote the press release summarized in the first sentence as copy, instead of a quote of what Bonta actually said.

Might what Bonta actually said be more accurate and unfiltered journalism than quoting the press release Copy Writer?

The Real Guest
Guest
The Real Guest
11 months ago
Reply to  melanopsin

YOU ARE DEFLECTING…

“Which chosen quote would would you say was chosen with a intent towards an agenda, if an agenda WERE ACTUALLY to exist…???

#(1), or #(2)…???

They are direct quotes, not descriptions…



Last edited 11 months ago
melanopsin
Member
11 months ago
Reply to  The Real Guest

Bonta definitely has agenda.

Like reporting Donald Trump — should the copy be what he says or a description of his actions? One look at the answers given by various news agencies shows a wide range from left-right to liberal-authoritarian.

The Real Guest
Guest
The Real Guest
11 months ago
Reply to  melanopsin

#(1) or #(2)…???

melanopsin
Member
11 months ago
Reply to  The Real Guest

Hypothetically speaking I can’t guess — not enough information.

The Real Guest
Guest
The Real Guest
11 months ago
Reply to  melanopsin

Hypothetically hypothetical…

I know, plenty of information,and, too many choices…

Decisions are hard…

It was a rhetorical question, anyways…

If you hadn’t noticed…

Times up…

Score…

Zero…

Sorry, no participation trophy…

Last edited 11 months ago
melanopsin
Member
11 months ago
Reply to  The Real Guest

And you just shot the messenger.

The Real Guest
Guest
The Real Guest
11 months ago
Reply to  melanopsin

I’d post three more screenshots of various examples of misinformation presented under the official seal, as if the information came from the official press release, that are clearly just in one case, political wishful thinking, but in all three cases, a totally re written completely reinterpreted similarly altered and basically re fabricated narrative, that are not a copied part of the press release at all…

But I’ve already used up my one screenshot…

Editorial re summarizing is one thing, liberal, (also as in plentiful)false re fabrication, is another…

Hoping my second screenshot will be acceptable as an informational screenshot, here is just one of the three examples that I found…

It’s very possible that there are more than three, but three is all I found so far…

It actually says, “He says…”, but the problem is, if you actually check the press release, he actually DON’T say what it says he says…

In fact, what it says he says, ain’t even in quotation marks…

Sorry, no link…

It timed out off of my clipboard…

Screenshot_20250717-041553
The Real Guest
Guest
The Real Guest
11 months ago
Reply to  melanopsin

Heck with it, I’m going to gamble that these screenshots will be hopefully acceptable as indicative and informational…

What’s wrong with the political information below the seal…???

Is it altering the narrative…???

Hint: Yes…

Is it a direct quote from the Press Release…???

Hint: No…

Does it contain incorrect information…???

You be the judge…

Screenshot_20250717-063509
The Real Guest
Guest
The Real Guest
11 months ago

Interesting,

So I found the Official Office of Attorney General news press release link and official press release…

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-sues-trump-administration-illegally-shutting-down

Curiously, the OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE lead in is VERY DIFFERENT than the press release lead in on RHBB…

Go Figure…

Who knew…???

Who could have guessed…???

Official Lead In:

‘Attorney General Bonta Sues Trump Administration for Illegally Shutting Down Longstanding Disaster Prevention Program’

Vs.

RHBB Lead in:

“Yet in the name of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, President Trump and his lackeys have once again jeopardized public safety with their indiscriminate slashing of pre-disaster mitigation funding. We’re taking them to court – not because we want to, but because we have to.”

Gosh darn it, why is it so much different…???

Typo…???

Did someone totally Ad Lib the Official Press Release lead in, and/or, alter it from it’s original OFFICIAL California Government press release content, AND, do it directly under the official California Office of the Attorney General SEAL, as shown above at the bottom of the comment above, in the screenshot, at this link, as itf it was totally legit….???

https://kymkemp.com/2025/07/16/california-sues-fema-over-sudden-shutdown-of-major-disaster-preparedness-grant-program/#comment-1849899

Seems to me, that the ONLY THING that is to be ever printed between that official California State Office of the Attorney General SEAL, and the actual OFFICIAL press release content, is what was originally officially intended to be located there, which is..

” ‘Attorney General Bonta Sues Trump Administration for Illegally Shutting Down Longstanding Disaster Prevention Program’ “

And it shouldn’t ever be altered or arbitrarily substituted in any way, whatsoever…

It seems like a pretty clear misrepresentation of what the Official Government document lead in, was Officially intended to convey…

I don’t see this part of the official press release anywhere within the RHBB article on the press release where it should be properly included…

‘Attorney General Bonta Sues Trump Administration for Illegally Shutting Down Longstanding Disaster Prevention Program’

Where did it go…???

Why did it disappear…???

Who is responsible…???

Is it proper…???

Why was it entirely removed and substituted with something else entirely different under the official California OAG seal…???

I don’t get it…

Why was it unofficially and arbitrarily replaced with this…

“Yet in the name of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, President Trump and his lackeys have once again jeopardized public safety with their indiscriminate slashing of pre-disaster mitigation funding. We’re taking them to court – not because we want to, but because we have to.”

In order to for a “neutral” media source to politically Trump Bash via and disguised as if it was, an official California government office of the attorney general press release…???

Seems a little out of character…

Should the original content be replaced..???

Why was it unofficially removed and unofficially replaced with Bonta’s immature, partisan, offensive, “Lackeys” comment, as if Bonta’s immature partisan, offensive, Lackey’s comment, was actually the official government lead in, under the official seal….???

Was someone just trying to further insult the Trump Administration, ala Bonta, as if they were also doing so as the official California AG, and/or as the office of the attorney general official spokesperson…???

So it would seem… So it would seem…

FFS…

Let’s keep the official narrative official, and let’s not try and alter it from it’s intended official message, or substitute it with something else entirely, especially UNDER the official OAG CA SEAL..!!!

…for our own, undisclosed, unknown intended purposes…

I know…!!!

Shocking…!!!

And, hardly neutral, IMO…

But, as an all important caveat, as always, I could be wrong…

The Real Guest
Guest
The Real Guest
11 months ago
Reply to  The Real Guest

Continued…

Here is the official lead in illustrated in the screenshot, and the rest of the rest of the official lead in, which I hadn’t seen before now, which reads…

‘Over a billion in funding potentially at stake for California projects to address flooding, wildfires, landslides, drought, and earthquakes’

…(This additionally important second part of the official lead in to the official press release was also not included in the RHBB article, for whatever reason.)…

…as also illustrated…

Same link as above…

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-sues-trump-administration-illegally-shutting-down

I am totally perplexed as to why NONE of the CA OAG official press release information shown below was included in this RHBB article…???

They are a couple of pretty glaring omissions…

Screenshot_20250716-225959
Last edited 11 months ago
melanopsin
Member
11 months ago
Reply to  The Real Guest

Questions

Iirc RHBB receives press releases via email. Unclear if email message contains the entire press release, partial as you have shown, only a link to the online release, or ?. RHBB crew then copy/paste/formats for website. Many places in the procedures where omission errors you describe can creep in. Not to mention possible interim edits made by AG office to online article.

The Real Guest
Guest
The Real Guest
11 months ago
Reply to  melanopsin

You are barking up wrong tree..

Your Questions should be directed not to me, but to the only place that YOU KNOW they can properly e answered, RHBB…

Why are you asking me…???

As I didn’t know…

I am well aware of your dubious intent…

That these questions of mine aren’t getting answered should probably have already answered your question, or at least it should have properly steered you in the correct direction…

Clearly someone that doesn’t think that EVERYTHING printed UNDER the Official State of California Office of Attorney General SEAL should be STRICTLY limited to Official State of California Office of Attorney General SOURCED INFORMATION is occasionally ad “libbing” to their hearts “content”, not just cutting and pasting quotes directly from the OFFICIAL CA OAG press releases…

That clearly not me,

There is no rhyme or reason to it, but it has sometimes painted Trump in an inappropriate way…

Is that due to political bias…???

Who am I to judge that…???

I’d say it is subconsciously possible…

What it does not always do, is always actually and/or factually represent and/or quote what comes directly from the press releases…

Forgive me if my impression is that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING, printed UNDER the Official CA OAG SEAL, should be STRICTLY LIMITED to Official information, as PREFACING information with the OFFICIAL SEAL WOULD IMPLY…

I’m very curious as to whether or not standard procedure and protocols at the helm of RHBB would agree or disagree…

Asking for a friend…

Hint: The CA OAG would NEVER have been the source who SO INFORMALLY would have actually “SUMMARILY” “LED OFF” by SO CASUALLY referring to Bonta SIMPLY as, “He”…

That is the telltale clue that you should be laser focusing on in your misdirected quasi-quest for answers…

Get back with me with the ANSWERS you find, or don’t further bother, as I really don’t believe it’s me that your primarily trying to bother…

Your just primarily trying to make me take the heat possibly generated by your intentionally misdirected, indirect inquiries…

That’s such a very familiar tactic…

It’s as familiar as it is inappropriate…

What are you hoping to accomplish, as if I didn’t already know…”???”

melanopsin
Member
11 months ago
Reply to  The Real Guest

Your conclusions about my intent are WAY WAY WAY off. I have no intent to discredit you. I’m not trying to bother anybody. There are more eyes here than only yours. 🙂 You did the research. The list is remaining unanswered questions, general, not directed at you personally. Sure only Kym et al can answer some of them. Only AG office can answer some. An investigation of how what you have described and well documented happened, may happen again. Remember the story of the blind men describing the elephant.

Last edited 11 months ago
The Real Guest
Guest
The Real Guest
11 months ago
Reply to  melanopsin

I didn’t say you were trying to discredit me…

I said…

Why are you asking me…???

What are you trying to accomplish..???

Rhetorical questions…

As if I didn’t already know…

Please disengage, as that is my intention…

Last edited 11 months ago
melanopsin
Member
11 months ago
Reply to  The Real Guest

OK. Iirc is “If I Recall Correctly” Iirc is not Lirc.

Lisa Music
Admin
11 months ago
Reply to  The Real Guest

TRG,

No one is responding because we simply don’t have the time or energy right now. After the exhausting back-and-forth on the “after” issue, we’re tapped out (I know that wasn’t you but you know what I’m talking about). If we respond, the conversation often spirals endlessly, and we’re accused of being defensive—which somehow becomes “proof” of guilt. If we don’t respond, it’s taken as proof of ill intent. It’s a no-win situation.

Kym posted a press release and chose an excerpt that she believed accurately reflected its content. We regularly post press releases from all kinds of sources—some we personally agree with, some we don’t. Our role isn’t to shape what you read, but to provide a platform where local news, statements from officials, and community happenings can be shared transparently.

I would like to think your intent is not question our ethics but an online version of a conversation we’d have if we were kicking it at the end of the day, as I believe we have mutual respect for each other. But we aren’t at leisure, we are at work without the time, or capacity to engage every commenters desire to have indepth discussions on each choice we make. And those insisting that Kym has a nefarious plan and commenters searching each word choice and excerpt to somehow confirm that intent is counterproductive to reading a site daily by people they claim push nefarious agendas. (Our true agenda is to cover all the stories while eeking out time for sleep and family.) While yes, you may have made a different choice in excerpt selection, assuming your way is the only way or that someone that chooses a different way is pretty narrow minded and exclusionary. I’m sorry if that sounds harsh, but can you imagine pushing every day to run this site and having to spend hours responding to never ending accusations to defend every minute detail of your work? It’s exhausting and the main reason I see for shutting this site down.

The truth is, this kind of constant scrutiny and bad-faith interpretation is exhausting. Earlier this year, Kym seriously considered shutting RHBB down because of it. Not because of a lack of love for the job—on the contrary, reporting is our favorite part—but because of the relentless toll that a few harsh voices can take. When the negativity of some of the commenters that make up less than 1% of our readers dominate our time, it weighs heavily, even if the other 99% are silent supporters.

We’re here because we care deeply about this place and the people in it. We report on a wide variety of topics, and publish press releases from official sources even when we disagree. Emergency alerts, government accountability, community celebrations, local heroes. That’s the heartbeat of this work.

So please, ease up. If you have questions, ask them sincerely. Share your perspective if it feels warranted. But also be willing to accept an honest explanation when one is offered instead of the constant back and forth. One thing Kym is not is dishonest. If she makes a mistake, she owns it.

The Real Guest
Guest
The Real Guest
11 months ago
Reply to  Lisa Music

Lisa Music,

Thank you for your reply…

I am asking questions sincerely…

Beginning here…

https://kymkemp.com/2025/07/16/california-sues-fema-over-sudden-shutdown-of-major-disaster-preparedness-grant-program/#comment-1849899

And culminating here…

Which I posted just before I read this comment of yours…

https://kymkemp.com/2025/07/16/california-sues-fema-over-sudden-shutdown-of-major-disaster-preparedness-grant-program/#comment-1850396

In between my first and last comment, I spent considerable time going back into the archives to determine the extent of the issue and posting additional comments…

It went deeper than I thought…
As shown in screenshots included in these two situations…

https://kymkemp.com/2025/07/16/california-sues-fema-over-sudden-shutdown-of-major-disaster-preparedness-grant-program/#comment-1850038

https://kymkemp.com/2025/07/16/california-sues-fema-over-sudden-shutdown-of-major-disaster-preparedness-grant-program/#comment-1850040

I’m feeling scolded, but here goes…

Here is My Question, as accurately and respectfully as I can put it…

Kym was the author of this article, but the others article’s authors are identified only as “Staff”

(But the different variously chosen wordings in question, don’t actually occur in the articles themselves, and I don’t know how to exactly describe the category or instances illustrated in the screenshots, other than that they are within, “menu items”…)

In RHBB’s official opinion, and “position”…

Should ANY AND ALL information, provided and printed by RHBB and it’s staff, to be found directly under any portrayal of the Official CA OAG SEAL, including in the “menu items” sections, be specifically ONLY Official CA OAG information…???

(Same with any and all information printed under official City, County, State and/or Federal “seals”…)

Because, to me, and so, possibly to other readers, the implication that anything and everything printed under any portrayal of an official seal, would be, in fact, dependably, ONLY dependable, official information.

Excerpts from wording associated with 3 articles as described, (all found under a portrayal of the Official CA OAG “seal”), which were descriptions that I found to be factually inaccurate and/or offensive:

“…former President Trump…”

(As described within the last three months, which would be during CURRENT, not FORMER, President Trump’s Second term.)

“He says ban would leave Americans unprotected…”

(Which is actually and factually not what Bonta actually said and includes neither Bonta’s name, nor actual quotation marks…)

“…President Trump and his lackeys…”

Which was a chosen offensive quote, for whatever reason, when a neutral first sentence quote, as has also been previously practiced, could just as easily been chosen by RHBB to print, without perpetuating anything so offensive of Bonta’s…

I would be understandably properly offended if someone referred to me as being one of someone else’s “lackeys”…

What say you concerning that matter…???

I went back through more than 3 months of Bonta press releases, and their descriptions in the “menu items”, to assess consistency or inconsistency, and factual accuracy…

The descriptions were mostly, on the one hand, either the first paragraph from the press release directly quoted, which I felt was the most neutral method, or a partial excerpt of what “Bonta said…”, directly quoted…

Additionally there were a couple of very inaccurate descriptions, as shown…

No way to segregate them by author, as they were only unidentifiably authored by “staff”…

Why in this case, within this article’s menu items description, Kym, the identified author, would have chosen what Bonta said offensively towards Trump, etc., instead of more neutrally just quoting the first sentence of the press release, as was occasionally done, makes me wonder why Kym chose to include the not so neutral, offensive remark, when she could have chosen to not include it, just as easily…

Normally, Kym edits out offensive terms as a general rule…

Either Kym doesn’t consider the word “lackeys”, offensive, or she made an exception to her rule, for whatever reason….

Also, please consider this…

I would have commented much less, and discontinued much sooner, and lessened my chances of being reprimanded if melanopsin had not continued to pick and prod…

And they were FULLY aware of that……

Please consider that their intention was not to engage with me in a good faith reasonable debate, as they did not do so, perfectly illustrated and clearly indicated by their recent comment’s initial use of the acronym, ‘lirc”, (“like I really care”), but just to egg me on, just in order to increase the possibility and likelihood that a response and scolding would be illicited with me as the recipient…

If they really did not care, like they said…

Then…

What were his true intentions to relentlessly reengage me???

Were they malicious…?

Yes, I believe so…

That’s why I told him I knew what he was doing…

I’ve seen it so many times before…

It’s similar to a long established manipulative RHBB commenter M.O. from a previously banned commenter…

As in…

“Make an effort to get other people reprimanded, moderated, and/or banned…”

“Just for the fun of it…”

Unsurprisingly, they deny it…

Did it work…

Possibly, unfortunately…

I hope you recognize it, also, for it’s true intent, and for what it’s worth…

And that it is not in good faith…

Hopefully, it’s not working…

Thank you for your consideration on the subject of what kind of information RHBB thinks should be printed under a portrayal of an official government “seal”, and whether or not it should be SPECIFICALLY, ONLY government information, or not, in RHBB’s official opinion…

That is really all that the question is…

But please don’t feel compelled to immediately answer it, as I just felt I should more properly and more accurate phrase it…

I hope it’s an understandable question, asked for an understandable reason…

Certainly no hurry involved…

I understand that RHBB and it’s staff are extremely busy, with very little, if any, spare time…

Have a good weekend…

Thanks again…

Sincerely,

TRG…

Last edited 11 months ago
melanopsin
Member
11 months ago
Reply to  The Real Guest

Iirc — “If I Recall Correctly”

I am not your enemy. I respect your discerning intellect.

Didn’t mean to “pick and prod”. Rather to understand more; suggest alternatives. Helpful rather than harmful.

I do now understand the reason for your paranoia. You have nothing to worry about from me. I’m not trying to get you banned or trying to provoke you.

CsMisadventures
Guest
CsMisadventures
11 months ago
Reply to  The Real Guest

Seriously, man, who has time to check off every one of those sentences? Only to see you post a thesis worth more. You’re worried about things that aren’t happening because you didn’t get a response fast enough. Or didn’t fill in the blanks with answers you hoped for? That’s like teenagers getting upset because their last message was “They left me on red for an hour, so obviously they’re ghosting meeee!”. Chill, man. Let them write the articles as they see fit. They’re not after you. Really, nobody is.

The Real Guest
Guest
The Real Guest
11 months ago

To whom it may concern…

It might be helpful to include a link to the source of this, and other information implicitely associated with, or pertaining to, the officially SEALED press release, in order to be able to properly verify any and all of it’s authenticity, respectively…

That way, what might not have been included in the article, and/or what might have been editorily included, that might and/or might not be accurate and/or factually incorrect, might be more easily discerned and determined by the readers…

Thank you…

TRG

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-sues-trump-administration-illegally-shutting-down

Last edited 11 months ago
melanopsin
Member
11 months ago
Reply to  The Real Guest

I saved that web page in the Wayback Machine https://web.archive.org/web/20250718200414/https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-sues-trump-administration-illegally-shutting-down

The intent is to save a copy for future reference, in case AG Office edits the original later, which they may or may not, that is one of the questions: does AG Office ever make changes to published online press releases?