WA governor calls U.S. House Medicaid cuts ‘dire,’ vows to fight

The state Department of Labor & Industries will begin raising penalty amounts annually, based on inflation, in an effort to make fines for health and safety violations a more effective deterrent.

Health and safety fines in Washington state have lagged behind the national average since 2019. The most recent data from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration show the state’s fines for serious violations fell to a little over half of the national average in 2023. 

L&I spokesperson Matt Ross noted the agency started discussing raising base penalties in 2022. 

“The timing was based on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that Washington conducts a significantly higher number of inspections than most other states, which is one factor balancing out the need for higher penalties to be an effective deterrent,” Ross wrote in an email. 

L & I implemented the new rates on Feb. 17. Penalties imposed in response to inspection conducted after that date will see fines increased by 2%. Starting next year, fines will grow based on the inflation rate. 

Starting last month, base penalties for the highest severity violations started at $7,140. The lowest severity violation rates begin at $1,020. 

Base penalties are determined by the severity and probability of any potential injury that could have resulted from the violation of the health or safety rule. L&I also adjusts fines based on the size of the company and past safety history.

A 2024 Cascade PBS investigation found that state officials often reduced penalty amounts upon appeal, later lowering a third of safety fines from inspections conducted between 2017 and 2021. 

Under the new penalty system, fines may also rise an additional 2% if the amount is not within 25% of the national penalty average. With average serious fines nearly half of the national average, many would likely qualify for that extra increase.  

Ross stated that L&I last raised its penalty rates in 2018 to meet the federal requirements. 

A spokesperson for the Association of Washington Businesses declined to comment on the new fines, saying it was an issue they were aware of but had not been involved in.

Sarah Tucker, a spokesperson for the Washington State Labor Council, said the group appreciated the new fine structure that increased fines based on inflation, but questioned if the amounts were high enough to be a deterrent. 

“We appreciate adopting a structure to ensure that the dissuasive power of penalties will keep up, at least in part, with the economy,” Tucker wrote in an email. “But whether these penalties are sufficient to effectively drive employers toward safer practices is an open question.”

This article originally appeared in the Washington State Standard.

U.S. Sen. Patty Murray will skip President Donald Trump’s speech before a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, saying in a statement he is “spitting in the face of the law.”

Murray, a member of the Senate Democratic leadership, is the highest-ranking member of Congress to announce she’ll skip the president’s address, his first before Congress in his second term.

Murray said she instead plans to meet with constituents harmed by the Trump administration’s actions, including the firings of thousands of federal workers and the halting of federal funding. 

She said in a statement that “the state of the union might be great for corrupt billionaires like Elon Musk as Trump guts our foremost consumer protection agency, and even for dictators like Putin, who are cheering on the dismantling of USAID and the betrayal of our allies.

“But the rest of the country is in a state of emergency as Elon fires the experts responding to bird flu or managing our nuclear weapons stockpile, all while Republicans sprint to tear apart Medicaid and kick families off their health care to pass massive tax giveaways for billionaires,” Murray continued.

In his first six weeks in office, Trump has moved to drastically widen the power of the executive branch, drawing alarm bells from Democrats who argue his actions are unconstitutional as well as numerous court injunctions. The dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development and Trump’s alignment with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Russia’s war with Ukraine are among the causes for concern Murray alluded to. 

Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy and Virginia Rep. Don Beyer are two other Democrats passing on the speech.

Other lawmakers hope to make a statement with their invited guests. Some are bringing fired federal workers or those affected by funding cuts Trump has proposed.

Dr. Paul Lange, a urologist who founded the Institute for Prostate Cancer Research at the University of Washington, will accompany Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell. 

His invitation is meant to speak to the importance of maintaining federal dollars for the National Institutes of Health. Trump wants to cut what are called “indirect costs” that help institutions pay for facilities and other behind-the-scenes work that supports research.

Cantwell’s office attributed declining prostate cancer death rates to the early detection tests he helped develop with the aid of federal funding.

Lange said a cure for prostate cancer is now “within reach.”

“But cuts to federal support for medical research would delay lifesaving advancements for all medical diseases including all forms of cancer,” Lange said in a statement.

 “Specifically, if President Trump’s administration cuts research funding for prostate cancer, the world’s dream of a cure will be impeded.  There are men currently in their 20s and 30s — men who could be saved by this cure — who will die instead.”

Rep. Emily Randall, D-Bremerton, is bringing Ashley Jones, president of the Washington Association of Birth Centers. Randall, who represents the 6th Congressional District, said in a statement they would “make it clear to the President: Keep your hands off our health care.”

“Ashley and her team provide a vital resource to the people of Washington’s 6th, often serving as a bridge between our most rural neighbors and the vital pre- and post-natal health care they need,” Randall continued. “I will continue to fight back against this administration’s chaotic and cruel attacks on Washingtonians’ access to health care.”

Rep. Dan Newhouse, R-Sunnyside, will be joined by a Yakima County commissioner, Amanda McKinney. Rep. Michael Baumgartner, R-Spokane, is bringing a local teacher. Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Medina, will attend without a guest. 

Other members of Washington’s delegation were expected to make announcements about their guests by Tuesday morning.

Trump’s speech, the first before Congress in his second term, is set for 6 p.m. Pacific Time on Tuesday.

The Washington State Standard originally published this story on March 3, 2025.

Tacoma is the latest city in Washington to issue formal statements pledging to protect LGBTQ+ and immigrant community members. 

Tacoma joins Olympia, Shoreline and Spokane in ramping up support for residents who have been subject to President Donald Trump’s executive orders since he took office in January.

Last Tuesday, Tacoma City Council members unanimously passed two resolutions focused on LGBTQ+ and immigrant rights.

The first resolution, sponsored by City Councilmember Olgy Diaz, affirms the city’s commitment to treating all individuals with respect regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. It declares that the city will “actively oppose” any federal action that “threatens the rights, safety, or dignity of LGBTQIA2s+ individuals.” The resolution states that people have the right to “obtain, provide, or facilitate gender affirming care, especially for youth”; access facilities that align with their gender identity; and engage in speech supporting LGBTQ+ people, including drag or other cultural performances. It says city resources won’t be used to investigate or assist in investigations against individuals exercising any of those rights. 

“At a time when our rights are uncertain and our very existence is being challenged and denied, we are here to say that Tacoma will stand up and say ‘We’re with you,’” Diaz said when voting to pass the resolution.  

The move followed the Olympia City Council, which declared itself Washington’s first “sanctuary city” for LGBTQ+ people in January. Officials in Shoreline passed a similar resolution affirming its commitment to LGBTQ+ rights in February. 

The LGBTQ+ resolutions passed by Tacoma, Olympia and Shoreline all call attention to Project 2025, a conservative Heritage Foundation policy agenda for Trump’s second term that city officials described as outlining “further plans to remove the established rights and criminalize the existence of transgender people.” 

Tacoma also signaled support for immigrant communities last week with a separate resolution that formally aligns the city with existing state immigration law, which restricts local agencies, including law enforcement, from requiring asking about a person’s immigration status in order for them to receive services, or from collecting immigration information. 

As of 2022, over 12% of Tacoma’s population was born outside the United States, the resolution says. 

On the campaign trail, Trump pledged to crack down on illegal immigration and carry out the “largest deportation program in American history.” 

“This is a fearful time for many of our immigrant communities,” said Tacoma City Councilmember Joe Bushnell, who co-sponsored the resolution. “We need to make sure that we are doing everything we can within our power as a city to protect all our residents.” 

The Spokane City Council voted 5-2 to pass a similar resolution on immigrants in early February, pledging to support Washington’s immigration law and find funding for legal services for undocumented immigrants. Hundreds of people packed City Hall to speak for and against the resolution.

“The federal government continues to threaten local jurisdictions to intimidate us, however, the city must and will continue to live by our values,” said Councilmember Zack Zappone, one of the resolution’s sponsors. 

Spokane Councilmember Michael Cathcart, who voted against the resolution, argued that it wouldn’t actually do anything to protect immigrants, and that it might put Spokane in the crosshairs of the federal administration. 

City resolutions are largely symbolic. Tacoma City Councilmember Jamika Scott voted for both resolutions last Tuesday, but she also warned that the resolutions might “create false hope.”

“We are limited in what we can do, and we have to be honest about the dangers that marginalized people and communities face, and this resolution does not shield anyone from federal legislation,” Scott said.

With local governments’ power limited, Scott said the entire community will ultimately have to step up to protect people from the new administration. 

“Statements and symbolic actions may temporarily soothe, but if we are to make a true impact, we must go beyond statements and focus on tangible action,” Scott said.  

In Seattle, a newly formed city committee on federal policy changes will discuss immigrant and LGBTQ+ rights, among other topics, during its first meeting on March 6. 

This article was originally published by the Washington State Standard.

Plans to offer free breakfast and lunch to all public school students in Washington appear shaky ahead of a Friday deadline in the state Legislature.

About 70% of students in the state’s public schools now have access to the free meals. Reaching 100% would cost about $120 million a fiscal year. With the state facing a budget shortfall in the ballpark of $12 billion over the next four years and lawmakers contemplating other big-ticket education legislation, a bill to carry out the meals expansion is proving to be a heavy lift.

Asked during a press conference Wednesday whether the bill was a good idea proposed at the wrong time, Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, replied: “Yes.”

The Senate already allowed its version of the legislation to lapse last week in the Senate Early Learning and K-12 Education Committee as an earlier deadline came and went.

That leaves a House version — House Bill 1404 — now pending in the Appropriations Committee. That panel must approve the bill by Friday for it to stay alive.

“Given the number of competing demands we have, it’s a challenge, but nothing in House Appropriations is dead until after Friday,” said House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon, D-West Seattle.

This expansion of the state’s free school meals program is one of the priorities Gov. Bob Ferguson identified at the outset of his term in January. 

Under the bill, public schools, including charter schools and state/tribal education compact schools, would have to offer free breakfast and lunch to any student who requests it. This would take effect in the 2026-27 school year and the state would reimburse districts for meal costs.

Ferguson, a Democrat, has intervened to move along other legislation this session. A spokesperson for the governor did not respond to questions Wednesday about whether he planned to do the same with the school meals bill.

Lawmakers have been under pressure to pass other pricey school legislation, including bills to boost funding for special education, school operations and transportation. 

The latest versions of these bills, which have been moving in the Senate, would cost around $1.5 billion altogether in the next two-year budget. 

The special education bill, which Pedersen and Senate Minority Leader John Braun, R-Centralia, are co-sponsoring, and another to boost state assistance with school materials, supplies and operations costs, are scheduled for Senate Ways and Means votes on Thursday. 

A bill to strengthen student transportation has had a Ways and Means hearing but was not scheduled for a committee vote as of Wednesday afternoon.

Friday’s deadline is when bills that need to go through fiscal committees, like Senate Ways and Means, must gain approval from those committees in the chamber where the legislation originated. 

Later in the session, lawmakers can revive proposals that die at this deadline, working instead through the budget process. But on the school meals bill, Fitzgibbon said, “If the bill doesn’t pass out of House Appropriations on Friday, then it’s not passing for the year.”

He said a middle-ground option, rather than expanding the program, is “probably paying for the cost of the existing free school meals programs that we’ve already legislated in previous years.” He noted about a $30 million increase would be required just to meet that cost. 

“We very much hope to be funding that as part of our budget,” he said.

Deputy Senate Majority Leader Manka Dhingra, D-Redmond, emphasized that the debate over free school meals needs to be balanced against broader discussions about assisting people with food insecurity in Washington. 

There are also worries about the possibility of federal funding cuts to nutrition programs as Republicans in Congress move ahead with their budget plan.

“It is a much larger conversation,” Dhingra said. “School meals is one part of it.”

The Washington State Standard originally published this article on Feb. 26, 2025.

At least two domestic indoor cats in Washington state have tested positive for avian influenza, or bird flu, after eating commercially available raw pet food, the state’s Department of Agriculture reported Wednesday.

One of the cats was euthanized, and the other is being treated by a veterinarian. The cats are from King and Snohomish County, and more cats are being tested.

The pet owners reported feeding their cats food from Wild Coast Raw pet food. The brand was connected earlier this month to severe illnesses in several housecats in Oregon that were euthanized after getting sick. The cats and the food in the Oregon cases tested positive for H5N1 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI).

Certain lots of Wild Coast’s Boneless Free Range Chicken are now under a voluntary recall, and the Olympia-based company reported that it has switched to fully cooked poultry recipes.

Bird flu symptoms in cats include lethargy, low appetite, fever, hypothermia, progression of illness to pneumonia, progression of illness to neurologic abnormalities and upper respiratory infection. Cat owners who observe these symptoms should isolate their animals and call their veterinarians, informing them of symptoms so they can reduce the risk of transmission.

The currently circulating strain of HPAI is considered low-risk to the public, but there is greater risk for those who handle contaminated raw pet food products or who care for infected animals, the WSDA said in its press release. Currently, the WSDA does not recommend feeding raw pet food or raw milk to animals.

While rare, people can get sick with bird flu, killing one person in Louisiana earlier this year. Bird flu can also spread to cattle, which has prompted testing and precautions around milk and dairy herds.

This article was originally published by the Washington State Standard.

A federal judge in Seattle on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order halting the admission of refugees into the United States.

The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Jamal Whitehead, a Biden appointee, is the first to block Trump’s order indefinitely suspending the United States Refugee Admissions Program. 

Whitehead said the president’s order likely “crossed the line.”

The order, one of many the president signed on his first day in office, describes the country as “inundated with record levels of migration” over the past four years, threatening resources for U.S. citizens.

The order says Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem should recommend within 90 days whether the refugee program should resume. 

The move stranded thousands of refugees expecting to come to the country. Days later, the White House also suspended funding for resettlement agencies, leading to layoffs and furloughs. 

Tuesday’s ruling comes days after a federal judge in Washington, D.C., denied a request to temporarily block the refugee funding freeze in a separate case.

Nine affected individuals and three resettlement organizations, including Lutheran Community Services Northwest in Tacoma, filed the lawsuit in Seattle court this month. The individual plaintiffs, identified in court papers only by their first names, include refugees, refugee applicants and people in the United States sponsoring refugees. 

One of them, a Bellevue woman, was sponsoring an Afghan refugee family before the federal government suspended their case, according to the complaint. Another was a refugee named Sara who was fleeing Iraq and awaiting travel plans to join her eldest son in Idaho before Trump’s executive order.

“When Sara closes her eyes, she still imagines herself at the airport and the joy she would feel in seeing her oldest son waiting for her,” the lawsuit reads. “He is now a U.S. citizen and is expecting his first child. Sara is crushed that she might miss the birth of her first grandchild.”

The plaintiffs argue Trump’s order violates the Administrative Procedure Act by skirting the usual process for agency actions. They claim the policy must include a public comment period under the law.

They also argue the executive action is at odds with the Refugee Act of 1980 that laid out the process for letting refugees into the country.

Attorneys for the Trump administration countered in court filings, stating Congress has delegated the admission of refugees to the president. So he can block their entry if he finds it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” the Justice Department wrote.

The president also sets the refugee admissions goal each year. At the end of his first term, Trump set that number at 15,000. Last year, former President Joe Biden set the benchmark at 125,000.

“The president can set the number at zero and there’s no requirement for an explanation of that,” August Flentje, of the Department of Justice, said in court Tuesday.

In his first term, Trump tried to block refugee arrivals various times, leading to numerous successful court challenges. The plaintiffs say his order this time around goes even further than his previous attempts.

In an amicus brief, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, a Democrat, and colleagues from 18 other states sided with the plaintiffs. The brief states Washington resettled 4% of the refugees nationwide in fiscal year 2024. 

The states called the order “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.”

The judge’s injunction in the case, known as Pacito v. Trump, will remain in effect until the case is resolved, unless the Justice Department successfully appeals it.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would have jurisdiction over the appeal. Democratic presidents appointed a majority of the circuit court’s judges. The case would next go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is the latest rebuke for a Trump executive order from a federal judge in Seattle. Other judges have also sided against the Trump administration in cases against his birthright citizenship and gender-affirming care orders. The Washington state attorney general’s office brought both of those cases.

The Washington State Standard originally published this article on Feb. 25, 2025.

This article originally appeared in the Washington State Standard.

Washington state’s attempt to block the Trump administration’s plan to restrict birthright citizenship could soon be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

An appeals court late Wednesday rejected the Justice Department’s challenge to a lower court ruling that halted implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order, teeing up an argument justices could soon hear.

Washington’s case, brought with Oregon, Arizona and Illinois as well as two pregnant women without legal immigration status, could be the first the Supreme Court takes up on the birthright citizenship question.

Two of the three judges from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found the Trump administration had not shown it was likely to succeed on the merits of its case. The three judges were appointed by three different presidents: Trump during his first term, Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Danielle Forrest, the Trump appointee, wrote she sided with her colleagues not because of the merits of the case but because the Justice Department hadn’t shown the circumstances were worthy of the emergency action it was seeking.

“Just because a district court grants preliminary relief halting a policy advanced by one of the political branches does not in and of itself an emergency make,” Forrest wrote. “A controversy, yes. Even an important controversy, yes. An emergency, not necessarily.”

U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour has called Trump’s order “blatantly unconstitutional.” In a Seattle courtroom earlier this month, he approved the second of four preliminary injunctions blocking Trump’s order until the case is resolved.

Even if the 9th Circuit judges had agreed with the Justice Department’s arguments Wednesday, the three other rulings still would have blocked Trump’s directive.

The executive action aims to end birthright citizenship for babies born to a mother and father who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Legal precedent has long upheld birthright citizenship since it was codified in the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.

In court filings, attorneys for the administration had argued the executive order is one part of the White House’s efforts to curb illegal immigration by “removing incentives to unlawful immigration and closing exploitable loopholes.”

They also said the states “cannot plausibly claim any injury” from the administration’s preparations to implement the order. Washington state and the other plaintiffs have said Trump’s order could mean losing federal funding to provide services if people are no longer born citizens.

“The equities and public interest likewise cut decisively in favor of maintaining the injunction,” wrote Lane Polozola of the Washington state Attorney General’s office. 

Lifting the lower court ruling, Polozola added, “would cause the States to lose jurisdiction over thousands of their residents, forfeit unrecoverable funds from federal contracts, and invest millions to abruptly change major programs that turn on state residents’ citizenship.”

The Washington State Standard originally published this article on Feb. 20, 2025.

As the Trump administration pushes to cut billions in federal funding for public universities and research centers, local scientists gathered to protest the potential cuts to their jobs and the research that they say is vital to the community. 

At a rally outside the University of Washington’s Genome Sciences building on Wednesday, hundreds of people demonstrated against a new National Institute of Health directive that would carve a massive hole in research budgets at institutions across the country. 

Research universities like the UW receive hundreds of millions each year from the NIH. A lot of the money comes from reimbursements for “indirect costs” associated with research, such as facilities, administration, electricity, maintenance and salaries for support staff like postdoctoral research fellows. The UW has negotiated a 55.5% indirect cost rate for on-campus activities, which means the school gets $55.50 to help pay for overhead costs for every $100 it receives in research grants. 

But on Feb. 7, the NIH abruptly announced a new policy that would cap all reimbursements at 15%, even for grants that have already been awarded. Local research institutions say the restriction would be a massive blow. In a lawsuit challenging the order filed by Washington and 21 other states, UW said it would lose $90 million to $110 million — which would force the school to lay off staff; delay lifesaving research; and scale back ongoing clinical trials for kidney disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s and other illnesses. Washington State University would also be affected.

A federal judge ordered a temporary pause on the planned funding cuts in response to the states’ lawsuit, but the future remains uncertain. Researchers were already reeling from Trump’s attacks on research funding tied to diversity, equity and inclusion, and researchers at the protest Wednesday said the looming specter of NIH cuts has rattled the scientific community. 

“It affects planning,” said Jack Castelli, a Ph.D. candidate at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center whose research involves hematopoietic stem cells and engineering immunity against HIV. “We don’t know if those funds are going to stay around or not, so we have to be more careful in what we purchase for research.” 

Fred Hutch stands to lose as much as $125 million under the proposed NIH cuts, The Seattle Times reported. 

Castelli, an organizer with UAW 4121, the union that organized Wednesday’s rally and represents academic student employees, postdocs and researchers at UW, noted that Fred Hutch has already rolled back diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in response to President Trump’s executive order seeking to end grants related to DEI. 

“Bending to illegal orders like that is obviously going to impact the research,” Castelli said. 

Ansel Neunzert, an affiliate physics instructor at the University of Washington Bothell whose research involves gravitational waves, said the NIH order and DEI grant cuts are having a “chilling effect” on the next generation of researchers. 

“I’ve got students who are considering leaving the field, trying to think about whether or not they’re going to be able to do this kind of work,” Neuzert said. “I think that’s going to have a massive impact, regardless of what happens with the judicial outcome at the end.” 

If the cuts go through, the researchers who lose their jobs will be the first ones affected. But the damage will ultimately be felt by the entire community, said Valentina Alvarez, a biochemistry Ph.D. candidate at UW who researches immune diseases and cancer. 

“It’s definitely going to show up in lack of access to health care,” Alvarez said. “Slower waiting times, there’s going to be less people working in general, slower developments for life-saving medicine.” 

Eva Cherniavsky, an English professor at UW who attended the rally, worries that the loss of research grant funding could also lead to cuts at other departments. She’s doubtful the university would be able to fill the hole with tuition increases or funding from the state, which is already grappling with a massive budget deficit this year. It all adds up to a “perfect storm,” she said.  

“Different sections of the university are not hived off,” Cherniavsky said. “It’s kind of life or death for the University of Washington right now.” 

At the rally, U.S Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-WA7, said the NIH funds had been appropriated by Congress, and described the Trump administration’s efforts to cut them as “unconstitutional” and “an authoritarian power grab.” (The Atlantic reported yesterday that NIH staff weren’t aware of the policy change until the Department of Health and Human Services sent a memo ordering NIH staff to push it through the agency in a single day.) 

The NIH funds “critical research that is capable of saving countless lives,” Jayapal said to the gathered crowd of postdocs, Ph.D. candidates, teaching assistants, professors and other scientific researchers. “The cuts that they are proposing are devastating.”

Note: This story was updated on 2/20 to correct the spelling of Eva Cherniavsky's name. 

A vast majority of Washington voters support the idea of capping annual rent increases, creating limits on move-in fees and increasing warning time for renters’ rising costs.  

Those findings come from a new poll of 1,100 registered voters from across Washington conducted by EMC Research Jan. 26 - Feb. 2.

The poll was commissioned by the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance, an advocacy group that supports efforts by Democrats to pass a rent stabilization bill in Olympia this session.  

If passed, the new law would limit annual rent increases for existing tenants to 7%, with exceptions for newly constructed buildings and nonprofit affordable housing. There is currently no cap on the amount a landlord can raise the rent. Under the proposed law, a landlord can raise the rent by any amount after a tenant moves out.  

In addition, the bill would cap move-in fees to the equivalent of one month’s rent, limit late fees to 1.5% of the monthly rent and require six months’ notice for any rent increase greater than 3%.  

When asked generally about a bill to limit “excessive rent increases or excessive move-in and late fees,” 52% of poll respondents said they strongly support the idea and 20% said they somewhat support it. That’s compared to 18% who strongly oppose the idea and 9% who somewhat oppose it.  

According to EMC, the idea drew bipartisan support with majority favor by Republican and Independent respondents and 87% support from Democratic respondents.  

Most poll respondents have had personal experience with rising rents. Asked if a rent increase impacted their financial situation, 71% either strongly or somewhat agreed. Another 63% strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement that they’d had to move because the rent got too high.  

Respondents were also asked if their support for the bill would increase or decrease based on certain proposed policies. Eighty percent said they were more likely to support the bill if it required additional notice for rent increases. Another 77% said their support increased if it capped move-in fees. And 76% said they would be more likely to support the bill if it included educational support for landlords to help them comply with the law.  

A Cascade PBS/Elway Poll conducted in late December found similar support for limiting rent increases among registered voters, with 68% of respondents saying they’re in favor.

Last year, a nearly identical rent-cap bill passed out of the House, but failed to get a vote in the Senate amid opposition from Republican and moderate Democratic lawmakers.  

This article was originally published by the Washington State Standard.

When an immigrant faces threats or exploitation by their employer, they often have limited recourse. Law students from Seattle University want to change that, pushing for a state bill to strengthen protections for people facing workplace coercion based on their immigration status. 

“In the last several years, we have been advocating for legislative changes that would help our clients and this is one of those,” said Elizabeth Ford, a law professor who teaches the workers’ rights clinic at Seattle University. 

Sen. Bob Hasegawa, D-Seattle, took up this legislation and introduced Senate Bill 5104 to give workers better tools to avoid workplace threats based on their immigration status and to prevent employers from exploiting the immigration status of employees. 

“It’s a shame that we have to try and find every abusive situation and draft a separate bill to deal with it,” Hasegawa said. 

An example of workplace coercion would be if an employer notes someone’s immigration status and then asks them to work unpaid overtime.

The bill would require the state’s Department of Labor and Industries to investigate complaints of coercion made against employers and would give the agency the authority to impose civil penalties when violations occur. 

When a worker files a complaint, the department will notify the employer. However, language in the bill was added to make personal information from the worker confidential to anyone other than the department and employee. 

“Employers have so much more power than workers, it’s the unfortunate truth,” said Yasmene Hammoud, a law student at Seattle University. “But when you add immigration status to the mix, the power dynamic and the leverage that the employer gains is incredibly disproportionate.” 

Similar legislation passed in New Jersey last year with bipartisan support. 

Concerns came up during committee hearings that the Washington bill may be redundant with existing law. 

Under current law, citizens and noncitizens are entitled to the same standards, rights, and protections in the workplace. Laws on the books protect any worker, regardless of their immigration status, from retaliation. 

Angelo Tadrous, a law student at Seattle University, said the bill is still necessary and noted that workplace coercion differs from retaliation because it happens before an employee raises an issue. Retaliation happens after the employee does so. 

If a worker raises an issue to their employer and the employer responds by withholding wages or rest breaks, that’s retaliation. If this occurs, a worker can file a complaint with the Department of Labor and Industries. 

Most complaints regarding coercion don’t get filed until the employee leaves their workplace. 

“One of the dynamics of coercion is this, that it silences people. And so that there’s a major risk of coming forward, that’s why coercion works,” Ford said. 

The bill was heard on the Senate floor Wednesday and passed on a 40-9 vote. It now awaits action in the House. 

“It’s incredibly important to safeguard [immigrant] rights and well-being to really allow the labor law to do what it was designed to do, and that’s to protect workers across the board, regardless of their immigration status,” Hammoud said.

Jacquelyn Jimenez Romero is a WSU Murrow Fellow who writes for the Washington State Standard, which originally published this article on Feb. 12, 2025.