Every veto. Every message.

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 264 without my signature.

This bill expands access to the California College Fee Waiver program by repealing existing law that prohibits dependents of veterans from receiving state benefits while the dependent is entitled to specified federal education benefits or duplicate assistance from any other government source.

While I support the author's goal of expanding access to higher education for dependents of veterans, this bill would result in General Fund ongoing costs in the millions of dollars annually and should be considered as part of the annual budget process.

In partnership with the Legislature this year, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1165 without my signature.

This bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to develop statewide finance plans on homelessness and housing unaffordability, establish related metrics, and update the Statewide Action Plan for Preventing and Ending Homelessness.

California must continue making strategic investments to prevent and end homelessness and expand affordable housing. But this bill layers a new finance- planning and reporting mandate onto existing work at a time when the state should be focused on delivering programs and measuring results. Further, this bill would require statewide funding estimates based on a static set of conditions, even though housing costs, local housing production, available resources, and Californians' needs change over time.

Planning and reporting requirements can be valuable when they fill a clear gap, improve accountability, or provide information that is not otherwise available. But new mandates should meet a high bar and provide a concrete benefit beyond existing efforts. This bill does not meet that important threshold. The state should instead focus its capacity on implementing established plans, evaluating results, and closing identified gaps rather than adding another planning requirement that substantially overlaps with work already underway.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1537 without my signature.

This bill would prohibit peace officers from engaging in any form of secondary employment that involves enforcing immigration laws and would require that certain documents pertaining to secondary employment be subject to the California Public Records Act (PRA).

This measure recognizes the disturbing role of those who participate in the indiscriminate raids that have rounded up American citizens, people with legal status, hardworking parents, and their children. The horrific tactics deployed by the Trump administration to instill fear and panic in our most vulnerable communities are a stain on our nation, and Congress must act to hold the Trump administration and culpable agents accountable, while also advancing reforms to ensure fair, humane, and lawful immigration enforcement that is transparent and accountable to the public.

However, establishing a default prohibition regarding the secondary employment law enforcement officers choose to do in their free time is a step too far. State and local peace officers already must abide by specific standards and rules, including ones that apply to their personal conduct. Any officers who violate those standards are held accountable through investigations that may culminate in their peace officer status being suspended or revoked entirely.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1608 without my signature.

This bill would exempt the Office of the Inspector General (Office) for the California High-Speed Rail Authority from specified state personnel and contracting requirements.

The Office was established in 2022 to strengthen independent oversight and accountability. Earlier this year, we enhanced the Office's authority by enacting budget trailer bill language expanding the Office's ability to protect whistleblowers and safeguard sensitive investigative records while preserving transparency and accountability.

My administration also has continued to support the Office through targeted actions, including a planned increase in its information technology project delegation authority. The Office should continue working with the appropriate state agencies to address its operational needs through existing processes rather than receive broad, permanent exemptions from generally applicable statewide administrative safeguards.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1666 without my signature.

This bill would establish the Biomass Innovation Park Grants and Financing Program, to be administered by the Natural Resources Agency, to identify biomass innovation parks.

I thank the author for his commitment to advancing the use of wood biomass to improve forest health and build wildfire resilience. In partnership with the Legislature, my administration allocated $50 million from the Climate Bond to the Department of Conservation to develop a program to fund the development of large-scale biomass facilities and identify opportunities to accelerate the utilization of wood waste biomass.

The program proposed in this measure would require additional resources not included in this year's budget. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1813 without my signature.

This bill requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to adopt or modify a customer renewable energy subscription program under which a program participant is credited for electricity generated from a renewable generation facility - such as an array of solar panels.

California leads the nation in the deployment of new electricity resources, largely due to the proliferation of solar energy up and down the state. This year, we hit a new milestone - for the first time, Californians used more solar than natural gas during the first half of 2026. The state also has more distributed, small-scale solar capacity than any state in the nation, and has dedicated over $1 billion in subsidies towards community and low-income renewable energy programs.

While I appreciate the author's goal of making solar even more accessible at a community level, this bill is structurally flawed. It would effectively require an administratively set price for the generation of power that exceeds the value that generation provides to the grid. This would result in significant upward pressure on consumer energy bills - the independent Public Advocates Office estimates the bill could cost ratepayers an additional $1.5 billion annually - without delivering reliable, high-performance capacity to the grid at the times we need it.

Fundamentally, this bill would shift costs and work counter to the state's energy affordability and reliability goals.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1881 without my signature.

This bill would prohibit a government agency from burdening a California Native American tribe's exercise of religious beliefs or spiritual practices on state lands, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the agency shows that doing so is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. This bill would also require a government agency to obtain written consent from an affected tribe before undertaking any physical change to a state land if the action may pose a risk to a sacred site.

I am sympathetic to the goals of this measure. However, this legislation's proposed framework could have far-reaching impacts on the basic operations of state government and the management of state property, and this uncertainty calls for further discussion and review. I encourage the author to continue his work to refine these concepts, and I call on state agencies to be part of that conversation.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1896 without my signature.

This bill would disqualify from state and local government employment any sworn law enforcement officer or contractor who personally engaged in federal immigration enforcement, unless that person is deemed suitable based on criteria to be established by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.

This measure recognizes the disturbing role of those who participate in the indiscriminate raids that have rounded up American citizens, people with legal status, and hardworking parents. The horrific tactics deployed by the Trump administration to instill fear and panic in our most vulnerable communities are a stain on our nation, and Congress must act to hold the Trump administration and culpable agents accountable, while also advancing reforms to ensure fair, humane, and lawful immigration enforcement that is transparent and accountable to the public.

However, establishing a default employment prohibition for any individual engaged in enforcing federal civil immigration laws is a step too far. It is a mistake to discourage empathetic and qualified Americans from working in the federal government, or choosing to leave long-standing employment with the federal government because they find the current administration's policies and tactics reprehensible. Moreover, hiring for state and local government employees already requires specific standards, including evaluations of personal conduct, and any employees who violate those standards would be held accountable.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1940 without my signature.

This bill would amend the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to include perimenopause, menopause, postmenopause, and related medical conditions within the definition of "sex."

I strongly support the author's goal of protecting women experiencing menopause and related conditions. For that reason, my budget proposal included improvements to prescription drug coverage for symptoms of menopause, required plans to screen enrollees age 40 and older for menopause during primary care and OB/GYN appointments, and provided professional training incentives for physicians and other healthcare professionals who specialize in menopause care.

The characteristics this bill seeks to include in the definition of sex are already covered under FEHA to the extent that menopause-related symptoms rise to the level of a medical condition or disability. Under those circumstances, current state law requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations. The approach taken by this measure may have the unintended consequence of authorizing a FEHA lawsuit for all adverse employment decisions made against a very large segment of the working population. The ensuing litigation could result in substantial General Fund impacts and cost pressures without meaningfully addressing the needs of the people the bill is intended to protect.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1949 without my signature.

This bill would require Medi-Cal to cover up to 24 acupuncture visits per calendar year for each Medi-Cal member and allow additional acupuncture visits beyond that limit.

I appreciate the author's intent to ensure vulnerable populations maintain access to acupuncture as a treatment option. To that end, Medi-Cal already covers up to two acupuncture services per month, and the Department of Health Care Services can administratively update Medi-Cal policy to align with the generally accepted standard of care without the need for legislation. Further, I do not believe it is appropriate to legislate additional visit requirements outside the annual budget process due to its impact on utilization and costs.

In partnership with the Legislature this year, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1997 without my signature.

This bill would require a public agency serving as the lead agency for a development project to approve or disapprove a housing development within 30 days after certifying an environmental impact report (EIR). This expedited process applies if at least 90 percent of the project's units are affordable to very low- or extremely low-income households and the development is seeking public financing. If the lead agency fails to act within this 30-day period, the project may be deemed approved.

I strongly support accelerating affordable housing production. My administration and the Legislature have enacted comprehensive reforms providing qualifying housing projects with ministerial approval, CEQA exemptions and judicial streamlining, and accelerated entitlement and permitting timelines. However, this bill creates further statutory ambiguity by failing to clarify how its deadline applies to subsequent project approvals that rely on a program, master, or staged EIR. Although the broader EIR may already be certified, a subsequent project may still require additional project-specific environmental review. The bill does not clearly establish whether the regulatory clock begins upon certification of the broader EIR or after that additional project-specific review is complete. Shortening the deadline without resolving this question would create additional uncertainty for public agencies responsible for implementing the law.

This risk is difficult to justify given the measure's limited reach. The bill applies exclusively to a narrow subset of projects - those with at least 90% of units affordable to very low- or extremely low-income households and requiring a full approve or deny the project from 60 to 30 days. Deeply affordable housing developments typically depend on multiple sources of public funding, often with their own requirements and deadlines; they need a high degree of regulatory certainty to assemble and retain financing. Moreover, most already use existing regulatory pathways that streamline or entirely bypass this review altogether. Therefore, this narrow potential benefit does not outweigh the risk that projects could be inadvertently denied or deemed approved based on unclear requirements and compressed timelines.

Effective housing policy should provide clear, workable rules that move projects forward - not jam public agencies into making consequential decisions under uncertain statutory requirements. Unfortunately, this bill does not meet that standard.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2066 without my signature.

This bill would make pregnancy a triggering event for purposes of enrollment or

changing a health benefit plan.

Last year, I vetoed a substantially similar bill because it would have set a dangerous precedent for condition-specific special enrollment periods and created substantial instability in the individual health insurance market. These concerns remain, especially at a time when consumers across the nation face uncertainty about the affordability of their healthcare due to the federal administration's draconian cuts to our safety net.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2186 without my signature.

This bill would exclude, from personal and corporate income taxation, any monetary compensation or benefits made pursuant to state or local government reparations programs or federal law intended to correct for past and ongoing harms to a group of people, including the descendants of enslaved or incarcerated persons or other members of a protected class.

I thank the author for her continued work to redress the documented harms of slavery. I was proud to sign into law last year legislation establishing the Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery, a first-in-the-nation law establishing a state agency that, among its key responsibilities, will advise on reparative justice programs for Black Americans. California's work on this important endeavor is just beginning.

However, because the full scope of the proposed tax exclusion is unknown, fiscal caution is warranted. The proposed exclusion for unspecified federal initiatives could be interpreted broadly, resulting in substantial fiscal uncertainty. Moreover, given the potentially significant General Fund implications, this measure should be considered as part of the annual budget process.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2218 without my signature.

This bill would establish a state policy to recognize and address the inequities inflicted upon all California Native American tribes regarding access to, and control over, water by state-sanctioned actions of termination, removal, and assimilation, and would require several state agencies to take a series of steps to implement this policy. The bill would also require disputes between a tribe and an agency over implementation of the policy to be brought before the Governor's Office of Tribal Affairs for mediation before the agency action is challenged in court.

I have long recognized the historical harms perpetrated against Native peoples and tribal governments in California, and my administration has worked tirelessly to address them. Under my administration, state agencies are directed to foster respectful, government-to-government dialogue with tribes above and beyond what existing law requires. For example, the Department of Water Resources convened a tribal advisory committee to ensure tribal perspectives are incorporated into updates to the California Water Plan. The State Water Resources Control Board also expressly incorporated Tribal Beneficial Uses into its long-term planning, which involves extensive engagement and collaboration with tribal nations to protect water resources important to tribes.

I also recognize, however, that California must streamline its water policies to protect our water supply from the reality of climate change. I am concerned this bill would undermine that imperative - adding new layers of process to duplicate work that my Administration already prioritizes. I am further concerned that the bill is not sufficiently clear about how its new policy should be implemented - or whether such implementation would disrupt important regulations, policies, permits, and grant criteria already moving forward. Adding new sources of uncertainty will delay our urgent fight to secure Californians' water supplies.

For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2367 without my signature.

This bill would require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the State Department of Developmental Services, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the State Department of Hospitals to provide specified staffing information for state-run health facilities. Required information would include data on vacancies, overtime, contracts, and the number of times each facility fell short of a required staffing minimum.

I appreciate the author's goal to give the public and state employees more information about the hiring and retention challenges facing state-run health facilities. However, this measure would create substantial operational and technological burdens for affected departments by requiring the creation of more complex reporting structures than currently exist, resulting in millions of dollars in new General Fund costs.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2465 without my signature.

This bill would disqualify large businesses with specified relationships to private prisons or immigration enforcement agencies from receiving state-provided loans, grants, or tax credits.

I agree with the author that more must be done to hold the Trump Administration accountable for the indiscriminate raids that have rounded up American citizens, people with legal status, and hardworking parents. The horrific tactics deployed by the federal Administration to instill fear and panic in our most vulnerable communities are a stain on our nation. Congress must act to hold the Trump Administration and culpable agents accountable, while also advancing reforms to ensure fair, humane, and lawful immigration enforcement that is transparent and accountable to the public.

While I appreciate the author's goal of ensuring that state dollars do not support these egregious federal actions, this bill's requirements are unclear and expand beyond the state intent. Disallowing state credits or other benefits could affect businesses providing legitimate goods and services to a range of agencies with responsibilities beyond the type if immigration enforcement that inspired this bill. Given the severity of the consequences, I am concerned that these unclear restrictions would interfere with otherwise lawful state programs and economic development activities.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2575 without my signature.

This bill would authorize a worker providing direct patient care to override the output of a clinical decision support system if, in the judgment of the worker acting within their scope of practice, an override is necessary to meet the applicable standard of care or comply with applicable law. In addition, the bill would prohibit employers from retaliating against workers providing direct patient care solely for relying on or overriding a clinical decision support system.

While I commend the author's commitment to ensure that artificial intelligence (AI) technologies deployed in clinical settings support safe patient care and preserve professional standards, including the ability of healthcare workers to exercise their professional judgment, it is essential that new laws in this area be practical and enforceable in their implementation to achieve their intended goals.

This bill's anti-retaliation provisions do not protect workers as intended. By prohibiting adverse actions based solely on the employee's override of, or reliance on, a clinical decision support system, this bill ties the Labor Commissioner's hands in establishing a violation - a higher bar than other retaliation protections, which simply prohibit action because of a protected activity.

More importantly, linking anti-retaliation protections to a scope-of-practice determination puts the Labor Commissioner in the position of adjudicating the standard of care for patients - something the Labor Commissioner does not have the medical expertise or skill to do. Without that requisite specialized knowledge, the Labor Commissioner cannot effectively and fairly enforce the bill's anti-retaliation provisions as the author intends.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2656 without my signature.

This bill would require public employers to provide a recognized employee organization with at least 45 days' written notice before developing, purchasing, or requiring the use of any generative artificial intelligence to perform a service that is within the scope of work of the job classification represented by the recognized employee organization.

I believe that employees should be made aware when employers introduce new technologies that significantly impact them. However, this measure would impose redundant administrative layers on public agencies and slow the deployment of even the most innocuous tools. Moreover, this issue is best resolved through the collective bargaining process, which allows employees and employers to tailor rules appropriate for their workplace.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2721 without my signature.

This bill requires a hotel operator with actual knowledge of a reservation by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on the premises to post a notice in a prominent and accessible place to hotel workers that discloses the possible presence of those officers on the premises, and, upon request by a guest at the time of check-in, requires disclosure of this possible presence during a guest's reservation.

Recent conduct by federal agencies captured by this bill is abhorrent, and hotel employees deserve basic information about their rights should they come into contact with federal immigration officers. To that end, I signed SB 294 in 2025, and the state has greatly expanded investments and resources to help Californians, including workers, understand their rights when interacting with immigration officers.

While the intent of the author is laudable, this bill introduces considerable consumer privacy and public safety concerns by compelling hotel operators to disclose this guest information not just to their employees, but to the public. Compelling the disclosure of guest records on demand is likely in conflict with longstanding state privacy laws, and would put hotel operators in the position of determining which law they should follow. Further, requiring this information to be shared with the public could create real public safety risks on hotel properties by encouraging demonstrations or other disruptive activity. We have seen even the most peaceful protests escalate unexpectedly, which could lead to real risk for workers, demonstrators, and other hotel guests.

I encourage the Legislature to revisit this issue next year in a manner that avoids these unintended consequences and instead focuses on promoting safety and transparency for hotel employees.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2739 without my signature.

This bill establishes the Water Affordability and System Stabilization Trust to theoretically generate ongoing funding for two programs - one to provide water rate assistance and another to provide infrastructure grants for community water systems.

Ensuring access to safe and affordable drinking water in California has been a top priority of my Administration over the last eight years. We have made tremendous progress in bringing clean, affordable drinking water to California's most disadvantaged communities - over one million people who lacked this most basic need now have it thanks to this work. That said, much more work remains, and I deeply appreciate the intent behind this proposal. But by creating a permanent program without identifying a sustainable, ongoing funding source, this bill - as well as SB 1125 - misses the mark. I encourage the Legislature to revisit this issue next year as part of the annual budget process, in order to balance the funding needed to support a proposal of this nature with other fiscal considerations.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 490 without my signature.

This bill would impose several new requirements on the Department of Health Care Services related to oversight of licensed alcohol and other drug (AOD) facilities, investigations of unlicensed AOD facilities, and reporting obligations concerning recovery residences.

I share the author's goal to improve the oversight of facilities serving those seeking treatment for alcohol or drug addiction. However, this bill goes beyond DHCS's regulatory responsibilities regarding the financial disclosures and money transfers for businesses it does not license or oversee. Additionally, the notification requirements in the bill would limit the flexibility needed to manage complex investigations. Finally, authorizing county involvement in unlicensed facility investigations would weaken the structure of the current statewide regulatory system, raising concerns about jurisdiction, confidentiality, training, and enforcement consistency.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 661 without my signature.

This bill would redirect state sales and use tax revenue attributable to jet fuel from the General Fund, Local Public Safety Fund, and Local Revenue Fund to the Aeronautics Account and establish a new formula for distributing those funds to airports and aviation-related programs as an alternative mechanism for complying with the Federal Aviation Administration's Airport Revenue Use Policy.

For more than a decade, California has worked with the FAA across successive federal administrations using an offsetting-expenditure methodology that the FAA has described as a "good overall methodology." Federal law does not prescribe the revenue-distribution formula established by this bill. California instead demonstrates compliance by documenting eligible airport and aviation expenditures that equal or exceed covered jet fuel tax revenue.

In March, the Department of Finance provided the FAA with information identifying nearly $2.3 billion in state expenditures supporting airports and aviation programs from 2020-21 through 2025-26 - more than 10 times the approximately $226 million in covered revenue collected during that period. The identified expenditures exceeded covered revenue in every fiscal year.

This measure would establish a permanent fiscal commitment that goes far beyond what federal law requires. It would redirect tens of millions of dollars annually from the General Fund and critical realignment funds that support local public safety, health, mental health, and social services. It is critical to evaluate a permanent new revenue commitment of this magnitude in the context of the substantial funding airports already receive through other state programs.

The bill also raises serious constitutional concerns. A portion of the revenue it would redirect is deposited into the Local Public Safety Fund pursuant to Proposition 172 and is constitutionally dedicated to local public-safety services. Redirecting that revenue to a statewide aviation account for purposes not limited to local public safety is inconsistent with that voter-enacted provision of California's Constitution and would diminish resources available for essential public safety services.

Any proposal to permanently redirect these revenues should be based on a demonstrated need for statutory change and considered through the annual budget process alongside other state and local priorities.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 903 without my signature.

This bill would prohibit the use of companion chatbots in the provision of psychotherapy services and would create restrictions on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) by licensed professionals who provide psychotherapy services.

I support the author's intent to establish guardrails for the use of AI in healthcare settings, and recently signed legislation to mitigate bias and ensure emerging technologies enhance, rather than undermine, the delivery of safe and effective care. When thoughtfully implemented, AI tools can give clinicians more time for meaningful interaction with patients, or provide capacity to see additional patients and increase access to care.

Unfortunately, this bill is overly broad and would drastically limit a clinician's use of tools that benefit the delivery of care today, including by requiring routine screening determinations to receive direct approval. Additionally, this bill's broad definition of "psychotherapy services" is poorly crafted and would capture general-purpose AI systems not even structured or deployed to deliver that care.

I encourage the author and stakeholders to revisit this issue next year to find a solution that ensures professional judgment is not replaced, while still allowing licensed professionals to use tools that enhance their delivery of quality care.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 938 without my signature.

This bill would provide that service as a sworn federal law enforcement officer whose primary duties consisted of enforcing of immigration laws, and the training for that service, does not qualify for a Regular Basic Course Waiver for peace officer training.

This measure appears responsive to the disturbing role of those who participate in the indiscriminate immigration raids that have rounded up American citizens, people with legal status, hardworking parents, and their children. Many horrific tactics deployed by the Trump administration coincided with a hiring surge and reduced training requirements that added 12,000 ICE officers and agents, more than doubling the size of the agency in just four months, and a rush to deploy these officers in major cities across the country.

Nonetheless, establishing a default prohibition on obtaining a basic training waiver for individuals enforcing immigration laws is a step too far. California peace officers are held to high standards, including personal conduct, and any officers who violate those standards will be held accountable. Officers who do not meet California's rigorous standards and training, including those added to ICE in the hiring surge with truncated training, are already unlikely to qualify for a waiver of the 680-hour basic training regimen.

In addition, immigration enforcement includes duties beyond interior enforcement actions in major U.S. cities, such as patrolling the Southern border, customs inspections at all ports of entry, and complex human trafficking investigations. Each of these roles may be primarily immigration enforcement, but treating each of them as ineligible for a basic training waiver may discourage empathetic, highly trained Americans, who otherwise meet our comprehensive standards and training requirements, from becoming California peace officers.

Earlier this year, I signed AB 1627 (Avila-Farias), which provides that immigration enforcement officers who engaged in serious misconduct during their tenure are disqualified from obtaining peace officer status. It is appropriate to focus on the behaviors of individual officers, rather than categorically eliminating an entire group from basic training waiver eligibility.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 944 without my signature.

This bill would remove the limitation that requires federal matching funds for the coverage of acupuncture services within Medi-Cal, making acupuncture a covered Medi-Cal benefit regardless of the availability of federal funds.

I appreciate the author's intent to ensure vulnerable populations continue to have access to acupuncture as a treatment option in the Medi-Cal program. However, should federal financial participation become unavailable for acupuncture services in the future, this bill would require the Department of Health Care Services to cover these services with state-only funds. This could create additional cost pressures on the State General Fund of approximately $10 million to $20 million annually.

In partnership with the Legislature this year, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1029 without my signature.

This bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), after the existing three-year claim period, to transfer unclaimed proceeds from vehicle lien sales to the State Controller's Office for administration under the Unclaimed Property Law.

I support the author's goal of helping vehicle owners recover excess proceeds that rightfully belong to them. However, this bill divides responsibility between two state agencies without establishing a clear process for verifying ownership, resolving claims, or making final eligibility determinations.

The DMV has already taken an important step to help vehicle owners recover these proceeds by establishing an online lookup tool. Future efforts should build upon that work by clearly defining how claims will be verified and administered before responsibility for the funds is transferred. As written, this measure would impose additional administrative costs on the Motor Vehicle Account resources that are needed to sustain core DMV and CHP operations, without demonstrating that more funds would reach their rightful owners.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1105 without my signature.

This bill would limit federal law enforcement's powers of arrest and prohibit California law enforcement agencies from entering into an interagency agreement unless the agreement is in writing and expressly provides that the California agency shall not engage in racial or identity profiling.

State law already prohibits racial profiling. While this bill seeks to ensure that current and future interagency agreements with federal law enforcement entities reaffirm that vital protection, a noble intent, I am deeply concerned that this bill will result in significant unintended consequences to critical public safety programs that unfortunately outweigh its merits.

Our state and local law enforcement depend on information-sharing and other federal agreements to accomplish critical public safety objectives, such as combatting drug and human trafficking, counterterrorism, addressing cybersecurity threats, and preparations for the Olympics in Los Angeles in 2028. By requiring unplanned changes to longstanding agreements, this bill, as just one example, could severely impact the Office of Emergency Services' ability to participate in joint operations or maintain essential federal partnerships and multi-jurisdictional efforts, such as the Joint Terrorism Task Force Agreements and Counterintelligence Task Forces.

These critical components of our public safety infrastructure must be allowed to continue unimpeded, and it would be unwise to jeopardize this apparatus for the purpose of restating existing protections in law.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1125 without my signature.

This bill establishes the Water Rate Assistance Program, administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board), and creates the Water Rate Assistance Fund to provide direct water bill assistance to low-income residential ratepayers.

Ensuring access to safe and affordable drinking water in California has been a top priority of my Administration over the last eight years. We have made tremendous progress in bringing clean, affordable drinking water to California's most disadvantaged communities - over one million people who lacked this most basic need now have it thanks to this work. That said, much more work remains, and I deeply appreciate the intent behind this proposal. But by creating a permanent program without identifying a sustainable, ongoing funding source, this bill - as well as AB 2739 - misses the mark. I encourage the Legislature to revisit this issue next year as part of the annual budget process, in order to balance the funding needed to support a proposal of this nature with other fiscal considerations.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1130 without my signature.

Among other changes to the law, this bill would make it a misdemeanor to operate a wearable recording device to capture sound or video of any other person in any area within a place of business where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Wearable technology is rapidly advancing, with articles that closely resemble ordinary eyewear and other accessories containing cameras, microphones, and artificial intelligence systems. These devices can record audio and video, process information in real time, and livestream to an audience. Reports of disturbing, invasive, and potentially dangerous behavior utilizing this technology have surfaced and demand a legislative response.

While I support the author's attempt to meet that demand, we must approach this issue with precision and care. This measure defines several terms too broadly or imprecisely. For example, the bill's definition of "wearable recording device" could include certain smartwatches or other worn devices widely used in public spaces and capable of recording, which could lead to significant confusion and unintended consequences.

Furthermore, although this bill seeks to prohibit visual and audio recording in a place of business where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, existing law already makes it a crime to use an electronic device to record a person in any area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, as well as the recording of confidential communications without consent.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely, Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 220 without my signature.

This bill would prohibit Medi-Cal managed care plans (MCPs) from creating or applying their own medical-necessity criteria for subacute care. If the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) issues a standard authorization or reauthorization form for pediatric or adult subacute services, Medi-Cal MCPs would be required to accept that form. The bill also would prohibit Medi-Cal MCPs from requiring a subsequent authorization upon a patient's return from a bed hold for acute hospitalization.

I appreciate the author's intent to ensure that patients who require subacute services receive the care and support they need. However, Medi-Cal MCPs are already obligated to apply subacute medical necessity criteria in alignment with Medi-Cal policy. In response to the introduction of this bill, DHCS published clarifying guidance in June of this year to Medi-Cal MCPs regarding their responsibilities related to subacute care services - without limiting a Medi-Cal MCP's ability to use utilization management or increasing costs to the General Fund. Therefore, this bill is no longer necessary.

For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 464 without my signature.

This bill tolls the statute of limitations for bringing an action for sexual assault against a public entity or public employee alleged to have occurred while the claimant is imprisoned.

Protecting incarcerated people from sexual abuse and ensuring that survivors have meaningful avenues to report misconduct and seek accountability is critically important. However, the bill's expanded tolling and claims provisions could expose the state to substantial and uncertain future liability without opportunity for the state to meaningfully investigate or rebut.

By extending the tolling limitation to the period of the claimant's imprisonment, this bill would result in a substantial increase in the number of lawsuits for which documents or evidence may not have been preserved to rebut an allegation. This, coupled with provisions that would exempt these types of claims from the claims presentation requirement, would put the state in a serious disadvantage in defending itself against potential allegations in which evidence is no longer available, or witness memories are no longer reliable.

I resolutely condemn any person who sexually assaults an incarcerated individual. Such individuals should be thoroughly investigated and be fully held accountable. I strongly urge the Legislature to reintroduce the provisions of this bill related to monitoring, notifications, reporting, and transfers following allegations of staff sexual assault.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 664 without my signature.

This bill authorizes the California Community Colleges (CCC) Chancellor to allow the Southwestern Community College District to offer four workforce-aligned baccalaureate degree programs outside of the existing CCC baccalaureate degree approval process.

Recently, I signed AB 2694 and SB 960 to create a statewide framework for community college districts to establish baccalaureate programs where there is demonstrated workforce demand and lack of capacity in regional universities.

This bill contains a provision that states it will not go into effect, even with my signature, if AB 2694 and SB 960 become law. To avoid confusion, I am vetoing this bill, but I encourage the Southwestern Community College District to continue to develop workforce-aligned baccalaureate-level programs needed in their region and utilize the new option afforded by the signing of AB 2694 and SB 960.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 760 without my signature.

This bill would enact a personal income and corporation tax exclusion for settlement payments related to the 2026 Garden Grove chemical leak.

I wholeheartedly support the intent of this bill. In 2022, I signed legislation that provided similar tax exclusions for settlement claims resulting from catastrophic wildfires that occurred in the preceding five years. In signing those bills, I stated that future measures, like this bill, should be included in the annual budget process, given the General Fund implications. This standard was subsequently applied to Assembly Bill 1973 (Lackey) and Senate Bill 542 (Dahle) in 2024. I strongly encourage the Legislature to include this proposal in next year's budget framework.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 788 without my signature.

This bill creates the Division of Female Programs and Services (Division) within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), which is solely responsible for female adult institutions and community facilities housing female offenders. The bill also makes changes to the Female Offender Reform Master Plan and creates an ombudsperson position solely assigned to adult female institutions.

I appreciate the author's recognition that incarcerated women face significant unique experiences that demand a different approach to program and policy development. However, this measure would considerably expand the size of the CDCR administration in ways that will duplicate existing work and create organizational dysfunction.

As the size of the state's incarcerated population has declined, my Administration has both closed institutions and worked to reduce the size of the administration of the CDCR. In 2025, the CDCR realigned its leadership structure to consolidate supervision of institutions by region, grouping both women's institutions into one region with the same Associate Director. This is already proving to be a significant step forward in bringing additional attention and resources to the women's institutions. In light of this, creating a new parallel Division within the CDCR to administer only two institutions is not advised. Further, the organizational changes required by this bill would result in increased costs to CDCR that were not considered in the context of this year's budget.

In partnership with the Legislature this year, my Administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 880 without my signature.

This bill would make various changes to the California Prompt Payment Act, including requiring state agencies to reimburse a nonprofit grantee's indirect costs, eliminating the cap on grants or contracts eligible for penalty payments, and narrowing the circumstances under which the state can dispute an invoice.

While I appreciate the vital role our nonprofit partners play in supporting our communities, I have vetoed nearly identical legislation in the past, concerned that the policy would allocate a significant amount of grant funding toward indirect costs, rather than project implementation and outcomes for California. These concerns remain, as this bill would create significant cost pressure on the state in order to balance services for Californians.

In partnership with the Legislature this year, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1039 without my signature.

This bill would require state agencies to provide advance payments for certain grants and contracts awarded to eligible nonprofit organizations and federally recognized tribes, and establish a statewide framework to administer and reconcile those payments.

While I appreciate the author's goal of reducing financial barriers for nonprofits and tribes, imposing a new statewide requirement would severely limit the state's oversight and protection of public funds. I signed AB 590 in 2023 and AB 3017 in 2024, which provided agencies with authority to process advance payments for these entities. It is important to ensure agencies maintain discretion to evaluate the financial and programmatic risks of each request for advance payments. I encourage the author and stakeholders to continue engaging with administering agencies to help ensure they are utilizing the existing authorization to the fullest extent possible when appropriate.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1054 without my signature.

This bill would establish a Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) framework for Bargaining Unit 5 patrol officers and Bargaining Unit 8 state peace officers and firefighters, as well as their associated supervisors and managers.

There may be merit to the creation of a voluntary DROP initiative to help address staffing challenges. However, a DROP could create significant long-term fiscal and administrative pressures on departments by altering employee tenures and retirement costs. Both the design and establishment of a DROP are more appropriately handled through the collective bargaining process.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1099 without my signature.

This bill requires that any child or youth in foster care referred for regional center services receive a case conference within an initial 15-day period and requires regional centers to complete a full assessment and eligibility determination within 60 days.

While I share the author's goal to ensure all children and youth in foster care receive timely access to the support and services they need, this bill would create significant, ongoing General Fund cost pressures to fund local assistance costs annually. Additionally, the Department of Developmental Services is already actively working to modernize and standardize intake procedures to ensure timely access to care for all Californians across the 21 regional centers pursuant to SB 138 (Chapter 192, Statutes of 2023).

In partnership with the Legislature this year, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1116 without my signature.

This bill requires the Secretary of State to develop a method to allow voting- eligible individuals who do not have a California driver's license or California identification card to register to vote electronically by January 1, 2029.

While I support the author's goal of removing unnecessary barriers for eligible voters to register to vote, this bill would result in one-time and ongoing costs in the millions of dollars not included in the 2026 Budget Act.

In partnership with the Legislature this year, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1542 without my signature.

This bill prohibits businesses that are subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) from selling or sharing a consumer's sensitive personal information.

While I support the author's goal of protecting the sensitive personal information of Californians, a categorical ban on sharing that information is a step too far. Under state law, companies are required to provide California consumers with the option to limit the sharing of such information, and I worry there may be unintended consequences if consumers are removed entirely from the decision process.

Further, because this bill would apply to businesses broadly, its implementation and enforcement would result in significant costs not included in the 2026 Budget Act. In partnership with the Legislature this year, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1562 without my signature.

This bill authorizes a county to adopt a system to randomly select individuals to serve as precinct board members. This bill also establishes standards and guidelines for a county election official to follow in developing and implementing this system.

I thank the author for his commitment to increasing civic engagement and participation in our democratic processes. If a county were to choose to implement a system consistent with this bill, it would require a tremendous amount of staff and financial resources. Given the unprecedented attacks on our election systems, I am concerned that while well-intentioned, this bill could inadvertently redirect resources away from local election officials administering free and fair elections.

For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1567 without my signature.

This bill would allow cities and counties, under specified conditions, to count units approved in congregate housing and residential care facilities for the elderly toward up to 15% of their regional housing needs allocation in any income category.

California needs more housing and supportive living options for older adults. My administration has supported senior housing, including through recent legislation providing development incentives tied to clear affordability standards. However, this bill would allow these facilities to count toward any income category without demonstrating that they serve households at that income level. As a result, local governments could receive credit toward their lower- income housing obligations for facilities unaffordable to lower-income residents, thereby overstating their progress in meeting those needs.

The bill also does not establish how beds and units should be counted or how duplicative credit would be prevented. These unresolved questions could allow local governments to use such facilities as a substitute for housing they would otherwise be required to plan for and approve, without demonstrating that the facilities serve the same housing needs.

The Department of Housing and Community Development has identified the treatment of senior housing and group quarters as an issue requiring a consistent statewide approach. Any reform should align the population included in the regional housing need with the housing credited toward meeting it and establish clear standards for affordability, classification, and counting. This bill does not provide that framework.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1647 without my signature.

This bill would codify existing case law to prohibit the use of a minor's statements relating to a transfer hearing from being used against the minor during subsequent proceedings.

This measure provides that it does not "restrict, expand, alter, or modify" decisions by the California Supreme Court that have been good law on this issue for more than 40 years. By its own terms, the bill is "declaratory of existing law" and therefore unnecessary.

For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1832 without my signature.

This bill would, upon appropriation, create the 211 Fund in the State Treasury for the 211 system and require the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) to allocate the funds to the California 211 Providers Network.

I appreciate the author's goal to create a funding mechanism for 211 providers across the state; however, this bill would result in millions of dollars in ongoing costs for Cal OES to implement, as well as tens of millions of dollars in ongoing cost pressures outside of the budget.

In partnership with the Legislature this year, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1891 without my signature.

This bill would require the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to dedicate a specified percentage of all grant funding appropriated to the Department to beneficial fire activities.

The state has nearly doubled the amount of prescribed burn treatments since 2021, treating roughly 200,000 acres annually. While I share the author's goal to increase the pace and scale of prescribed fire projects, this bill limits CAL FIRE's ability to prioritize limited state resources toward the projects and communities facing the greatest wildfire risks.

Funding decisions of this nature should be considered within the annual budget process, where they can be evaluated alongside the state's broader wildfire resilience priorities and considered among available resources.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1967 without my signature.

This bill would revise procedures and requirements for children and youth who wish to enter or reenter foster care.

The intent of this bill is laudable, and I deeply appreciate the author's effort to address unacceptable delays in assistance to vulnerable young adults who find themselves in need of renewed support from the child welfare system. However, this bill's proposed changes to the eligibility standards for reentry into foster care would actually exacerbate, rather than mitigate, these delays.

This bill would not only make it more difficult to determine if a youth meets the criteria to reenter foster care, but it would only allow reentry for youth who are receiving no support at all - a far higher bar to clear than is currently in place, and one which would turn away youth who are receiving very little support and still need foster care services.

I encourage the Legislature and interested stakeholders to work with county child welfare agencies and the California Department of Social Services to identify improvements to the foster care reentry process that will effectively promote our shared goal of seeing disadvantaged former foster youth receive the services and support that they need.

For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2247 without my signature.

This bill would establish the Trauma Healing and Resilience Investment for Victimized and Exposed Youth Act (T.H.R.I.V.E.) pilot program, to be administered by the State Department of Health Care Services in order to administer a program to pay for mental health and counseling services for youth survivors of gun violence.

I strongly support the author's commitment to this issue, and my administration continues to prioritize policies that increase assistance for individuals suffering from the effects of violence. This year's budget includes a $12.5 million augmentation for Trauma Recovery Centers, which offer immediate assistance after a traumatic event, as well as long-term therapeutic support, addressing the emotional, psychological, and practical needs of survivors.

This measure is duplicative of those efforts and creates a new, unfunded grant program not included in the 2026 Budget Act. In partnership with the Legislature this year, we have enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2253 without my signature.

This bill would require certain recycled-content documentation obligations to apply to all products making recycled-content claims, beginning in 2030.

I share the author's goal of ensuring that environmental marketing claims are accurate and that consumers can trust the products they buy. However, I am concerned that expanding these documentation requirements will unduly burden manufacturers and suppliers already facing economic headwinds caused by federal tariff and trade policy actions. Adding new, complex compliance requirements at this time risks compounding those pressures, with little benefit to consumers.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2282 without my signature.

This bill would require the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to issue a waiver to a publicly owned and operated general acute care hospital (GACH) collaborating with the Del Puerto Health Care District to allow the operation of a "rural emergency stabilization care unit," or a freestanding emergency department.

While I share the author's goal to provide emergency care access for rural communities, freestanding emergency departments have never legally operated in California. State law has long required that any emergency department be physically located within the hospital to ensure immediate access to necessary care. This bill would undermine patient safety by allowing the operation of an emergency department that lacks the statutorily required medical infrastructure of a GACH. In situations where every minute counts, evaluating and transferring patients to and from such a freestanding facility introduces unnecessary risks and delays, jeopardizing those with life-threatening conditions.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2314 without my signature.

This bill would propose new requirements for the Voluntary Temporary Transfer (VTT) of child care and development funds, allow a VTT request submission at any time during the fiscal year, and add optional fiscal management provisions for Alternative Payment Programs (APP).

I share the author's intent of ensuring families have access to reliable childcare. However, allowing an APP contractor to submit a VTT request at any time during the fiscal year conflicts with CDSS' existing statutory authority to set timelines for temporary transfers of funds. This compromises program integrity, putting contractor annual fiscal reports and audits at risk, and creates unnecessary administrative burdens for CDSS and contractors alike. Additionally, the bill's permissive language regarding the transfer of VTT funds out of a county conflicts with childcare and development funding requirements that were negotiated as part of the 2026 Budget.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2369 without my signature.

This bill makes energy-only resources eligible to satisfy long-term planning and procurement requirements under the Integrated Resource Plan and would designate energy-only resources as long lead-time resources for purposes of the California Independent System Operator's (CAISO) interconnection process.

Increasing the role of "energy-only" resources in state procurement and transmission planning is an important goal, and I appreciate the author's work on this issue. However, this bill is premature. The CAISO is currently studying the potential of energy-only resources as part of the 2026-2027 Transmission Planning Process, with results expected in November 2026. These results will inform the California Public Utilities Commission's development of the new Reliable and Clean Power Procurement Program, which seeks to align requirements of long- term procurement planning, resource adequacy, and other processes. This bill would predetermine the treatment of these energy-only resources before that essential work is complete.

For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2402 without my signature.

This bill would define a multiservice health club studio as a studio offering three or more specified amenities, and would remove the $4,400 contract limit in statute.

California has long regulated health studio service contracts to protect consumers from excessive fees and predatory sales practices. The statutory cap was adopted to limit consumer's exposure to substantial future payment obligations, and I do not believe it is in the best interest of Californians to remove this cap, which could price consumers out of these clubs altogether.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2502 without my signature.

This bill would define "drive" for purposes of certain driving under the influence, reckless driving, and vehicular manslaughter offenses when a vehicle is operating with specified driver-support technology.

I share the author's goal of ensuring that drivers cannot avoid responsibility for impaired driving by engaging partially automated technology. Unfortunately, this bill as drafted introduces significant uncertainties into DUI law, which could have the unintended consequence of making it more difficult to hold dangerous drivers accountable. By using undefined terms that are not in alignment with established standards, such as "driver support features," this bill could leave officers, prosecutors, and courts to resolve complex questions about a vehicle's software and capabilities before determining whether an impaired individual was legally driving.

Further, the incident cited as the impetus for this bill resulted in the driver being arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of DUI, demonstrating that existing law can already hold impaired drivers accountable when these systems are engaged.

I encourage the Legislature to revisit this important issue next year, and instead focus on a comprehensive framework that consistently addresses responsibility across vehicle technologies and traffic offenses, while preserving effective enforcement of the state's impaired-driving laws.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2510 without my signature.

This bill would expand eligibility for the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Family Reunification (FR) program by authorizing the program's cash aid period for longer than six months and no longer requiring that all children be removed from the home to be eligible for CalWORKs FR.

Last year, I vetoed a substantially similar bill because it resulted in ongoing costs that were not accounted for in the budget. That is still the case this year.

In partnership with the Legislature this year, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2526 without my signature.

This bill expands eligibility for the state's low-incidence disability special education funding program by adding pupils who take California's alternate assessments as determined by their Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) team.

In this year's state budget, together with the Legislature, we made historic investments in special education, increasing funding by 43% - a $2.4 billion ongoing increase overall - and including a $40 million increase in low- incidence disabilities funding. I am incredibly proud of this work, and appreciate the author's intent to further support our students with extensive support needs.

Unfortunately, this bill takes the wrong approach by expanding eligibility based on a determination by an IEP team - an imprecise measure of the cost and intensity of a student's education needs. This could create inappropriate fiscal incentives and have the unintended consequence of diluting funding for currently eligible students.

Further efforts to address the cost of serving students with extensive support needs must build on the investments made in the state budget, preserve dedicated support for students with low-incidence disabilities, and use a funding mechanism more directly aligned with demonstrated service needs and costs.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2543 without my signature.

This bill would require the Office of Emergency Services (OES), in consultation with the California Energy Commission and the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety, to produce, by July 1, 2028, a statewide assessment evaluating how emergency events affect Californians' access to fuel and transportation resources, identifying essential resources across emergency types, and recommending actions the state should take to ensure fuel and transportation availability during disasters.

I appreciate the author's intent to strengthen California's emergency preparedness and ensure continuity of critical mobility resources during emergencies. Maintaining access to fuel and transportation is essential to public health, safety, evacuation readiness, moving goods, and operation of critical infrastructure.

However, a study of this scale would require substantial new staffing and technical expertise and far longer timelines than those set in the bill, and would divert the OES from core public safety missions by assigning work more appropriately led by agencies with energy systems expertise such as the California Energy Commission.

My administration remains committed to ensuring that Californians have access to essential transportation and fuel resources during emergencies. We will continue pursuing approaches that strengthen resilience through existing statewide systems and partnerships.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2551 without my signature.

This bill requires the California State University (CSU), and requests the University of California (UC), to hold an open forum on a selected campus by December 31, 2027, to elicit student feedback regarding content-neutral time, place, and manner policies. It further requires that the institutions submit information on student code of conduct violations that occurred during, or as a result of, a protest on campus and a description of the discipline imposed on the student as a result of the specified student code of conduct violation.

Both the CSU and UC governing bodies have regularly scheduled meetings where the campus community can address their respective boards in a public forum. The CSU and UC also have established communication channels between their respective student associations and administrations at both the system and campus levels. Given the numerous ways that the campus community can already provide perspective to policy leaders, it is unnecessary to require an additional forum outside these established processes.

For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2565 without my signature.

AB 2565 would require the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to issue guidance clarifying Medi-Cal managed care plan (MCP) obligations to cover pharmacist services and would require DHCS to take corrective action in instances of noncompliance.

While I support the author's goal of ensuring our Medi-Cal MCPs receive appropriate guidance and enforcement actions from DHCS when reimbursing providers for pharmacist services, guidance is already underway to address the concerns driving this legislation, making this bill unnecessary. Initial guidance was published in September 2025, and a comprehensive all-plan letter to further clarify MCP pharmacist-services responsibilities will be released in the coming months. These efforts are part of DHCS's existing responsibilities and processes, which do not require additional statutory direction.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2571 without my signature.

This bill would require the Medi-Cal reimbursement rate for advanced practice pharmacist services to be at least 85% of the fee schedule for physician services, including Medication Therapy Management pharmacist services. The bill also would require the Department of Health Care Services to seek federal approval to recognize pharmacists as healthcare providers in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and Rural Health Clinics (RHCs) for reimbursement in the Medi- Cal program.

I appreciate the author's intent to improve access to advanced pharmacist services for Medi-Cal members, especially for those seeking care at FQHCs or RHCs. However, this bill would result in millions of dollars in ongoing, annual costs related to FQHC reimbursement, as well as millions in one-time costs to implement the required system changes, neither of which were accounted for in this year's budget.

In partnership with the Legislature this year, my administration enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2593 without my signature.

This bill would prohibit a supervisor, administrator, or employee of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) or the California Correctional Health Care Services (CCHCS) from interfering with or refusing to implement prescribed healthcare that results in substantial emotional distress or serious bodily injury.

While well-intended, I am concerned this bill could ultimately weaken the quality and accountability of patient care. In particular, this bill may directly conflict with the court-ordered healthcare system established under Plata v. Newsom and may cause challenges with the federal courts, risking backsliding in the significant progress made to fully delegate healthcare back to CDCR.

Further, this bill does not appear limited to CCHCS-employed providers and could potentially encompass healthcare recommendations from contractors, outside specialists, hospitals, or other community providers, creating uncertainty regarding either CDCR's or CCHCS's ability to independently evaluate outside treatment recommendations as they pertain to medical necessity. I am concerned about the potential liability tied to subsequent patient harm, as supervisors and clinicians may be reluctant to question or modify another provider's treatment decision even when doing so is part of their professional responsibilities or necessary to protect patient safety.

For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2717 without my signature.

This bill would extend through January 1, 2032, an exemption under the Outdoor Advertising Act allowing certain professional sports arenas built or under construction by January 1, 2027, to receive approval for new advertising displays that would otherwise be prohibited under state law.

I recognize that the revenue generated by these displays can support sports and entertainment venues and provide local economic benefits. However, I vetoed a similar measure in 2022 after the Federal Highway Administration notified Caltrans that existing arena billboards did not comply with federal law and that exemptions in state law did not provide the department with the ability to maintain effective control of outdoor advertising.

Those compliance risks remain, and state exemptions do not relieve California of its federal obligations. Failure to maintain effective control of outdoor advertising could jeopardize 10% of the state's federal highway funding - currently estimated at up to $580 million annually.

As stated in my 2022 veto message, I continue to support modernizing federal requirements and encourage proponents of this legislation to pursue those changes at the federal level.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2770 without my signature.

This bill would require the state to quitclaim the state-owned land within San Pasqual Battlefield State Historic Park.

Under my administration, the Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks) has worked with tribal governments to foster government-to-government coordination and co-management of natural lands within California tribes' ancestral lands. Such arrangements now cover more than half of State Parks land. Additionally, my administration facilitated the return of over 100,000 acres of land to tribes.

While I share the author's goal of further advancing ancestral land return, I am mindful of the need to approach that important work systemically - by building processes that are transparent and fair to all interested parties. I am concerned that piecemeal measures, like this bill, could undermine those values.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 608 without my signature.

This bill requires school-based health centers to make condoms available and easily accessible to students in grades 7 to 12 and requires local educational agencies to allow condoms to be made available during specified educational or public health programs. It also prohibits retail establishments from refusing to provide nonprescription contraception to a person solely on the basis of age.

The implementation decisions required by this legislation are best made locally, in consultation with educators, health professionals, students, parents, families, and based on the needs and circumstances of each community.

For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 872 without my signature.

This bill establishes the Delta Levees and Canal Subsidence Fund (Fund) to support multi-benefit levee projects and capital improvements to water conveyance systems impacted by subsidence in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and requires the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy (Conservancy) to establish an advisory committee to make recommendations for projects to be supported by the Fund.

In this year's budget, in partnership with the Legislature, we allocated $68 million to mitigate subsidence on the state's aqueducts and canals, $75 million for projects that repair levees and improve flood protection and climate resiliency in the Delta, $20.2 million to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy to reduce the risks of climate change impacts on communities, fish and wildlife, and natural resources, and $7.9 million to pay for mitigation costs associated with the Delta levee projects.

This bill would establish parameters for spending revenue from a Fund that did not receive resources in this year's budget. While well-intentioned, this bill is unnecessary.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bills 877 and 878 without my signature.

These two bills codify existing technical regulations and guidance adopted by the California Department of Insurance to clarify definitions of claim documents and specify certain timeframes for payment of claims to policyholders.

Over the last few years, the California Department of Insurance adopted several landmark regulations, such as the Sustainable Insurance Strategy and the Intervenor and Administrative Hearing Bureau Fairness and Accountability rulemaking package, both of which signify reforms decades in the making. Once fully implemented, these new processes will greatly improve access to and availability of insurance throughout California.

These bills, however, seek to codify portions of unrelated, existing regulations that are unnecessary at this time.

For this reason, I am unable to sign these bills.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bills 877 and 878 without my signature.

These two bills codify existing technical regulations and guidance adopted by the California Department of Insurance to clarify definitions of claim documents and specify certain timeframes for payment of claims to policyholders.

Over the last few years, the California Department of Insurance adopted several landmark regulations, such as the Sustainable Insurance Strategy and the Intervenor and Administrative Hearing Bureau Fairness and Accountability rulemaking package, both of which signify reforms decades in the making. Once fully implemented, these new processes will greatly improve access to and availability of insurance throughout California.

These bills, however, seek to codify portions of unrelated, existing regulations that are unnecessary at this time.

For this reason, I am unable to sign these bills.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 891 without my signature.

This bill would establish the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons (MMIP) Justice Program within the Department of Justice to fund and support law enforcement agencies' investigatory activities.

The MMIP crisis is a worldwide issue, recognized in several nations across the globe. As the state with the largest American Indian and Alaska Native population, exceeding 700,000 people, California has taken multiple actions to respond to this urgent public safety and human rights crisis. I have signed numerous bills, including legislation creating the "Feather Alert," a statewide emergency notification system for missing Indigenous people, and, in the 2022 Budget Act, established the MMIP Grant Program to provide California tribal nations with funding to investigate, track, and prevent cases involving missing and murdered Indigenous individuals.

Since its inception, the state has allocated tens of millions of dollars to the MMIP Grant Program and, in this year's budget, we made that funding permanent with a $15 million ongoing allocation. This historic investment reflects the need for sustained action - and California's continued commitment - to confront the disproportionate violence affecting Native communities. While well-intentioned, this bill disregards those efforts and creates a new, unfunded program that is duplicative of the work already underway.

I am confident that with ongoing resources, California will continue to work closely with tribes across the state to develop strategies to support tribal work and investigations to solve and prevent MMIP cases, therefore making this bill unnecessary.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1037 without my signature.

This bill requires health plans and insurers to provide additional information in premium rate filings submitted to the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) and the Department of Insurance (CDI), including whether annual rate growth will exceed cost targets established by the Office of Health Care Affordability (OHCA).

In 2022, in partnership with the Legislature, my administration established OHCA, a first-of-its-kind effort in California to rein in rising healthcare costs, provide relief to consumers, and improve overall quality of care. In 2024, OHCA approved a cost growth target that applies system-wide to all healthcare entities, including hospitals, health plans, and large physician organizations. OHCA's work is ongoing, and there has not been sufficient time for enforcement or to determine the impact of the statewide cost targets.

This bill approach is premature, but the intention to address rising healthcare costs could not be more timely. As such, I am directing the DMHC and OHCA, and requesting CDI, to continue to work collaboratively to ensure that health plans' efforts to comply with the statewide cost target are considered in the premium rate review process under existing law.

For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1173 without my signature.

This bill would authorize a criminal court to instruct a jury and convict on a "lesser-related offense" of the defendant's choosing, over the objection of the prosecutor.

The propriety of the lesser-related offense rule contemplated by this bill was considered and rejected by the California Supreme Court more than 25 years ago in People v. Birks (1998) 19 Cal.4th 108. The Court explained that the lesser-related offense rule "can be unfair to the prosecution," that it "actually promotes inaccurate fact-finding," and that it may well violate the Constitution's separation of powers clause. These concerns are equally valid today, and I do not support upsetting the balance struck by the California Supreme Court in the Birks decision.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1194 without my signature.

This bill establishes the Immigration Legal Fellowship Project (ILFP) within the California Department of Social Services (CDSS).

I share the author's commitment to ensure California maintains the capacity to provide legal representation for vulnerable immigrant communities as arrests and detentions rise. To that end, this year's budget doubled the state funding provided to immigration-related legal services - allocating nearly $150 million dollars dedicated to this important work - and included $7.5 million for ILFP, the very project envisioned by this bill. This allocation also includes the flexibility to fund additional fellows to meet regional needs and provides $34.3 million in direct allocations to nonprofit organizations that provide immigration services. As such, this bill, which creates an unfunded program on top of this work, is duplicative and unnecessary.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1240 without my signature.

This bill would establish the Office of Nonprofit Empowerment within the Government Operations Agency to oversee and coordinate state-level policies and strategies to support California's nonprofit organizations. This bill would also establish the Nonprofit Empowerment Fund in the State Treasury to carry out the purposes of the bill in support of the office.

I appreciate the author's goal of creating a dedicated venue to advance policies and conversations on how to support our nonprofit partners; however, the establishment and continued operation of this new office would result in millions of dollars of costs outside of the budget process.

In partnership with the Legislature this year, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1340 without my signature.

This bill would require the small business liaison for each state agency to annually submit an inventory of all agency contracts and subcontracts involving small businesses, including total contract values and total payments made, to the Office of the Small Business Advocate (OSBA). This bill also requires OSBA to post that information on its website.

I support the author's goal to create greater consistency in statewide reporting as agencies meet small business participation requirements in state contracting. However, this bill's proposed manual review and collection requirement, when applied across all agencies that execute procurement contracts, would result in additional spending in the tens of millions of dollars annually.

In partnership with the Legislature this year, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 306 without my signature.

This bill would expand the California Building Standards Commission's authority to hear appeals of certain local building code decisions, including requests to use alternative materials or construction methods, and to interpret provisions it has adopted.

My administration worked extensively with the Legislature to make California's building standards more predictable and efficient. Last year's state budget incorporated provisions from an earlier iteration of this measure that generally paused new residential building standards until mid-2031, providing greater regulatory certainty and helping contain construction costs.

I thank the author for their partnership and continued commitment to this important issue. However, this bill does not clearly explain how the Commission's new appeals pathway would interact with the existing processes administered by the California Energy Commission, the State Historical Building Safety Board, and the Office of the State Fire Marshal.

These agencies already administer specialized energy, fire, and life-safety standards, resolve disputes arising from local decisions, and evaluate alternative methods of compliance. Allowing the same issues to be presented to the Building Standards Commission without specifying which agency has final authority could result in duplicative proceedings, inconsistent interpretations, and project delays. These risks are particularly concerning for housing projects, where uncertainty over applicable building standards can delay approvals, disrupt financing, increase construction costs, and ultimately prevent urgently needed homes from being built. The new process would also impose significant ongoing costs without dedicated funding.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 539 without my signature.

This bill would require approved prior authorizations for healthcare services requested by in-network providers to remain valid for at least one year, or for the period requested by the treating provider if less than one year.

While I appreciate the author's intent to reduce administrative burdens, this bill would apply prior authorizations too broadly, limiting health plans' ability to reassess medical necessity as a member's condition changes.

This could result in overutilization, inappropriate continuation of services, and unnecessary costs. The bill also conflicts with existing clinical guidelines and utilization management controls, undermining program integrity and flexibility to ensure that care remains appropriate for patients.

For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 605 without my signature.

This bill would establish the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force, composed of employer and employee organization representatives, to report to the Legislature by June 1, 2029, on strategies for employee retention prior to refinery closures.

I support the author's intent to identify strategies to protect and support workers displaced by refinery closures, and the state needs a real, long-term plan. This bill, however, establishes a task force supported by staff from the Division of Occupational Safety and Health's Process Safety Management Unit, which primarily inspects refineries and chemical plants that handle large quantities of toxic and flammable materials. This Unit is also charged with enforcing health and safety standards intended to prevent catastrophic explosions, fires, and releases of dangerous chemicals.

I am concerned that diverting these specialized inspectors to support the task force envisioned by this bill - without any identified resources - will diminish their ability to focus on holding refineries accountable for meeting required health and safety standards, potentially putting refinery workers at greater risk.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 713 without my signature.

This bill prohibits California public universities, beginning January 6, 2027, from disqualifying a student from employment for failing to provide proof of federal employment authorization.

Two years ago, I vetoed a nearly identical bill and, unfortunately, my concerns about its unintended consequences have only grown. The current federal government has shown it is quick to wreak destruction for political spectacle - attacking California's public higher education institutions and terrorizing immigrant communities, including students, with reckless disregard for consequences and a desire for chaos.

California remains committed to economic opportunity and tuition affordability for all students, including leading efforts to support undocumented students who face growing barriers and threats under this cruel federal administration. But given the gravity of this bill's consequences - including potential criminal and civil liability for state employees - the federal courts must resolve the legality of the novel legal theory behind this legislation before we proceed. Seeking declaratory relief in federal court would provide such clarity.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 917 without my signature.

This bill requires certificated employees in school districts and county offices of education with less than 250 average daily attendance to be granted permanent status after two years of employment and reelection for a third year, consistent with employees in larger local educational agencies. The bill also allows service as an instructor in certain regional occupational centers or programs (ROC/P) to count toward permanent status in a school district and makes conforming changes to employment, dismissal, suspension, reassignment, and contract provisions.

This bill, while laudable in its intent, eliminates many of the flexibilities established for small school districts in light of the unique circumstances. I am concerned this could have the unintended consequence of undermining the educational entity's ability to best meet the needs of its students - especially since permanency is an issue that can be addressed through the collective bargaining process. Further, by limiting a ROC/P's ability to respond nimbly to changing regional workforce needs, this bill is inconsistent with my administration's focus on ensuring the state's education and workforce training programs are aligned with workforce demands.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1328 without my signature.

This bill would require the Department of Health Care Services to adjust the rates for nonemergency medical transportation to be reimbursed at 80% of the Medicare Ambulance Fee Schedule, starting January 1, 2027.

While I appreciate the author's intent to support Medi-Cal members' access to

nonemergency transportation services, mandating rate increases for ground ambulance services could create inappropriate incentives to utilize ambulance transport over other more appropriate and available modes of nonemergency transportation. Additionally, the rate increases required by this bill would have an annual General Fund impact in the tens of millions of dollars.

In partnership with the Legislature this year, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1383 without my signature.

This bill would modify the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) to prospectively establish a new pensionable compensation limit for all members and reduce the benefit age factor to 55 for safety members. This bill would also authorize a new safety formula that could be agreed to in the collective bargaining process.

This measure would partially reverse some of PEPRA's reforms and significantly increase state and local government costs. Moreover, by widening the retirement benefit gap between safety members and non-safety members, this measure invites future changes that would expose our retirement system to additional risk.

PEPRA was a necessary reform born of a crisis exacerbated by past policy decisions. I still recall - before PEPRA's passage in 2012 - the alarming forecasts, the fierce criticism of public employees, and the growing pressure to eliminate defined benefit plans altogether. This is an era of California history I do not want to repeat. I fear that undoing PEPRA's reforms, even partially, risks us doing exactly that.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1595 without my signature.

This bill would substantially expand circumstances in which a person who has been convicted of a criminal offense may file petitions for writs of habeas corpus.

Due to the expanded pleading standards, this bill will result in additional workload costs to various state and local entities including the Department of Justice, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of State Hospitals, and local public defender and district attorney offices. Additionally, the bill would add to the trial courts' caseload, potentially causing court backlogs and creating pressure on the General Fund to handle the increased caseload.

In partnership with the Legislature this year, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1602 without my signature.

This bill establishes a statewide Child Welfare Disaster Response Fund and a Child Welfare Disaster Response Program to support foster children and youth and their caregivers during a disaster.

While I share the author's goal to support foster children and youth and their caregivers, this bill would create a new, unfunded grant program. Last year I vetoed an identical bill, noting that without an identified funding source, it would have created significant, ongoing General Fund cost pressures to fund local assistance costs annually. That is still the case.

For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1761 without my signature.

This bill would require the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to disclose any data, including market-sensitive data, to load-serving entities and advocacy organizations concurrent with any proposal or analysis related to the Power Charge Indifference Account.

I am concerned that this legislation will result in improper dissemination of market-sensitive information and benefit a limited subset of market participants.

Fortunately, there are already processes in place at the CPUC to make applicable data available to the public and market participants using existing, approved confidentiality procedures to review and evaluate the accuracy of all costs associated with contracts, utility-owned generation, and all other resources or value included in charges derived from these costs. The CPUC has worked with load serving entities to develop a process to access the requested information with proper guardrails to ensure confidentiality.

For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2122 without my signature.

This bill would, among other things, eliminate the misdemeanor offense for failing to appear in court on a Vehicle Code infraction and prohibit the issuance of a bench warrant for failing to appear in court for such an infraction.

I share the author's commitment to mitigate disparate punishment for minor offenses against low-income residents of the state. Throughout my administration, I have sought to tackle the issue of burdensome fines, fees, and assessments that disproportionately drag low-income individuals deeper into debt - signing numerous bills that repeal or reduce dozens of criminal fines and fees and discharging nearly $7 billion in debt. In doing so, I strived to provide relief where possible, while also maintaining public safety. This bill, however, does not appropriately balance those twin goals.

Unsafe speed accounted for over 100,000 vehicle crashes last year, and the California Highway Patrol issued nearly 500,000 speeding citations. With few exceptions, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) does not receive information that a person has committed a vehicle offense, including most speeding infractions, until the matter is adjudicated in court. By eliminating misdemeanor liability and arrest authority for failures to appear, this bill could cause additional delays in the court processing of unsafe driving violations and communication of those violations to the DMV.

This year, the State Auditor conducted an audit to review the steps that superior courts and the DMV take to process a conviction. With findings and recommendations from the State Auditor on this issue forthcoming, it would be unwise to cause further delays in the processing of moving violations, which would result in more unsafe drivers on our roads.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2142 without my signature.

This bill creates a rebuttable presumption that a school district or community college district must replace a short-term employee position with a position in the classified service if specified conditions are met.

I support the author's goal of ensuring "short-term" employees are not hired for multiple years without providing them the benefits of permanent employment. However, by establishing a confusing calculation of thresholds and service days in statute, combined with a complex legal standard, this bill introduces significant implementation challenges for school and college officials. Further, this bill creates hundreds of millions of dollars in additional cost pressures and should be considered within the broader context of the annual state budget process.

In partnership with the Legislature this year, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2164 without my signature.

This bill would prohibit future governors from recognizing a request for extradition of a person subject to criminal liability based on allegations that the person engaged in specified healthcare activities.

I am proud of the work done in partnership with the Legislature over the last eight years to produce numerous, important policies protecting the right of access to health care in this state. Together, we have passed into law the nation's strongest protections for people seeking and providing those services, including expanding privacy protections for providers, enacting safeguards against the enforcement of other states' laws that penalize individuals for obtaining care, and authorizing a party aggrieved by a violation of the Reproductive Privacy Act to bring a civil action against an offending state actor.

While I share the author's views on the importance of protecting these important healthcare services, extradition is an exclusively executive function. When discretionary, that discretion is appropriately placed with the Governor. I am troubled by the precedent that would be set if an outgoing administration agreed with the Legislature to erode the executive authority of an incoming Governor based on their shared policy preferences, regardless of how righteous and well-intended those actions may be.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2230 without my signature.

This bill would prohibit employees of a child daycare facility licensed by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) from providing voluntary consent to a law enforcement officer to enter a nonpublic area of the facility unless presented with valid documentation.

Immigration enforcement actions, coupled with anti-immigrant online rhetoric targeting providers, have created a climate of fear for childcare providers, and for the children and families for whom they provide care. In recognition of this cruel reality, I signed legislation last year (AB 495, Rodriguez) to strengthen protections, increase preparedness, and provide clear guidance for caregivers and daycare facilities. These resources are helping providers today become knowledgeable about how to respond to an immigration enforcement action.

While I appreciate the author's intent to further protect our children and providers, this bill takes the wrong approach. By broadly prohibiting employees of a licensed child daycare facility from providing voluntary consent to any law enforcement officer, this bill places an undue burden on providers to validate the legality of the officer's action or verify specific legal documents, likely in the middle of a frightening and overwhelming experience.

Further, this bill may have the unintended effect of hindering normal licensing investigation and enforcement operations. CDSS is responsible for protecting the health and safety of children in its licensed facilities and often works with law enforcement agencies to fulfill that duty. There could be a myriad of legitimate reasons for law enforcement to visit a facility completely unrelated to immigration enforcement, and this bill unnecessarily complicates those situations.

For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2337 without my signature.

This bill adds theft committed by a peace officer under color of authority to the definition of "serious misconduct" for purposes of ineligibility for, or revocation of, peace officer certification.

While I support the author's goal of holding peace officers accountable for illicit actions, this bill is duplicative of existing law. Serious misconduct is already defined as inclusive of, but not limited to, "abuse of power," "dishonesty," and "acts that violate the law and are sufficiently egregious or repeated as to be inconsistent with a peace officer's obligation to uphold the law or respect the rights of members of the public." The existing definition of serious misconduct therefore already encompasses the use of peace officer authority to commit theft. Absent reports to the contrary, further particularizing of the definition is unnecessary and may be interpreted to suggest that other unspecified violations are not actionable.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2439 without my signature.

This bill would generally prohibit homeowners associations from restricting a member's use of public streets, establish new notification requirements when the recipient of assessment payments changes, and expand liability for specified violations of assessment-collection procedures.

I support protecting homeowners from improper collection practices and ensuring they know where to make their assessment payments. However, this bill would make an association liable for "any costs" a homeowner incurs because the association failed to follow assessment-collection procedures. The bill neither defines nor limits those costs. This broad standard could create uncertainty, invite disputes and litigation, and impose costs on associations and their members disproportionate to the underlying violation.

The bill also makes the board liable for a $1,000 civil penalty when an association commits a third specified notice violation within five years. Existing law generally places this type of liability on the association. The bill does not explain how liability against "the board" would operate or how it would apply when board membership changes between violations. This uncertainty could discourage residents from volunteering to serve and make effective association governance more difficult.

In addition, the bill requires certificates of mailing and, in certain circumstances, certified mail with a return receipt. These prescriptive requirements could impose substantial administrative costs that would ultimately be passed on to homeowners.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2635 without my signature.

This bill requires local air districts to implement a commercial voucher program to support the transition to zero-emission small off-road equipment.

Small off-road engines are a significant source of harmful air pollution, particularly in communities already burdened by poor air quality. While I share the author's goal of helping marginalized communities transition to zero-emission equipment, this bill duplicates existing state and local air district programs. Under my administration, in partnership with the Legislature, we provided $30 million to incentivize the purchase of nearly 30,000 pieces of zero-emission landscape equipment. Additionally, zero-emission landscape equipment is now widely available from many manufacturers, which will further increase market competition.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 632 without my signature.

This bill expands eligibility to qualify for a California College Promise fee waiver by reducing the minimum unit requirement from 12 to 9 units.

While expanding eligibility for this program is a laudable goal, this bill would create significant cost pressure, into the tens of millions of dollars annually, and was not included in the 2026 Budget Act.

In partnership with the Legislature this year, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 675 without my signature.

This bill would restructure the governing board of the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and impose new reporting and planning duties.

The Imperial County APCD plays a critical role in improving air quality and protecting public health in a county disproportionately impacted by severe air quality challenges. While increasing representation and transparency on governing boards is important work, change of this magnitude requires sufficient support and resources.

I am concerned that this bill would impose significant new financial obligations on the County, its cities, and ultimately its residents, without identifying a funding source to meet them.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 865 without my signature.

This bill would establish a $20 million grant program, contingent upon a future appropriation, for eligible independent live music event promoters.

I support the author's goal of improving the viability of live music festivals. However, this measure would impose significant cost pressures on the General Fund and should be considered during the annual budget process.

In partnership with the Legislature, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1064 without my signature.

This bill would reduce required testing under the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Clean Truck Check program from semiannual to annual for certain heavy-duty vehicles.

I appreciate the author's intent to ease compliance costs for low-mileage fleets. However, Clean Truck Check is a critical measure for reducing vehicle emissions. Reduced testing would allow malfunctioning emissions systems to go undetected for extended periods, worsening air quality and undermining health protections for communities along freight corridors.

Due to illegal actions by the federal government, California faces a 165-ton-per-day NOx deficit. Weakening the Clean Truck Check risks the state's ability to meet federal attainment obligations and jeopardizes access to tens of billions of dollars in federal transportation funding.

Clean Truck Check already offers flexible, low-burden compliance pathways - including mobile testing, self-credentialing, and telematics-based automated reporting - that address the concerns this bill seeks to confront without compromising Californians' ability to breathe cleaner air.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1180 without my signature.

This bill would specify the criteria for programs, projects, and initiatives to be funded by the California Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund (Fund) established under the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (Act), clarify entities eligible for funding, and impose certain requirements on agencies administering the Fund.

I commend the author's commitment to the creation of a circular economy and his desire to ensure that the Fund's resources reach the communities most burdened by plastic pollution.

However, my administration is working through the complex, foundational work of implementing the Act, including its core producer responsibility requirements and ensuring compliance clarity for the regulated community. Much of the work to ensure the funding reaches the most appropriate entities is already underway, and this bill risks complicating implementation of both the Act and the Fund.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1238 without my signature.

This bill would make several changes to the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, which governs homeowners associations (HOAs), including establishing a duty of care owed by an HOA's managing agent to both the association and its individual members.

A managing agent acts on behalf of the association, while the association owes duties to its members. Establishing a duty owed to both the association and its individual members could create conflicting obligations when a member's interests diverge from those of the community as a whole. The resulting uncertainty could invite litigation, the costs of which homeowners would ultimately bear.

This provision also leaves unclear how the new statutory duty of care would interact with a managing agent's existing obligations to the association under common law.

Several of the bill's remaining provisions overlap with existing requirements governing reserve planning and homeowners' access to association records, limiting their added benefit.

California should improve transparency and accountability in homeowners associations without creating legal uncertainty that could invite litigation and increase costs for homeowners.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1272 without my signature.

This bill would specify that the reasonable period of time to correct a violation related to building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural or zoning issues that do not create an immediate danger to health or safety is no less than six months. This measure would also require a local agency to extend this period by another six months upon a showing of a good-faith effort to correct or remedy the violation.

I am sympathetic to the author's goal of giving new property owners ample time to fix problems undisclosed by the sellers. However, local officials should retain discretion in how they carry out code enforcement. This measure would tie their hands with a one-size-fits-all approach, leading to increased local government costs and unnecessary delays.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 353 without my signature.

This bill would require the Governor to appoint an Inspector General of the Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to serve a six-year term and transfer the existing internal auditing functions to the new Inspector General.

I understand the author's ambition to bring more oversight to the decisions made at, and programs administered by, the CPUC. However, this bill contains several flaws. Most significantly, it would compromise the Public Advocates Office's (Office) role as a robust advocate before the CPUC. By granting existing agency staff access to internal deliberations, work products, and litigation strategies, this measure would undermine the independence of the Office. Further, a reorganization of the CPUC at the scale envisioned by this bill would have significant fixed and operational costs in the tens of millions of dollars that are not included in this year's budget.

In partnership with the Legislature this year, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For this reason, I am unable to sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning AB 1049 without my signature.

This bill exempts the California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) from federal sponsor-deeming rules and exemptions so that a sponsor's income and resources are no longer attributed to a sponsored immigrant applicant.

I applaud the author's commitment to removing barriers for individuals seeking access to food assistance. Unfortunately, the changes proposed by this bill would create a significant inconsistency between the federally funded CalFresh program and the state-funded CFAP program. Both programs utilize the same application and follow the same sponsor deeming requirements. I am reluctant to fundamentally alter rules that could lead to apparent discrepancies that could be weaponized by the current federal administration. We have already witnessed their limitless cruelty in denying millions of American families food assistance with little to no regard.

There are existing exemptions to sponsor deeming that are aligned with the intent of this bill. I am directing the Department of Social Services to continue to work with counties and trusted community messengers to support awareness of these exemptions, alongside other efforts to connect Californians to food benefits.

For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1547 without my signature.

This bill, an urgency measure, requires the University of California (UC) to complete a feasibility study to establish a UC medical school branch campus in Kern County by January 1, 2028.

I am unable to sign this bill because it requires significant General Fund resources that are not included in the 2026 Budget Act. Additionally, in 2024, I signed AB 2357 (Bains), which established the UC Kern County Medical Education Endowment Fund to support the operating costs associated with establishing a UC Medical School in Kern County. That bill specified the endowment funds could be used to conduct a feasibility study.

In partnership with the Legislature this year, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1591 without my signature.

This bill requires the Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI) to establish and administer the California Podiatric Pipeline Program.

While well-intentioned, this bill duplicates existing efforts. HCAI already administers workforce pathway programs that offer exposure to health professions, including podiatric medicine. Additionally, the two special funds referenced in the bill are already allocated for other purposes and thus cannot support this program, and no additional funds were made available for this specific purpose in this year's final budget agreement.

In partnership with the Legislature this year, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1722 without my signature.

This bill would prohibit the imposition of civil or criminal penalties on an individual who â??takesâ?? a species listed, or a candidate for listing, under the California Endangered Species Act if the individual acted in self-defense or in defense of another individual to protect against immediate bodily harm.

Defending oneself from immediate bodily harm is a fundamental right. California law already protects against penalties for taking endangered species if the take occurred to protect oneself or another person. This bill duplicates these protections while creating confusion about the applicable standard for invoking this type of defense.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1729 without my signature.

This bill would require a state agency to provide a detailed written justification to the agency's employees if the agency's unique operational needs and programmatic mission require employees to report to the workplace. This measure would also require each state agency to decennially update its telework program.

I deeply admire our state workforce's dedication to public service and all that they achieve on behalf of the people of California. While I fundamentally believe in-person collaboration is an essential part of a productive and effective workplace, the state's existing telework policy includes a process for departments to consider exemptions on a case-by-case basis. This measure, by limiting departmental flexibility and encouraging telework to be the default work arrangement, takes the state's telework policy in the wrong direction.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly / Senate:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1882 without my signature.

This bill would establish the Safe Delivery Fund Pilot Program within the Department of Healthcare Access and Information (HCAI) to provide hospitals with funding to offset specified uncompensated standby costs.

I share the author's goal of preserving access to care in geographically isolated communities, where hospitals often face financial gaps. In this year's budget, we made unprecedented investments into our hospital system - including $90 million in grant funding to financially distressed hospitals, with authority to augment this funding by an additional $50 million, $250 million dollars for public hospitals, and $10 million dollars to stand up a new healthcare stability unit within HCAI to better assist hospitals with difficult financial situations.

This bill, while well-intentioned, does not draw from any of these budget investments and instead enacts a new, complex, and unfunded hospital reimbursement program. Further, this bill would require significant technical, operational, and reporting responsibilities that would inject unnecessary bureaucratic complexity and be costly to implement.

For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1889 without my signature.

This measure would authorize a court to issue a protective order, at the time of sentencing, preventing a defendant from contacting a victim in specified cases for up to one year after the defendant is released from state prison or county jail.

While well-intentioned, it is unclear whether this bill can be implemented effectively. Many factors can trigger recalculations of an incarcerated person's release date, including changes in workgroup assignments, program credit earnings, credit losses or restorations, and modifications to sentencing terms or case credits. Any one of these factors could change when an incarcerated person is released, but they are unknowable at the time of sentencing, when the court issues the protective order. This will result in inaccurate or incomplete information being entered into the electronic systems that law enforcement rely on to determine whether a particular individual is subject to such an order. Tying a protective order to the date of release requires information that will simply not be available to the court, creating confusion on the part of officers and victims alike. While I support the author's attempt to ensure victims are adequately protected, additional work is needed to allow for proper implementation of this measure.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1894 without my signature.

This bill would prohibit a public agency from denying imported water for groundwater replenishment due to the presence of an invasive mussel.

In response to the detection of golden mussels in October 2024, my administration immediately began working with managers of uninfested and infested waters to support the implementation of invasive mussel prevention and containment programs. This work is critical to ensure that water managers are prepared to respond to the ongoing threat these species pose.

While I appreciate the author's intent, I am concerned by this bill's "one-size-fits-all" approach prohibiting the denial of local water deliveries. This could have serious, unintended consequences for water managers statewide, especially as the challenges associated with invasive mussels continue to evolve.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2012 without my signature.

This bill would modify permitting and escort requirements for transporting manufactured homes, factory-built housing, and commercial modular structures. It also would require the Department of Housing and Community Development, in consultation with the California Department of Transportation and the California Highway Patrol, to convene a workgroup to identify opportunities to reduce transportation costs and improve safety and efficiency.

My administration has consistently supported innovation in the building industry and efforts to lower construction costs and increase housing production. However, moving oversized loads safely involves complex engineering, operational, and enforcement considerations. This bill would change longstanding permitting and escort requirements before the workgroup it creates has evaluated whether and how those requirements can safely be

These oversized loads often extend beyond the width of a travel lane, and their safe movement requires route-specific review of lane and shoulder widths, turning radii, bridge and overhead clearances, work zones, traffic volumes, and other changing conditions. In a state as large and geographically diverse as California, these factors can vary significantly from one segment of a route to the next, making careful review and coordination essential.

Any changes to this framework must be carefully designed to account for the technical and safety considerations involved while providing consistent requirements and rules as oversized loads are transported across jurisdictional lines.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2081 without my signature.

This bill would require the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to expand capacity in the Medi-Cal Home and Community-Based Alternatives (HCBA) Waiver by 5,000 slots, as well as evaluate the populations receiving priority enrollment in the program.

While appreciate the author's intent to expand access to home and community-based services for Medi-Cal beneficiaries who are at risk of institutionalization, this bill would significantly and immediately increase program costs by hundreds of millions of dollars. Fortunately, the 2026 Budget Act includes $3 million to enable DHCS to dear the HCBA waiver waitlist and serve all eligible individuals seeking enrollment in the HCBA waiver program. Any additional expansions to this program, given the significant cost, must be considered in the annual state budget process.

In partnership with the Legislature this year, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure. For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2124 without my signature.

This bill would require the California Council on Science and Technology to create a program to review pending legislation upon request by legislators for impacts related to electricity or natural gas ratepayers.

The Legislature already employs professional staff to analyze pending legislation and their work should include the potential impacts on ratepayers. Additionally, the Legislature has access to the resources and analysis of the Legislative Analysts Office, which could also achieve the goals of this bill. Lastly, the resources required to implement this bill were not considered in the context of this year's budget agreement.

In partnership with the Legislature this year, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2166 without my signature.

This bill would establish the Multifamily Backstop Financing Program within the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank to provide state- backed credit support for surety bonds issued to eligible offsite housing factories serving multifamily projects.

I support innovative financing strategies that can lower housing construction costs, and I thank the author for advancing this important goal. However, this novel program is estimated to require hundreds of millions of dollars in initial capitalization, funding that was not included in the state budget. A proposal of this scale should instead be considered through the annual budget process, where its funding needs, risk protections, and administrative structure can be evaluated together.

In partnership with the Legislature this year, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure. For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2301 without my signature.

This bill requires the California Community College (CCC) Chancellor's Office to establish a Community College Baccalaureate Degree in Nursing Pilot Program that would authorize IO community college districts to offer a Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) degree.

This year, I proudly signed SB 960 and AB 2694 to create a statewide framework for community college districts to establish baccalaureate programs already offered by other public higher education institutions. This framework is inclusive of all academic programs, so long as specified criteria are met — such as a demonstrated workforce demand and lack of capacity in regional universities. Given this progress, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to authorize an additional pilot or create an exception to the framework, as this bill proposes. California's public higher education segments should instead focus on implementing this newly created, comprehensive system.

Additionally, the 2024 Budget Agreement included $60 million per year, from 2025-26 to 2028-29, for the Rebuilding Nursing Infrastructure Grant Program, which community colleges can use to expand BSN partnerships with the University of California, California State University, and independent nonprofit higher education institutions. These partnerships have proven successful in increasing BSN degree recipients and access for community college students.

All segments of higher education should continue collaborating to build these programs. For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2343 without my signature.

This bill would require the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to designate or design a public consumer-protection platform to provide information on licensed and certified alcohol and other drug treatment facilities and programs. While t appreciate the author's intent to help those struggling with addiction find high-quality treatment, this bill is duplicative of existing efforts. In 2023, as part of the state's broader response to the opioid crisis, California launched a free, confidential platform — known as the Treatment Atlas — to help people find and compare addiction treatment options. The 2026 Budget Act provided additional funding for DHCS to continue it through September 30, 2027, making this bill unnecessary.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2349 without my signature.

This bill would require the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to expand its incident air monitoring program.

While I share the author's goal of expanding emergency air monitoring, the proposed program requires significant resources not included in this year's budget. In partnership with the Legislature this year, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2395 without my signature.

This bill modifies the statewide Debt Reduction Program (DRP), through which parents can make an offer in compromise for child support and interest owed to the state. The bill requires the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) to implement highly specific standardized forms and procedures across all local child support agencies (LCSAs) to ensure the DRP operates uniformly throughout the state.

I appreciate the author's intent to increase access to the DRP. However, while well-intentioned, this bill adds unnecessary complexity to provide improvements that can be achieved administratively. DCSS already has full statutory authority to establish and operate a statewide DRP. To that end, DCSS is actively working with local child support agencies and other stakeholders to improve the program's transparency, fairness, and accountability.

Finally, the new complaint resolution process envisioned by this bill would require administrators to review and potentially overturn their own decisions — creating an inherent conflict of interest. These chances undermine the program's clarity and administrative integrity, and do not provide meaningful improvements for families seeking debt relief. For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2494 without my signature.

This bill would significantly revise the state's management policies for the Demonstration State Forests and establish new goals, forestry techniques, research efforts, and other activities allowable on the demonstration forests.

For 80 years, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Demonstration State Forests have served as living laboratories for research, recreation, and the demonstration of sustainable forest management.

My administration, in partnership with the Legislature, has made historic investments to accelerate the pace and scale of science-based forest management to improve forest health, enhance wildfire resilience, and mitigate climate change. Though small in size, Demonstration State Forests produce cutting-edge strategies that inform forest management on public and private lands across California — work that is critical to achieving our goals.

By narrowing the management of these forests to a limited set of public benefits, this bill risks the State's ability to fully demonstrate the best science-based practices. At a time when California is racing to keep pace with a rapidly changing climate, we cannot afford to lose the flexibility needed to safeguard our forests for future generations. For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2588 without my signature.

This bill would allow a District Agricultural Association (DAA) board of directors, in cases where the Governor has not filled a vacancy within 90 days and the DAA board has insufficient membership to establish a quorum, to temporarily appoint a director to fill the vacancy and to establish a quorum.

I share the author's goal of ensuring a DAA has sufficient appointees to conduct business, which is why my office engages with local community groups and leaders to seek recommendations and recruit candidates to serve on these boards. This process includes a thorough vetting to ensure that appointees reflect the community and are the most qualified to serve. This bill would create a temporary appointment process outside this standard vetting framework, raising accountability and oversight concerns as decisions are made regarding these state properties. I encourage the author and interested stakeholders to continue discussions with my office to continue to build this pool of potential appointees to be vetted through the appropriate process.

For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 769 without my signature.

This bill would enact the Golden State Infrastructure Act, establishing the not-for-profit Golden State Infrastructure Corporation (GSIC) within the State Treasurer's Office to finance large-scale infrastructure projects. This bill establishes a continuously appropriated GSIC Fund and authorizes the GSIC to govern and finance qualifying projects through public-private partnerships.

I appreciate the author's goal of leveraging public and private resources to finance large infrastructure projects. However, the creation of this new entity may require significant upfront seed funding from the General Fund in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Moreover, the GSIC would overlap with existing state authorities, such as the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank), and it is unclear whether the GSIC would complement this work or confuse it.

This proposal is best evaluated through the annual budget process, when the state's potential financial obligation can be considered in the context of the state's other existing infrastructure financing tools and available resources. In partnership with the Legislature, my administration has enacted a balanced budget that recognizes the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces while maintaining our commitment to working families and our most vulnerable communities. With significant fiscal pressures and the federal government's hostile economic policies, it is vital that we remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications that are not included in the budget, such as this measure.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 954 without my signature.

This bill would revise several California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemptions enacted last year, including repealing the exemption for advanced manufacturing facilities. The bill replaces it with a substantially narrower exemption limited to final-tier manufacturing facilities that meet numerous new siting, emissions, building, operational, technological, and procedural requirements.

Just last year, we enacted the most significant reforms of California housing and environmental review law in decades - a long-overdue overhaul to get California building again. While I appreciate the author's stated intent to ensure these reforms do not result in unintended adverse impacts on the environment, this bill does not merely clarify or refine the existing exemption. It repeals the CEQA exemption for advanced manufacturing facilities. Further, the bill's numerous new siting, operational, and emissions requirements would make the narrower exemption impractical for many of the projects it was intended to support.

Protecting communities and strengthening California's advanced manufacturing economy are not mutually exclusive goals. The exemption was designed to advance both and should be given a meaningful opportunity to work. If implementation reveals problems, they should be addressed through targeted, evidence-based changes - not by preemptively rolling back our progress.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1057 without my signature.

This bill would allow continuing education or in-service hours for certified nurse assistants (CNAs) to be obtained through online training and would make significant changes to CNA and home health aide (HHA) certification standards regarding criminal record clearances, narrowing when CDPH may deny a certificate or suspend or revoke an existing certificate.

I appreciate the author's efforts to expand access to online education for CNAs, which could potentially reduce or eliminate barriers to employment within the industry by providing a new path to certification. However, other aspects of this bill raise concerns. CDPH already has the authority to consider the unique circumstances of applicants' criminal records or any rehabilitation efforts they have pursued during the application review process. Thus, this bill significantly reduces state authority to take common administrative actions by preventing enforcement following an arrest, delaying action until a conviction and all appeals are exhausted, and disallowing enforcement on dismissed convictions and the underlying egregious behavior.

Further, this bill unacceptably and unavoidably weakens Medicare and Medi-Cal program integrity by requiring the state to certify federally ineligible individuals, simultaneously jeopardizing facility funding, and endangering patients.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1059 without my signature.

This bill would require the Employment Training Panel (ETP) to authorize and encourage the use of electronic recordkeeping systems. This bill also would require ETP to adopt specified recordkeeping and training administration standards.

While I support efforts to modernize state government programs, the recordkeeping requirements for ETP contracts would be more appropriately addressed under existing regulatory authority. The rulemaking process will provide all employers, contractors, stakeholders, and other affected parties an opportunity to participate and provide input directly to the ETP. This process ensures that ETP considers the effectiveness of changes, as well as the costs of implementation for both the state and employers.

I am directing ETP to consider new requirements consistent with the goals of this legislation that are clear, concise, and consistent with other program priorities and requirements.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning SB 1077 without my signature.

This bill would impose a number of requirements on the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to respond to future federal government shutdowns that impact the disbursement of CalFresh benefits. This would include creating a webpage about the status of CalFresh benefits during a shutdown, developing a communications plan, and establishing a benefit issuance mechanism that would allow CDSS to issue nutrition benefits during a shutdown if CalFresh disbursements are impacted.

Last fall, America endured the longest federal government shutdown in the nation's history and - for the first time in the program's six-decade existence - federal food assistance benefits were not issued, despite the availability of $5 billion in federal contingency funds. In response to this cruelty, California took several actions to mitigate the harm to millions relying on food assistance. Under "Operation Feed California," we deployed California Service Corps members and the National Guard to food banks, fast-tracked roughly $80 million in emergency state funding, and called on residents to volunteer, donate, and support neighbors - California stepped up where Washington had failed.

I wholeheartedly share the author's goal of ensuring families maintain access to critical food benefits in the event of a future federal government shutdown. However, this bill imposes requirements that CDSS simply cannot implement, while also limiting the state's flexibility to stay nimble in response to rapidly changing circumstances. Much of the information CDSS would be required to disseminate was not available during the 43-day shutdown last fall, and would likely not be available in future ones. Further, the creation of a new state-funded benefit issuance mechanism would require significant automation planning and system development, the complexity of which depends on the type of benefit issued.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom