Recent meetings of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors have introduced new local policies and sparked intense political clashes. On the policy front, ordinances targeting the theft of copper wire and catalytic converters were enacted, and new rules aimed at curbing pet overpopulation—specifically around dog breeding—were adopted.
Looming large over these discussions, however, is the upcoming County budget, with formal hearings set for September. The budget will be shaped by the state’s financial decisions and, more significantly, by deep cuts in the newly passed federal budget.
Yet policy developments have been repeatedly overshadowed by the escalating hostility of District 2 Supervisor Garry Bredefeld. His aggressive interrogation of department heads, ideological grandstanding and obsessive fixation on certain cultural issues have come to define the tone and substance of recent meetings.
Impact of State and Federal Budgets
At the July 8 meeting, Chief Administrative Officer Paul Nerland explained that despite early cuts made by departments, the County still faces a budget shortfall. As usual, the County waits to finalize its budget until September to factor in updates from the state and federal governments.
County Budget Director Paige Benavides outlined the state’s $321.1 billion budget, which avoided the governor’s proposed cuts to resolve a $12 billion deficit. Although the state budget offers no new funding for homelessness this fiscal year, it sets up funding language for the Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention (H-HAP) program in 2026–2027. For now, Fresno County will rely on existing funds, though some regional partners could be affected.
Benavides also noted that California’s budget includes $100 million for Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) services, allowing the County to maintain current staffing in probation. However, the state budget includes a new mechanism: It grants the California Department of Finance broad authority to make midyear cuts in response to any federal reductions—circumventing slower legislative processes.
Nerland then reviewed the implications of the federal budget, passed on July 4. He referred to it as the “Big Beautiful Bill,” prompting District 3 Supervisor Luis Chavez to remark, “There’s nothing beautiful about it—it’s ugly.”
Nerland reported “significant cuts” to key programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or CalFresh in California), Medicaid (Medi-Cal) and clean energy tax credits.
These cuts will hit Fresno County hard. About half the county’s population—530,000 residents—rely on Medi-Cal. New requirements will force participants to recertify every six months rather than annually, and work mandates have been added. Chavez asked pointedly, “How do you ask someone with Down syndrome to go look for a job?”
However, the impact on SNAP won’t be immediate, thanks to prior “board advocacy” (per Nerland—though he didn’t cite specifics), but starting in October 2026, the County will be required to cover an additional $6.5 million annually as the federal contribution drops from 50% to 25%. This shift will also result in layoffs of public health staff associated with SNAP services.
Bredefeld’s Budget Inquisition and Political Spectacle
Bredefeld has seized on the budget discussions as an opportunity to demand heightened scrutiny of department heads. He insisted that each department make an individual presentation during the September hearings, something that is normally not done. While some supervisors opposed this demand, the Board eventually compromised on a “hybrid” approach: 5–10 key departments will present, though specific departments remain to be selected.
Bredefeld has consistently pulled routine Consent Agenda items—many dealing with basic contracts—to interrogate department heads, particularly when expenditures benefit vulnerable populations, often veering into unhinged harangues.
On June 24, for instance, he opposed a contract with the Central California Faculty Medical Group for psychiatric care of defendants deemed unfit to stand trial. “In this state, we minimize crime!” he bellowed at the time, framing the matter—helping the needy—as a moral betrayal by the state government.
Most recently, he vehemently opposed a County contract with what he termed the “radical leftist” Central Valley Community Foundation (CVCF) targeting its leader, former Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearingen, and falsely accused them of “blackmailing” the Council of Governments (COG) into acceptance of 12 members on the Measure C Steering Committee.
He thundered that the CVCF should instead be addressing PG&E’s service rates because PG&E was financially “raping” customers. After this outburst, Chavez wryly remarked that Bredefeld “had his Wheaties” this morning.
Fiscal critiques put forward by Bredefeld often appear to mask deeper ideological objections. He frames social spending as moral decline, equating public health services with permissiveness. Based on past performance, Bredefeld will likely use upcoming budget hearings as a stage for more ideologically and morally framed attacks, with a goal of stimulating the perception of threat, rather than fiscal insight.
“Condoms and Lube and Gay Pride, Oh My!”
Bredefeld’s crusade against perceived cultural excess took center stage in his effort to control how County departments participate in community events. At issue: a $6,000 expenditure by the Department of Public Health to distribute, among other items, condoms at Fresno’s Pride Parade. Outraged, Bredefeld demanded new rules requiring all departments to obtain Board approval before making any financial contributions to such events.
This led to a new policy, adopted July 8, mandating prior Board approval for any department planning to spend any amount on a community event. Ironically, back in February, Bredefeld had demanded that a similar policy be repealed—for himself. Currently, supervisors only need approval for discretionary spending above $1,500.
Board Chair Buddy Mendes tried to frame the new rule as applying strictly to “direct donations,” not general outreach. Chavez noted that the controversy prompted him to speak with members of various community organizations, many of whom expressed concerns that the policy will determine what events or causes county employees can participate in.
“This is a fiduciary issue,” Mendes insisted, “not about deciding which events employees may attend.”
Nevertheless, Bredefeld dominated the discussion. He repeatedly invoked “condoms and lube,” declaring it an inappropriate use of taxpayer funds. “Buy your own damn condoms,” he barked.
He called the outreach “advocacy,” without clarifying what was being advocated, and then veered off into commentary about removing DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) language from County documents.
Spotting a Fresno Bee reporter in the audience, he jeered, “All you write is a bunch of crap!”
Public Backlash and the Vote
Mendes, clearly annoyed, restricted public comment to two minutes per person, with a 15-minute cap per side. All nine commenters were opposed.
Brandi Nuse-Villegas called the policy an “unfunded mandate” that would burden staff with unnecessary work.
Myra Coble criticized “the hateful bias of one board member.”
Madison Nield of PFLAG reminded the Board that the Pride Parade has a decades-long history and drew more than 16,000 attendees in June. “Bredefeld is making his choice,” said Nield.
Other speakers warned that the policy undermines outreach to marginalized communities, invoked the historical persecution of LGBTQ+ people and called Bredefeld’s remarks “incendiary.”
One speaker summarized the mood succinctly: “This policy is stupid and wastes money—address your right-wing hallucinations elsewhere!”
Board discussion resumed. District 5 Supervisor Nathan Magsig insisted the policy doesn’t interfere with outreach and that departments should still participate in community events. Chavez said, “The gay community is my family,” emphasizing that LGBTQ+ residents are taxpayers too. “I don’t want to discriminate or expose us to litigation.”
Bredefeld, unmoved, again decried the use of County funds for Pride, declaring he had a “moral and fiduciary responsibility” to ensure County departments don’t “go woke.” “If they don’t like it, tough,” he said, giving the impression that the new administrative policy was a pretext for his ideological attacks on the LGBTQ+ community.
The vote passed 3–2, with Chavez and District 1 Supervisor Brian Pacheco opposing. Pacheco was silent throughout, but his firm “no” vote was distinctly audible.
Second Amendment Resolution
In a move that raised eyebrows for both timing and tone, Chavez and Magsig introduced a resolution affirming the Board’s support for the Second Amendment. While Magsig’s stance was expected, Chavez’s position was unclear. He cited his upbringing on a farm and his enjoyment of hunting but offered no clear rationale for why the Board should pass a pro-gun resolution at this particular moment.
Mike Carey, a representative from the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), spoke in support. He characterized gun ownership as a civil right and, framing gun zealots as victims, claimed that the Second Amendment is “constantly under attack.”
Carey argued that gun laws restrict “law-abiding people” rather than criminals—a talking point that blurs legal definitions and overlooks basic realities about gun violence. He also claimed that one of the CRPA’s legal challenges was headed to the Supreme Court, though that could not be independently confirmed.
Bredefeld added his voice with typical hyperbole declaring that gun rights are “God-given” and that “Sacramento harasses gun owners” and “loves to arm criminals.” Mendes echoed his support, praising the CRPA’s advocacy.
Public comment included sharp pushback. One woman, in an urgent and outraged tone, criticized the resolution for ignoring the nation’s high rate of child gun deaths and called the Board “tone deaf.” As a security guard hovered behind her, she condemned Bredefeld’s “white-supremacist Christianity shit” and made pointed, if opaque, remarks suggesting that Chavez and Pacheco consider relying on the Second Amendment in defense against masked, unidentified federal ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents.
Sheriff John Zanoni weighed in to protest that concealed-carry permit holders “are not criminals” and blamed the media for vilifying gun owners. CRPA members accompanying Carey stood and nodded in agreement. The resolution passed unanimously.
Summary: Civic Disruption Disguised as Oversight
While new ordinances and budget planning are quietly shaping County policy, the loudest force at the BOS is not prudent, unbiased governance but disruptive agitation driven by extremist ideology. Bredefeld’s hostile style, moralistic crusades and targeted “my way or the highway” demands for “oversight” mask a deeper pattern of regressive strategy and performative control that alienates vast portions of the community.
As essential services hang in the balance under new budget constraints, Bredefeld’s damaging behavior risks turning public service into political theater at the expense of public trust.
