Nick Shirley Challenges New York Times Reporter Over California’s AB 2624

Adriana Stone 0 2 min read

Nick Shirley Challenges New York Times Reporter Over California’s AB 2624

Independent journalist Nick Shirley confronted New York Times reporter Laurel Rosenhall outside California’s State Capitol after a rally against Assembly Bill 2624.

Shirley, a 24-year-old YouTuber, has drawn national attention for reporting on empty Somali-run “clearing centers” in Minnesota and alleged hospice schemes in California. He arrived at the exchange with a camera, a “Califraudia Republic” hoodie, and a direct question about the legislation.

Why, Shirley pressed, was California creating new protections for people connected to immigration-service organizations instead of focusing on those who expose possible misuse of public money?

Shirley later posted the clip with a blunt caption:

“Here is the New York Times realizing they are advocating for a law that would effect journalism and fraud from being exposed.”

Rosenhall argued that lawmakers had been working on the bill before Shirley announced his California trip. Shirley immediately rejected that claim.

“Not true.”

“Because I announced on January 31 that I was coming to California,” Shirley explained. “I had already filmed the videos. The word had already gotten out that I filmed inside these immigration support service providers, and then they created the bill before I published the video.”

Official legislative records show Democrat Assemblywoman Mia Bonta introduced AB 2624 on February 20. That was roughly three weeks after Shirley said he publicly announced his investigation. Bonta is married to California Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Rosenhall continued to argue that immigration-service providers had faced problems “for quite a long time” and may not have known about Shirley’s work when the bill was being developed.

“It’s a lie, quite frankly,” Shirley responded.

He also questioned why the bill was needed when California already has laws addressing doxxing and threats.

“There’s no need for this bill,” Shirley said. “They’re making a protected class by specifically saying immigration support service providers.”

The enacted legislation defines “immigration support services” broadly. The definition includes legal representation, advocacy, case management, humanitarian relief, referrals, translation, counseling, and healthcare.

The law’s definition of a protected provider is also broad. It includes someone who “provides, assists in providing, or receives” those services.

Protected “personal information” can include names, physical descriptions, photographs, video footage, telephone numbers, employment histories, license plate numbers, and financial information.

Rosenhall suggested that people would not automatically receive the law’s protections and might need approval from law enforcement. The enacted text, however, lists several possible forms of documentation.

A restraining order is one option. An applicant may also submit a certified statement from an immigration-service organization, or from an employee or volunteer who says they experienced threats or harassment. That statement must be accompanied by a sworn statement of fear. Knowingly submitting false information is classified as a misdemeanor.

Shirley warned that the process could be abused by someone trying to hide fraudulent activity.

“Imagine a fraudster who knows he’s committing fraud,” Shirley said. “He’s like, ‘Oh, well, now under this bill, if I’m committing fraud, I’m just going to go enroll in this program.’”

Rosenhall then pointed to language saying that posting information becomes unlawful when done with the specific intent to incite violence or issue a threat.

“If you’re just posting it for information to inform the public, that wouldn’t be a violation, would it?” Rosenhall asked.

Shirley’s concern was about intent. Who decides what a journalist intended if someone else reacts badly to a report? He also pointed to the bill’s harassment language, which includes “unwelcome visitation” and “unreasonable fear.”

The exchange put the spotlight on a growing dispute over investigative reporting, public accountability, and laws written in response to controversial journalism. Shirley argued that broad protections could make it harder for independent reporters to document alleged misconduct. Rosenhall defended the position lawmakers have used to support the bill.

The two sides clearly did not agree on whether AB 2624 protects vulnerable people or creates a special shield for organizations facing scrutiny.

Send this to a friend