A City Journal Investigation Names the Recipients. Newsom Routed $1 Billion of California Taxpayer Money to a Nonprofit Network Whose Mission Is to Defund Federal Immigration Enforcement.

The City Journal investigation's core contribution is the named-recipient table. Per the Rufo piece and the corroborating California Department of Social Services budget records:

• Catholic Charities — $250,000,000+. The single largest recipient of California state immigrant-services funding in the investigation. Multi-jurisdiction umbrella organization with multiple diocesan affiliates participating in the CDSS contract stream.
• CHIRLA(Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of LA) — $110,000,000 ($115M including the most-recent annual cycle). 98% of recent state funding from CDSS. Executive Director: Angelica Salas. Subject of June 2025 Hawley / Jordan congressional inquiry.
• Jewish Family Services — $85,000,000.
• Immigration Institute of the Bay Area — $23,000,000.
• CARECEN-LA(Central American Resource Center) — $18,000,000. Recipient publicly acknowledges the CA funding stream and its policy purpose on its own website.
• Centro Legal de la Raza — $12,000,000.
• Immigrant Defenders Law Center (ImmDef) — ~$6,700,000 state + ~$17,000,000 federal (via Acacia Center, 2024-25). CEO Lindsay Toczylowski publicly champions “merits-blind universal representation” for all immigrant defendants regardless of offense category — a doctrine that, by its own framing, extends pro-bono criminal-defense representation to convicted-offender immigrants facing deportation.
• Al Otro Lado — $2,000,000+. Operates in Tijuana, Mexico, assisting migrants before they enter the United States. Mission framing centers on “freedom of movement”— the border-abolition framing the page's headline references.
• Oasis Legal Services— amount unspecified by Rufo.
• San Diego County Immigrant Legal Defense Program— amount unspecified by Rufo.

The funding mechanism: California's One California program at the Department of Social Services, currently appropriated at $45,000,000/year in General Fund spending per the LAO's 2024-25 budget review, plus the Immigration Services Funding (ISF) program, plus CSU Immigration Services ($7,000,000/year), plus Temporary Protected Status legal-services contracts. The aggregate annual flow is closer to the $100M-$200M range on a per-year basis; the multi-year totals in the ledger reflect six-year accumulation against this baseline.

“California is paying the salaries of the activists who organize against federal immigration enforcement. The state has not just declined to cooperate with ICE — it has built and funded the organized opposition.”

Christopher Rufo · City Journal · ‘How Gavin Newsom Subsidized the Migrant Invasion’ · April 22, 2026

CHIRLA is the recipient most pages of the Rufo investigation are devoted to, and the recipient that triggered the June 2025 congressional inquiry. The organization's state funding pattern: roughly $110,000,000over six years per the investigation, with 98 percent of recent state allocations coming from the California Department of Social Services. CHIRLA's reported total-asset base sits at roughly $76,000,000 per the most recent 990 filings (EIN 95-4421521), per Candid / GuideStar. The organization is led by Executive Director Angelica Salas, who has been at CHIRLA since 1995.

The June 2025 Los Angeles ICE protests, which the Hawley / Jordan congressional inquiry centered on, were characterized by Salas in a CHIRLA statement as a response to “President Trump's reign of terror in Los Angeles focused largely on POC, Latino neighborhoods.”The federal-level concern was whether organizational resources funded by California taxpayers were being deployed against federal law enforcement. The Yahoo / Lead Stories fact-check (cited in sources) clarified the mechanism: California funds paid for direct legal services to CHIRLA clients; CHIRLA's other resources were freed for advocacy. The fact-check is honest about both: the funding pattern is real, and the funds were not direct protest payments.

The Immigrant Defenders Law Center is the recipient whose stated doctrine most directly conflicts with federal enforcement priorities. ImmDef CEO Lindsay Toczylowskipublicly frames the organization's representation model as “merits-blind universal representation” — meaning the organization extends pro-bono removal-defense legal services to clients regardless of criminal-record category, including post-conviction relief work for clients facing deportation after domestic violence, sex offense, or violent crime convictions.

That doctrine is not contested by ImmDef. It is the organization's stated mission. The policy question is whether California taxpayers should fund a $6.7 million annual state-side allocation plus a $17 million Acacia Center federal pass-through to an organization whose self-described mission includes representing immigrant clients with serious criminal convictions in their effort to remain in the United States. The Rufo investigation poses the question without resolving it. We surface the doctrine as documented and let the policy frame stand on its own.

Al Otro Lado is the named recipient whose operating footprint sits outside the United States entirely. The organization operates primarily in Tijuana, Mexico, providing legal services and humanitarian assistance to migrants beforethey enter the United States. The organization's mission framing centers on “freedom of movement”— the border-abolition framing this page's headline references. Annual California state funding per the Rufo investigation: $2,000,000+.

The structural question Al Otro Lado raises: California taxpayer funding to an organization providing pre-U.S.-entry assistance to migrants is, on its face, assistance to the migration flow itself. The border-abolition framing the organization adopts is consistent with that operating model. Whether $2 million of California state funds appropriately supports assistance provided in Mexico to people not yet inside U.S. jurisdiction is a question the State Senate appropriations committees have not formally addressed.

On February 20, 2026, with the Trump-administration sanctuary-funding pressure already building, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) issued a press release announcing a new state investment and philanthropic collaboration to “continue supporting families under federal assault.”The administration's framing casts the existing nonprofit funding stream as a defensive response to federal enforcement, not as the offensive subsidization of organized opposition the City Journal investigation describes. Both framings are on the record. Both are the same dollars.

The administration has not slowed the funding. The CDSS ISF contract pipeline continues. The One California $45M / year General Fund line continues. The CHIRLA, Catholic Charities, ImmDef, Al Otro Lado, and other recipient nonprofits continue to receive their state allocations. Sen. Hawley's and Rep. Jordan's June 2025 inquiry continues; CHIRLA has provided some documents but has not been required to appear at a formal hearing. California AG Rob Bonta (D-CA) maintains the funding is legally compliant. As of May 23, 2026, no court has issued any ruling on the underlying question.