Every veto. Every message.

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 263 without my signature.

This bill requires the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development (GOBiz), in consultation with the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and the Department of Finance, to conduct a study on how increases in tariffs and reciprocal tariffs affect the state's international trade of imports and exports.

The chaos brought by the Trump administration's trade policy is undisputed. California is pushing back through all avenues available, including challenging the legality of these actions in court. In addition to taking legal action, my Administration is actively assessing and responding to the impact of tariffs through various initiatives. GO-Biz's International Affairs and Trade Unit has produced a "Tariff Resource Guide" for businesses, and CalSTA's Freight Policy Team has developed a supply chain dashboard as they continuously coordinate with stakeholders from the logistics and supply chain community. We are also investing in improving and modernizing our own systems, including $27 million in Go-Biz's Containerized Ports Interoperability Program and CalSTA's $1.5 billion investment to build a more efficient, sustainable, and resilient supply chain across the state.

While I appreciate the author's intent to study the impacts of tariffs, this bill is duplicative of ongoing work; another study is not needed to understand the economic chaos created by the Trump administration.

For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 485 without my signature.

This bill would allow an appointed county public defender to be removed from office only upon a three-fifths vote of the board of supervisors and a showing of good cause.

I appreciate the importance of protecting public defenders from undue political interference, as their role sometimes requires taking unpopular positions to fulfill their legal and ethical duties to their clients.

That said, I have not been presented with evidence that California's current system in any way impairs the effectiveness or independence of public defenders. Proponents only cite a handful of examples from other states of public defenders being removed from office for controversial advocacy.

Further, since the law does not place term limits on public defenders, this bill may ultimately make it unduly difficult to replace public defenders for legitimate reasons and leave incumbents entrenched, which I do not support.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 616 without my signature.

This bill would establish an independent Community Hardening Commission within the Department of Insurance (CDI) to review current and develop new wildfire community hardening standards every quarter starting January 1, 2026, and make recommendations to expedite certain community hardening practices.

At a time when Californians are grappling with rising insurance costs due to natural disasters exacerbated by climate change, the state has launched multiple efforts to expedite proven and cost-effective home hardening practices, aiming to improve insurability for millions of homeowners. CAL FIRE currently administers California's Wildfire Mitigation Program, established in 2019 to strengthen community-wide resilience against wildfires. The California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and CAL FIRE, working side-by-side with counties and cities, have launched a statewide wildfire home-hardening playbook that at-risk communities can lift straight off the shelf. In 2022, CDI introduced its "Safer from Wildfires" framework, a first-of-its-kind regulation that requires insurance companies to offer discounts to homeowners and businesses that take specific wildfire mitigation steps. These are just a few examples demonstrating the state's commitment to tackling this important issue.

This year, the Legislature sent me multiple bills with the intention of building upon this ongoing work. Unfortunately, rather than providing a coordinated approach, these measures are in conflict with one another, tasking different state entities with similar objectives. The lack of harmony between these efforts will not only result in conflicting outcomes but also in confusion for consumers, insurance companies, local governments, and emergency responders.

I encourage the Legislature to revisit this important issue next year and work collaboratively to navigate the different approaches to setting hardening standards, including determining the responsible state entity. In the meantime, California will continue to aggressively implement the multiple initiatives underway to mitigate wildfire risk, encourage cost-effective structure hardening and retrofitting, facilitate vegetation management, and address the availability and cost of insurance.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 641 without my signature.

This bill would authorize licensing boards under the Department of Consumer Affairs and the Department of Real Estate to waive the application of specified laws for licensees and applicants who are impacted by a proclaimed federal, state, or local emergency, or whose homes or businesses are located in a disaster area. Additionally, this bill would ban unsolicited offers by real estate licensees and their clients that are below market value, as it was the day before the disaster, and would ban it throughout the entire geographic area in which the disaster is proclaimed.

I appreciate the intent of the author to help those impacted by natural disasters to find regulatory relief quickly and to protect those with property in disaster areas. In response to recent disasters, my Administration worked closely with the Legislature to coordinate targeted relief and consumer protections to disaster victims - absent the authority sought in this bill.

With respect to the real estate protection provisions, the bill is overly broad, applying to all natural disasters even when housing is unaffected. It also leaves an enforcement gap by regulating licensees only when acting for clients, not for themselves. Together, these issues call into question whether the bill is properly tailored to achieve its stated goals.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 703 without my signature.

This bill would require trucking companies and independent contractor truckers to annually provide the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles with information about their business structure and employees. It would also require each port to collect truck-related data, including the name listed on the truck's insurance policy. The ports would then publish both sets of information.

I appreciate the author's concern about the misclassification of truckers operating at the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. However, this bill would significantly disrupt port operations by requiring these ports to collect and retain information on thousands of trucks each day. Given the variety of information required to be collected, this process will be challenging to automate or streamline.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 756 without my signature.

This bill would require the California Film Commission (CFC) to establish new data collection and compliance protocols for the California Film & TV Tax Credit Program.

I share the author's goal of ensuring that California's tax credit program lifts up underrepresented workers and communities. Recent legislation expanded support for productions that hire trainees from the Career Pathways Program, the CFC's workforce development initiative to expand access to film and television careers.

This measure, though well-intentioned, is premature and would impose significant and costly new obligations on the CFC. It proposes a process that requires the CFC to work with outside stakeholders and payroll companies to develop new definitions and standardized reporting templates. In addition, the CFC would need to create protocols to reduce nonresponse rates and collect more detailed demographic data. These requirements would necessitate a major overhaul of the CFC's data collection procedures, which were only recently refined during the rollout of Film Tax Credit 4.0, the current iteration of the program that began in July 2025.

While I am supportive of the author's effort to understand the full economic and community impact of the Film & TV Tax Credit Program, we should allow more time for the recent reforms to be implemented.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 783 without my signature.

This bill would re-extend the sunset for the redevelopment agency project area exemption to the Outdoor Advertising Act until January 1, 2029.

As a former mayor, I have seen firsthand how outdoor advertising displays generate revenue and visibility for local economies and businesses. Yet extending the redevelopment agency exemption under the Outdoor Advertising Act simply continues a pattern of short-term fixes that avoid addressing the underlying issue. For more than a decade, this area of law has been managed through temporary extensions rather than a comprehensive solution.

There are over 40 former redevelopment agency legacy displays throughout California. A lasting resolution should address them directly - whether through targeted statutory changes to the Act, administrative adjustments, or simply bringing the displays into compliance with existing law. That approach is far more durable and legally sound than repeated exemptions, which only create uncertainty, increase risk, and jeopardize critical funding that supports thousands of jobs at the state and local level.

I encourage the Legislature and stakeholders to work with my Administration on a durable solution that provides stability while balancing economic benefits with the state's fiscal and regulatory responsibilities.

For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1042 without my signature.

This bill would allow the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to establish the Managed Honeybee Health Program to fund health interventions for managed honeybees according to priorities set by CDFA.

I appreciate the author's interest in protecting our honeybee population, but this bill would create an unfunded grant program and, therefore, 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 1200 without my signature.

This bill would require the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) to biennially convene key personnel and agencies to participate in a tabletop exercise and require Cal OES, in cooperation with California Volunteers, to annually conduct community disaster preparedness training in vulnerable regions of the state.

I appreciate the author's commitment to disaster readiness. However, this bill is duplicative of existing preparedness measures already in place to enhance disaster readiness. Cal OES already conducts targeted, multi-jurisdictional, and tabletop exercises that are strategically aligned with existing plans and capabilities. The exercises envisioned in this bill are overly broad and lack clarity. As a result, requiring these exercises would unintentionally undermine the effectiveness of California's current emergency preparedness efforts. Additionally, this bill would result in new ongoing costs in the millions of dollars to implement.

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 1225 without my signature.

This bill would require the Department of Parks and Recreation (Department) to establish an Accessibility Advisory Committee to make recommendations to the Department on improving accessibility throughout the State Park System.

While I support enhancing accessibility to recreational opportunities in state parks, this bill would be duplicative of the Department's existing Accessibility Division. Moreover, the Department has completed hundreds of projects throughout the state park system, removing architectural and programmatic access barriers and constructing accessible trails pursuant to a court-approved timeline under a long-standing consent decree.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 326 without my signature.

This bill would require the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to prepare a Wildfire Risk Mitigation Planning Framework, a Wildfire Risk Baseline and Forecast, and a Wildfire Mitigation Scenarios Report, and to update each report at regular intervals. The bill would also expand the list of eligible entities for Wildfire Prevention Grants Program funding to include activities that support early compliance with Zone Zero regulations.

The requirements of this bill would trigger substantial, ongoing costs that are not accounted for in 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 these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 629 without my signature.

This bill would, among other things, create a newly defined post-wildfire safety area designation and would require the Office of the State Fire Marshal of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to include new criteria when mapping Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs).

Wildfire risk and hazard modeling are crucial tools for informing wildfire mitigation strategies and allocating resources to prevent ignitions and effectively respond to wildfires before they become catastrophic. Since 2019, my Administration, in partnership with the Legislature, has invested over $5 billion in wildfire mitigation, response, and forest resilience. All of which have been guided by leading-edge science and modeling, with most of it developed right here in California.

I remain strongly supportive of this work and the work of OSFM to enhance its modeling capabilities and maintain updated, robust FHSZs to further inform wildfire mitigation measures. This work is actively underway, and though I find this bill's intent laudable, it presents new, ongoing, and significant costs to the state not accounted for in this year's budget.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 757 without my signature.

This bill would permit a city or county to collect fines for specified violations related to nuisance abatements using a nuisance abatement lien or a special assessment.

I appreciate the author's intent to provide local agencies with additional tools to efficiently enforce health and safety violations. However, I am concerned about this bill's expansion of local authority. Balancing the due process rights of homeowners with a local government's authority to levy nuisance abatement fines is crucial. I believe existing law, which mandates judicial approval for imposing a lien for unpaid fines, effectively achieves this balance.

For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 255 without my signature.

This bill would create a new category of "supportive recovery residences," allow up to 10 percent of state homelessness funds to support them, and set up a new certification and oversight system.

Recovery-focused housing is an essential part of a comprehensive homelessness response, and California recognizes the value these programs provide individuals seeking support and stability. Current law already permits local jurisdictions to receive funding within the Housing First framework, and recent guidance allows support for recovery housing without creating a duplicative and costly new statutory category. Establishing a separate certification and oversight process wrongly suggests incompatibility with Housing First, while imposing fees that would not cover implementation costs.

California remains committed to advancing recovery housing within Housing First. I encourage the author and stakeholders to continue working with my Administration to strengthen these options in ways that complement, rather than complicate, the state's approach. Any broader programmatic changes, if warranted, should be considered holistically through 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 393 without my signature.

This bill would require the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Department of State Hospitals, before entering into a personal services contract for a specified physician or psychologist position, to compare the costs of the contract with those of an equivalent civil service position. If the analysis shows that contracting is more expensive, the departments would be required to use an available civil service position instead.

While I am supportive of ideas to reduce state reliance on contractors, this measure circumvents the collective bargaining process and limits the ability of these departments to deliver critical services. The matters contemplated by this bill are more appropriately handled through the budget and labor negotiations processes.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 524 without my signature.

This bill would require the Department of Conservation, in collaboration with the California Agricultural Land Equity Task Force, to establish the Farmland Access and Conservation for Thriving Communities Program to improve land access and tenure for socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers, tribal producers, and beginning farmers and ranchers.

Land access is a critical issue for beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, and I support the intention of this bill to assist those groups. While this bill would authorize the program to receive funds from Proposition 4 - The Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024 - recent budget action by the Legislature did not explicitly appropriate funding to support this program and there is no sustained funding to support the ongoing cost pressure this program would create.

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 734 without my signature.

This bill would require the California Energy Commission (CEC) to publicly release granular biological resources data used in the completion of Environmental Impact Reports, unless the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) determines that releasing such data would pose a significant risk of harm to individuals of a species.

Currently, the CEC receives both detailed biological resource maps generated by a project applicant and similar maps that the applicant obtains from CDFW, as part of the environmental impact assessment for proposed energy projects moving through the CEC's site certification permitting programs. The resolution of these maps is governed by data-use guidelines publicly developed by CDFW to protect the precise location of sensitive species and biological resources, as higher resolution maps risk increasing poaching, collection and habitat disturbance in these locations.

Though this bill is well-intended, the risks associated with this divulgence of information and the added procedural requirement of a CDFW determination on whether to divulge such information, if found harmful, are unnecessary, add additional process complexity, and likely won't yield additional mitigations or safeguards for species impacted by proposed energy projects.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 986 without my signature.

This bill would add a "landslide" to the conditions under which the Governor may proclaim a State of Emergency and local authorities may proclaim a Local Emergency.

I appreciate the author's goal to clarify paths to emergency proclamations, but this bill is unnecessary. Under existing law, California's Emergency Services Act already grants the Governor broad authority to proclaim a State of Emergency in response to "conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property." In addition to the enumerated list of exemplary events, this language encompasses comparable events such as landslides, mudslides, and related geologic hazards without the need for further statutory amendment.

My administration has exercised and will continue to exercise the authority to respond decisively to landslides and associated hazards; adding "landslide" as a separate enumerated condition in statute would not expand these powers or provide additional tools for communities or first responders. In fact, it could be interpreted to suggest that events not explicitly identified in statute are ineligible for an emergency proclamation, which would unduly limit a Governor's power to respond to disasters.

For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1089 without my signature.

This bill authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to enter into an agreement with any city to delegate to the city the taking of a Western Joshua Tree associated with commercial and industrial projects. In addition, this bill revises CDFW's authority to issue a permit for the removal of a Western Joshua Tree around single-family homes.

The Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act (Act) of 2023 was carefully crafted to balance the need to develop housing and clean energy projects in the Mojave Desert region, while creating a robust but practical permitting process aimed at protecting one of California's most iconic species. The Act currently authorizes CDFW to enter into an agreement with any county or city and delegate limited authority to permit the taking of a Western Joshua Tree associated with developing single-family residences, multifamily residences, accessory structures, and public works projects.

While I recognize the desire to expand this delegated authority to include the taking of these trees where commercial and industrial projects are sited, this bill goes too far in authorizing the blanket removal of these trees near single-family homes that will ultimately undermine Western Joshua Tree protections and conservation requirements under the Act. Furthermore, this bill would increase the complexity and time required to manage the permitting process as modified by 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 1210 without my signature.

This bill requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to notify a county probation department 90 days prior to the discharge of a person on post-release community supervision, instead of 30 days prior.

While well-intentioned, the practical implications of this bill would result in significant, ongoing costs to the state with limited benefit to public safety. There are numerous factors that trigger recalculations of an incarcerated person's release date, such as 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 lead to changes to the incarcerated person's release date, thereby triggering multiple recurring notifications to a county prior to the individual's release. Additionally, the requirements of this bill would result in significant impacts on the General Fund not included in the 2025 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 1309 without my signature.

This bill would require the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to pay firefighters within 15 percent of the average salary for corresponding ranks in certain local fire departments. This measure would also require an annual survey of the salaries and benefits for fire chiefs in five specified fire departments.

While I appreciate the author's intent, this bill would create significant cost pressures for the state and circumvent the collective bargaining process. State employee salaries, along with other components of compensation such as health and pension benefits, should be determined through collective bargaining. Establishing a statutory salary floor for employees of a single department undermines this process, to the detriment of both the state and other bargaining units.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 76 without my signature.

Beginning January 1, 2030, this bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to waive delinquent vehicle registration fees and penalties that became due before a private vehicle sale when the purchaser applied for transfer. The DMV would instead be required to recover those fees and penalties from the seller or transferor when they next register another vehicle or renew a driver's license.

This bill would exacerbate the structural insolvency of the Motor Vehicle Account (MVA), the primary funding source for the DMV and CHP. Shifting collection responsibility away from purchasers would reduce revenues, increase administrative costs, and deepen long-term deficits. In doing so, it would diminish resources available to support the CHP's critical public safety initiatives - including newly launched Crime Suppression Teams and regional crime-reduction partnerships - while also straining the DMV's digital transformation by imposing new duties even as funding is reduced.

As with other measures affecting the MVA, moving the operative date to a future year does not solve the underlying fiscal challenges - it only delays them. We must set a very high bar for any significant new fiscal commitments until the MVA structural deficit is addressed in a sustainable way.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 274 without my signature.

This bill restricts the use and sharing of automated license plate reader (ALPR) data, including by placing a default 60-day limit on how long public entities may retain ALPR data.

I appreciate the author's intent to prevent information regarding a person's whereabouts from falling into the wrong hands. Nevertheless, this measure does not strike the delicate balance between protecting individual privacy and ensuring public safety. For example, it may not be apparent, particularly with respect to cold cases, that license plate data is needed to solve a crime until after the 60-day retention period has elapsed. Conversely, restrictions on inter-agency data sharing may impair solving crimes in real time, such as highway shootings, where the suspect may be rapidly crossing jurisdictional boundaries. Further, by restricting law enforcement agencies' use of ALPR information only for locating persons or vehicles suspected of involvement in crimes, this bill would prevent the use of this information to locate missing persons.

This bill also creates cost pressures, which are not accounted for in this year's budget, by requiring the Department of Justice to conduct random audits of public entities in order to ensure compliance with this bill. 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 717 without my signature.

This bill would require the California Department of Public Health to maintain a regional registry infrastructure and statewide system for the California Cancer Registry, which provides statewide cancer surveillance and reporting and is funded through the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

I appreciate the author's intent to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of California's cancer surveillance system in the face of federal funding cuts - a recent NIH directive mandates a 15 percent cut in contracts, including those funding the California Cancer Registry. Unfortunately, by locking a regional cancer surveillance model in statute, this bill would constrain the Department's ability to update its infrastructure, respond to evolving public health needs, and implement cost-saving strategies to sustain the program. The state needs flexibility to adapt to reduced federal funding, which is not provided for by this measure.

For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom