These organizations receive our tax dollars, yet they want to make it so we can't find out what they're doing with our tax dollars.
In Sacramento, a quiet collision between press freedom and protective legislation has given an independent journalist an unlikely distinction: a bill named after him. California's AB 2624 seeks to shield immigration service providers from documented threats and harassment, but journalist Nick Shirley argues it would erect a legal wall around publicly funded nonprofits, insulating them from the kind of scrutiny that has, in his telling, already uncovered real fraud. The tension at the heart of this story is ancient — the competing claims of safety and transparency — and it now moves to the California Senate for resolution.
- A California privacy bill has advanced through the Assembly with language broad enough, critics say, to expose investigative journalists to civil lawsuits, injunctions, and statutory damages simply for reporting on covered organizations.
- Journalist Nick Shirley, who says the bill has been informally named after him, warns that it would effectively grant legal immunity to nonprofits receiving public funds, cutting off the accountability reporting that previously exposed fraud in Minnesota and California.
- Assemblymember Mia Bonta framed the bill as a shield for immigration service providers who have faced doxxing, threats, and credible safety risks — a genuine concern that complicates the press-freedom argument.
- The bill passed the Assembly and now heads to the Senate, leaving unresolved a fundamental question: where does protection from harassment end and protection from accountability begin?
Independent journalist Nick Shirley finds himself in an unusual position: a California bill advancing through the state legislature has been informally dubbed the "Stop Nick Shirley Act" by those who see it as a direct response to his reporting. Assembly Bill 2624, authored by Assemblymember Mia Bonta of Oakland, would extend privacy and address-confidentiality protections to immigration service providers that can demonstrate documented safety threats — shielding their locations and identifying information from public disclosure.
Shirley appeared on Fox News Wednesday night to challenge the bill's framing. His argument is pointed: organizations that receive taxpayer money should remain subject to journalistic investigation, and the bill's civil liability provisions — which could expose reporters to injunctions, attorney fees, and statutory damages — would chill exactly the kind of accountability work the public depends on. He cited his own prior investigations into alleged fraud by Minnesota nonprofits and California hospice operators, cases he says were vindicated after initial skepticism.
The bill's supporters, including Assemblymember Bonta, counter that immigration service providers have faced genuine harassment and threats, and that the legislation addresses a real safety gap. Critics, including Republican Representative Tim Burchett and congressional candidate Lily Tang Williams, sided with Shirley, framing the measure as political cover for organizations that should face scrutiny.
Assemblymember Bonta did not respond to requests for comment, nor did California Attorney General Rob Bonta, her husband, whom Shirley mentioned in connection with his hospice fraud reporting. The bill now moves to the California Senate, carrying with it an unresolved tension between protecting vulnerable organizations and preserving the public's right to know how its money is spent.
Independent journalist Nick Shirley has become the unlikely namesake of a California privacy bill he views as a threat to accountability reporting. Assembly Bill 2624, which some have taken to calling the "Stop Nick Shirley Act," advanced through the state legislature this week with the stated purpose of shielding immigration service providers from harassment and threats. Shirley sees it differently: as a legal barrier designed to prevent journalists from investigating how taxpayer money flows through nonprofit organizations.
The bill's author, Assemblymember Mia Bonta of Oakland, framed the legislation as a necessary protection. Immigration service providers, she argued, have endured doxxing campaigns, harassment, and credible threats because of their work. The measure would create privacy and address-confidentiality protections for these organizations, keeping their locations and identifying information shielded from public disclosure when they can demonstrate documented safety concerns.
Shirley appeared on Fox News on Wednesday night to argue against the approach. He contended that the bill conflates legitimate investigative journalism with harassment, and that it would effectively immunize organizations receiving public funds from scrutiny. "These are organizations and groups that receive our tax dollars, yet they want to make it so we can't find out what they're doing with our tax dollars," he said during the interview. His concern centers on the bill's potential civil liability provisions: journalists or investigators who publish information about covered organizations could face injunctions, attorney fees, and statutory damages if those organizations claim a reasonable fear for their safety.
Shirley pointed to his own reporting as evidence that such investigations serve the public interest. He referenced prior work exposing alleged fraud involving Minnesota nonprofits and California hospice operators, cases he said were initially dismissed as baseless before the fraud was confirmed. He suggested that without the ability to investigate, such schemes would continue unchecked. "Stop using these communities, commit fraud, and no one will ever have any speculation about fraud taking place," he said, arguing that his reporting had uncovered real wrongdoing, not manufactured controversy.
The journalist's criticism drew support from some elected officials and political commentators. Republican Representative Tim Burchett characterized the bill as emblematic of Democratic leadership, while New Hampshire congressional candidate Lily Tang Williams urged taxpayers to oppose legislation she saw as protecting fraudsters at public expense. The bill passed the Assembly on Wednesday and moved to the California Senate for consideration.
Assemblymember Bonta did not respond to requests for comment. Neither did California Attorney General Rob Bonta, her husband, whom Shirley mentioned in connection with hospice fraud reporting. The tension between privacy protections for vulnerable service providers and the public's right to know how tax dollars are spent remains unresolved as the bill heads to the Senate.
Notable Quotes
These are organizations and groups that receive our tax dollars, yet they want to make it so we can't find out what they're doing with our tax dollars.— Nick Shirley
Immigrant service providers have faced harassment, doxxing campaigns and threats because of their work.— Assemblymember Mia Bonta (paraphrased)
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does Shirley think a privacy bill is really about hiding fraud?
He's arguing that nonprofits receiving public money shouldn't get to hide behind privacy protections. If an organization commits fraud, he says, journalists need to be able to investigate and report it—and the bill would make that legally risky.
But the bill's author says immigration providers are being harassed and threatened. Isn't that a real problem?
It probably is. The question is whether the solution—making it legally dangerous to investigate these organizations—is too broad. Shirley's saying you can protect people's safety without blocking all accountability reporting.
What's his evidence that this is actually about hiding fraud, not just protecting vulnerable workers?
He points to his own reporting on Minnesota nonprofits and California hospice operators, cases where he says he uncovered real fraud that people initially dismissed. He's arguing that without investigative access, those schemes would have continued.
Does the bill actually prevent all investigation, or just publication?
The liability comes from publishing information about covered organizations. So technically you could investigate, but if you report what you find and the organization claims it creates safety risks, you could face legal consequences.
Who benefits from this bill passing?
On the surface, immigration service providers facing documented threats. But Shirley's argument is that it also benefits any organization in that category that wants to operate without public scrutiny—whether or not they're actually committing fraud.
What happens next?
It goes to the California Senate. If it passes there and gets signed into law, journalists and investigators will have to weigh the legal risk before reporting on immigration service organizations.