Home>Articles>Sac Bee and NY Times on the Wrong Side of the Nick Shirley Rally

NYT reporter Laurel Rosenthal interviewing Nick Shirley. (Photo: X screenshot)

Sac Bee and NY Times on the Wrong Side of the Nick Shirley Rally

Were they just being difficult and deliberately obtuse?

By Katy Grimes, August 27, 2026 4:00 pm

The Globe covered the Stop Nick Shirley Act rally at the California State Capitol Wednesday. It was huge, and well attended, including Antifa protestors, despite radio reports of “hundreds of people,” or a “sparse crowd.”

There was not much mainstream media covering the event. I was told by one event speaker that the Sacramento Bee sent an intern to interview him.

I didn’t even see any reports on local television news about it.

The reporters who did do something about it really missed the point, as evidenced in an interview by New York Times reporter Laurel Rosenthal with Nick Shirley, and Sacramento Bee opinion writer LeBron Antonio Hill. Or, they were just being difficult and deliberately obtuse.

Rosenthal interviewed Nick Shirley after the rally, and claimed that the supporters of the Stop Nick Shirley Act (AB 2624), “they say it has nothing to do with you, that they had introduced it long before you had come to California, and that it’s really not about you.”

“That’s not true,” Nick Shirley said. “I announced on January 31st I was coming to California. I had already filmed the videos… the word had already gotten out that I had filmed inside immigration support service providers, and then they created the bill before I published the video.”

“Oh,” says Rosenthal. “They say it has to do with immigration service providers for a long time, including last year. They were not aware of your work when they felt there was a need for the bill,” she adds.

“That’s a lie,” Shirley says. “And, there’s already laws out for people getting doxxed. There’s no need for this bill. They are making a protected class by specifically saying ‘Immigration Support Service Providers.’ And they say ‘included but not limited to,’ and they list a whole bunch… but what does that actually mean? It’s so broad, it could literally mean anything under ‘Immigration Support Service Provider.'”

“There’s 10 million immigrants inside the state of California,” Shirley adds.

“So my understanding is the bill like actually adds immigrations support services providers to existing categories of people who already had this ‘safe at home’ protection,” Rosenthal counters.

“Yes, so they are putting them inside this new program, yet they are actually making a new protected class for people that work inside Immigration Support Service programs,” Shirley says, while Rosenthal nods and says “uh-huh.”

He then explains the ‘safe at home’ protection’ program: “It’s for people whose predators are attacking them.”

Rosenthal asks, “So what is it that your’ve done that would be prohibited by this bill?”

“Have you read the bill?” Shirley asks.

“Yes. It does say it only applies if someone has to apply for this protection. It’s not that they automatically get it. They have to show they are being threatened, and they like have a law enforcement like approval…” Rosenthal adds.

Shirley responds: “So imagine a fraudster, who knows he’s committing fraud, and he’s like, ‘well now I’ll need this bill’… If I’m committing fraud, I’ll just enroll in this program as I’m committing fraud, and I’ll give them my paper that they can’t publish the video, according to the law.”

Rosenthal asks, “Do you think they could just fake they are facing a threat?”

“It says ‘harrassment’ on that bill. It says ‘unwelcome visitations.’ Unwelcome visits. Unreasonable fear.’ If I go expose a fraudster, are they going to be fearful? Of course.’

Rosenthal replies and asks, “Okay. What about the part of the bill that says ‘it’s only unlawful to post the information if you’re doing so to incite violence, or making threats?’ If you’re just posting information to inform the public, that wouldn’t be a violation, would it?”

“Who is to say if I expose it, I expose it to somebody else, and then a third party comes in and incites violence or harassment, what does that mean? It means they could literally hire somebody to go commit the crime, and say ‘that third party was because of Nick Shirley – that Nick Shirley is responsible for the crime, and we’re going to give Nick Shirley a $4,000 fine.'”

She’s thinking about this for a moment.

Nick continues: “So you, as a journalist go to the Learing Center – do you know what the Learing Center is?”

“I’ve watched your videos about that,” Rosenthal replies rather dismissively.

“So if you expose a Learing Center, where there are no kids at the day care, they’ve received $9 million, and it opens up a whole entire fraud ring, and then I expose it, a bunch of other people come in and say someone throws… someone paintballs the building – they cause fear because of the building, and you’re responsible for the actions of a third party.”

“But that problem is real. Like how it completely breaks the trust in the Amendment of Freedom of Press by putting other crimes upon another person, for reporting the truth.”

He continued: “People said the Minnesota fraud wasn’t true, for a long time and now we are seeing the few that are being arrested, nearly each and every single week, and are pleading guilty to that fraud. And the Democrats and the media said that problem wasn’t real.”

There is a pregnant pause, where she looks at him with disbelief and confusion on her face. Then she turns to the camera.

Nick Shirley adds, “the New York Times interviewed me, and they literally couldn’t finish the interview because I told her this bill is a violation of the First Amendment, and she was literally left speechless.”

The entire interview was 4 minutes and 20 seconds. Take the 4 minutes to watch it.

This New York Times reporter is a former Sacramento Bee reporter, former CalMatters reporter and former LA Times reporter, before moving to the NYT in 2025. She knows better. This was just embarrassing selective omission,  pretending not to understand the bill – even “statement journalism” that treats official or activist claims as settled.

Journalistic malpractice describes reporters or media outlets that systematically fail core professional duties: accuracy, verification, fairness, and putting truth ahead of ideology, audience capture, or commercial incentives.

The Sacramento Bee opinion piece was another story altogether, and brazenly obnoxious.

LeBron Hill, opinion writer for The Sacramento Bee. (Photo: Sacbee.com)

Writer LeBron Antonio Hill claims Nick Shirley, with nearly 2 million YouTube subscribers, is not a journalist but a conservative instigator whose visits to Somali-run daycares in Minneapolis, and later Southern California, produced stunts and conjecture rather than proven systemic fraud.

His claim that Shirley and the GOP are exploiting fear to attack immigrant advocates is dripping with loathing and detestation.

The headline:

“Nick Shirley and GOP exploit fear to attack California’s immigrant advocates”

From the article:

When I moved to California from Tennessee more than two years ago, I thought I had left conservative clown shows in political spaces behind. But there it was in Sacramento on Wednesday at the Capitol, where YouTube personality Nick Shirley put on a show in the name of exposing fraud that was nothing of the kind. Shirley’s has nearly two million subscribers on his YouTube channel. His fans in Sacramento on Wednesday told on themselves by wearing MAGA hats and American flag apparel. Shirley terrorizes groups that try to help immigrants, and these folks cheer him for that as if he were a superstar.

Someone really doesn’t understand the First Amendment.

“LeBron Hill is an opinion writer for The Sacramento Bee and a member of its Editorial Board. He is a native of Tennessee, with stops at The Tennessean in Nashville and the Chattanooga Times Free Press. LeBron enjoys writing about politics, culture and education, among other topics.”

Assembly Bill 2624 is the bill authored by Oakland Democrat Assemblywoman Mia Bonta, and the wife of Attorney General Rob Bonta, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed last weekend.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Spread the news:

 RELATED ARTICLES

9 thoughts on “Sac Bee and NY Times on the Wrong Side of the Nick Shirley Rally

  1. Great coverage, thank you Katy….
    Just to note there was coverage by KCRA 3 at noon and ABC 10 at r p.m, however where very adamant about the real name of the Bill.

  2. When told by Nick Shirley that AB 2624, (the “Stop Nick Shirley Act”) was a violation of the First Amendment, she was utterly left speechless. Wow. Especially disgusting because Katy Grimes then pointed out that the woman — a well known entity, having worked for the SacBee and other CA slop —– knows better and was PRETENDING to be clueless. PRETENDING, presumably, in order to make her NYTimes employers proud. Just amazing, and not in a good way.

  3. Pathetic. The press is pathetic. Gaslighting went into effect during Covid and never stopped.

    Does anyone remember a time when journalists rooted out fraud and not defended it?

  4. This is why I read the California Globe and not the New York Times or Sacramento Bee. What could you possibly learn reading the New York Times and Sacramento Bee when you have people working there who are so dumb?

    1. Most of the people working at the New York Times and Sacramento Bee are not dumb. They are biased and manipulative. Some of them are just evil. Imagine a society with no borders, and no law enforcement, where every criminal is entitled and protected.

      1. I’m not seeing any brain power at the New York Times and Sacramento Bee here. Smart people don’t want to live in a society with open borders and no law enforcement.

  5. One wonders if Lebron Hill would consider this “terrorism”
    As reported by (only national outlet) Fox news:

    The day after Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Nichelle Holmes dismissed Marcos Iriarte-Valdez, a Venezuelan national, he was accused of stabbing another man to death while attempting another burglary.

    The killing of Todd Stewart, 68, outside his home of more than 30 years has renewed scrutiny of judges’ discretion in releasing repeat criminal offenders. It also comes as Republican leaders criticize “sanctuary” policies that they say make it difficult for federal immigration enforcement agents to do their jobs and put the public at risk.
    The California judge who released a Venezuelan national arrested for burglary — and later allowed him to remain on pretrial home detention despite his violation of its terms — had previously said that justice can sometimes mean “dismissal” in an interview with her alma mater, the University of San Francisco School of Law.

    Holmes, who was appointed to Contra Costa Superior Court by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., in 2024, ordered on Aug. 5, 2024, that Iriarte-Valdez, an Venezuelan national who holds Spanish citizenship, be released on his own recognizance.
    Holmes’ ruling to allow Iriarte-Valez to walk free aligns with an interview that she gave to her alma mater the University of San Francisco School of Law in 2017, in which she claimed that her work as then-deputy district attorney of Contra Costa County is her way of fighting against injustices and racial disparities in the justice system.

  6. Both of those leftist rags have completely distanced themselves from the facts and the truth. They have no relation to “Journalism.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *