The Brief

Sen. Anna Caballero is one of California’s most influential lawmakers, since she is in charge of a committee that decides in secret to kill hundreds of bills each year, often at the behest of the governor’s administration.

But even though Caballero is the powerful chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and regularly works with the governor’s team, Gov. Gavin Newsom still vetoed seven of her bills this year, the most of any lawmaker.

“I do tough bills,” Caballero, a Democrat who represents the Merced area, told CalMatters. “So sometimes I get lucky, and other times, it’s disappointing. And, you know, you learn to live with it.”

Her vetoed bills include one that aimed to reduce emissions at state ports, another that sought to add oversight for metal shredding facilities and one that sought to train police to investigate foreign governments that target immigrant communities.

In his veto messages, Newsom described those bills as unnecessary since state agencies were already doing similar work. That’s one of the more common themes in Newsom’s 123 vetoes from this legislative session that he finished signing earlier this month. He used the word “duplicative” 16 times, according to an analysis of CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database.

The analysis highlights how Newsom uses his veto pen to assert authority over a Legislature his fellow Democrats control while rejecting bills he deems too costly, redundant or politically risky. Newsom cited fiscal implications dozens of times in his veto messages, reflecting the challenges of a tough budget year. This year’s vetoes also gave him a chance to throw some shade at Newsom’s biggest enemy: President Donald Trump.

Newsom mentioned Trump by name three times in his vetoes, and he cited Trump’s “hostile economic policies” in almost a quarter of his veto messages, 28 times.

“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,” Newsom wrote, in vetoing Caballero’s bill that sought to exempt hydrogen fuel from sales taxes.

He used a nearly identical line to veto three other Caballero bills, including a measure to provide tax credits for medical equipment, a bill that would have provided grants for carbon dioxide removal and another that sought to incentivize biomass power plants.

The vetoes represented just a small percentage of what Newsom’s did with the 917 bills that were sent to his desk this year. He vetoed just 13.4% of them, a slightly lower rate than previous years, according to Chris Micheli, an adjunct professor at McGeorge School of Law and a veteran lobbyist who keeps detailed statistics on the Legislature.

It certainly wasn’t all vetoes for Caballero. Newsom also signed 10 of her bills into law.

Zombie bills return for a second veto

There was another theme in Newsom’s vetoes: Spiking bills he’d previously vetoed.

He did that six times.

As CalMatters reported, even if a bill gets vetoed one year, lawmakers often bring the legislation back again — often with wording identical to the previous version.

Previously vetoed measures are especially likely to be resurrected if well-funded lobbying groups that donate heavily to politicians are pushing for a new law.

That was the case with two bills Newsom axed for the second time this year.

One was a union-backed bill by Democratic Assemblymember Dawn Addis of San Luis Obispo that sought to make it easier for farmworkers to win workers’ compensation claims against employers for heat-related illnesses. The other was a previously vetoed measure by Democratic Assemblymember Esmerlda Soria of Merced that sought to allow community colleges to offer bachelor’s degrees in nursing. Nurses unions, hospitals and community colleges supported the bill.

Newsom noted those bills were “nearly identical” to measures he previously killed, and he cited the same reasons.

Newsom again spiked a bill that would require counties to create multidisciplinary behavioral health teams, a proposal to force insurers to pay for menopause treatment, a reparations bill and a measure to fund a study on women veterans’ mental health.

First-year lawmaker Democratic Assemblymember John Harabedian, representing the Pasadena area, had five vetoes this year, the second most in the Legislature. They were mostly related to health insurance and the fallout from last winter’s devastating wildfires in Los Angeles County.

Assemblymember John Harabedian on the Assembly floor in Sacramento on Jan. 23, 2025.

(

Fred Greaves

/

CalMatters

)

Newsom vetoed his bill that would have required insurers to pay for up to 12 mental health visits for people living where there has been a recent wildfire. Another would have created a state-led disaster housing task force in Los Angeles County. The governor also vetoed a measure that sought to speed up patients getting the care their doctors recommended.

“Big, transformative policies often take multiple attempts, and I’m proud to keep pushing forward to serve my constituents,” Harabedian said in an emailed statement.

Newsom signed four of Harabedian’s bills.

None of Democratic Assemblymember Ash Kalra’s bills were vetoed this year — for the first time in the San Jose lawmaker’s nine-year legislative career. He had 12 signed into law.

That included a bill aiming to prevent foreign labor contractors from exploiting their workers that was similar to a measure Newsom vetoed before. Kalra said he narrowed the bill to cover only farmworkers to address Newsom’s concerns.

“You have to be persistent,” he said. “Sometimes it takes three, four or five times, or in the case of the foreign labor contractor bill, seven years.”

How other lawmakers avoid vetoes

Other lawmakers also got a lot of their bills past Newsom’s veto pen.

Democratic Santa Ana Sen. Tom Umberg had Newsom sign 16 of his bills, the most behind San Francisco Sen. Scott Wiener, who had 21. As the Senate Budget Committee chair, Wiener is the lead author of mandatory budget bills that skew his totals.

Umberg’s bills include one prohibiting streaming providers such as Netflix from playing overly loud advertisements; another to prohibit Elon Musk and others from hosting lotteries to gin up partisan voter registration, one intended to stop puppy mills and an audit of the state’s troubled bar exam.

Umberg, a former federal prosecutor and attorney nearing the end of his term, said his success is due in part to him serving in the Legislature off and on since the 1990s. He’s served under four different governors, so he said he knows what they’re looking for.

“I hope that my years of experience provide some benefit and some expertise in legislating and how to work a bill through the process and how to get a bill signed,” he said.

Newsom vetoed one of Umberg’s bills this year, a measure that would have added new price-gouging protections and penalties in disaster zones. Newsom didn’t like that the bill also would have allowed the Legislature to override a governor’s authority on disaster declarations.

Republicans are vastly outnumbered in the Legislature and not as many of their bills even reach the governor’s desk, so it stands out that Assemblymember Josh Hoover, a Republican representing the Folsom area, had the most bills signed among GOP lawmakers, with nine. Hoover is out of the country this week and wasn’t available for an interview, his spokesperson said.

Republican Assemblymember Laurie Davies had seven of her bills signed, the third-most among Republicans.

Assemblymember Laurie Davies addresses lawmakers in Sacramento on May 16, 2024.

(

Fred Greaves

/

CalMatters

)

Davies’ bills weren’t particularly controversial and didn’t involve partisan politics. They included a measure that requires schools to provide educational materials to prevent drownings. Another requires the state to tell those who file complaints about a drug and alcohol treatment center the outcome of their complaint. Another of her proposals prohibits selling equipment to modify electric bicycles so they no longer classify as an e-bike.

Davies, who represents a competitive swing district in the Oceanside area, said she wants her bills to solve problems, not take partisan hits that almost certainly won’t get signed into law under a Democratic administration.

“We don’t run bills for social media clicks or cable news invites,” she said.

Newsom did veto one of her bills this year, a measure that sought to make battery storage plants beef up their fire safety plans. Davies opposes a proposed battery storage facility in her district.

Newsom’s veto message used one of his favorite words: “Duplicative.”

“This bill is largely duplicative of existing requirements and mandates a new procedural requirement that risks delaying critical clean energy projects,” he wrote.

Digital Democracy’s Foaad Khosmood, Forbes professor of computer engineering at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, contributed to this story.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

This on-and-off rain is looking like good news ... for wildflower lovers.

We talked to Katie Tilford, our go-to wildflowers expert at the Theodore Payne Foundation here in L.A., which is dedicated to native plants and wildflowers in Southern California.

And she is holding out hope the rains this week and next will be just what we need to see California poppies and more bloom big in the upcoming weeks.

"A little more rain would be nice," she said, "Then I think we’ll have a really good bloom this year. Either way, I think there’s going to be some flowers for sure … but a little more rain would really just kick things up a notch.”

And as for the question we always ask this time of year … will it be a superbloom kind of year?

Only Mother Nature knows for sure. We plant nerds also know that that the term superbloom gets thrown around with regularity during wildflower season, even though it refers to very specific conditions created by a potent cocktail of early rains, cool temps, hot temps, and late rains. So, we repeat: Stay tuned.

But Tilford says she’s already seeing signs there will be plenty of wildflowers to enjoy in the coming weeks, so you might want to make a plan to get out there.

One surefire spot: the Antelope Valley California Poppy Reserve, when the poppies hit full bloom. There is a live cam to help you time your trip for the best blooms.

Another great resource is also the wildflower hotline hosted by Theodore Payne. Starting in March, it will be updated each Friday with the latest wildflower news and tips on where to see it all. Call: 818 768-1802, Ext. 7. 

An annual meeting of the nation's governors that has long served as a rare bipartisan gathering is unraveling after President Donald Trump excluded Democratic governors from White House events.

The National Governors Association said it will no longer hold a formal meeting with Trump when governors are scheduled to convene in Washington later this month, after the White House planned to invite only Republican governors. On Tuesday, 18 Democratic governors also announced they would boycott a traditional dinner at the White House.

"If the reports are true that not all governors are invited to these events, which have historically been productive and bipartisan opportunities for collaboration, we will not be attending the White House dinner this year," the Democrats wrote. "Democratic governors remain united and will never stop fighting to protect and make life better for people in our states."

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican who chairs the NGA, told fellow governors in a letter on Monday that the White House intended to limit invitations to the association's annual business meeting, scheduled for Feb. 20, to Republican governors only.

"Because NGA's mission is to represent all 55 governors, the Association is no longer serving as the facilitator for that event, and it is no longer included in our official program," Stitt wrote in the letter, which was obtained by The Associated Press.

The governors' group, which is scheduled to meet from Feb. 19-21, is one of the few remaining venues where political leaders from both major parties gather to discuss the top issues facing their communities. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Tuesday that Trump has "discretion to invite anyone he wants to the White House."

"It's the people's house," she said. "It's also the president's home, so he can invite whomever he wants to dinners and events here at the White House."

Representatives for Sitt and the NGA didn't comment on the letter. Brandon Tatum, the NGA's CEO, said in a statement last week that the White House meeting is an "important tradition" and said the organization was "disappointed in the administration's decision to make it a partisan occasion this year."

In his letter to other governors, Stitt encouraged the group to unite around common goals.

"We cannot allow one divisive action to achieve its goal of dividing us," he wrote. "The solution is not to respond in kind, but to rise above and to remain focused on our shared duty to the people we serve. America's governors have always been models of pragmatic leadership, and that example is most important when Washington grows distracted by politics."

Signs of partisan tensions emerged at the White House meeting last year, when Trump and Maine's Gov. Janet Mills traded barbs.

Trump singled out the Democratic governor over his push to bar transgender athletes from competing in girls' and women's sports, threatening to withhold federal funding from the state if she did not comply. Mills responded, "We'll see you in court."

Trump then predicted that Mills' political career would be over for opposing the order. She is now running for U.S. Senate.

The back-and-forth had a lasting impact on last year's conference and some Democratic governors did not renew their dues last year to the bipartisan group.
Copyright 2026 NPR

A booming industry that charges veterans for help in obtaining the benefits they earned through military service must shut down or dramatically change its business model in California by the end of the year under a new law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Tuesday.

The law prohibits unaccredited private companies from billing former military service members for help with their Department of Veterans Affairs claims.

Technically, it was already illegal under federal law to charge veterans for that work, but Congress 20 years ago removed criminal penalties for violations, and scores of private companies emerged, offering to speed up and maximize benefit claims.

“We owe our veteran community a debt of gratitude — for their years of service and sacrifice," Newsom said in a written statement. "By signing this bill into law, we are ensuring veterans and service members get to keep more money in their pockets, and not line the coffers of predatory actors. We are closing this federal fraud loophole for good.”

Critics call the private companies “claim sharks” because their fees are often five times the monthly benefit increase veterans obtain after using their services. CalMatters in September, for instance, interviewed a Vietnam-era veteran who was billed $5,500 after receiving benefits that would pay him $1,100 a month.

Depending on a disability rating, a claim consulting fee under that model could easily hit $10,000 or more.

“We owe it to our veterans to stand with them and to protect them from being taken advantage of while navigating the benefits they've earned,” said Sen. Bob Archuleta, a Democrat representing Norwalk. Archuleta, a former Army officer, carried the legislation. “This is not about politics; it's about doing what's right. Making millions of dollars on the back of our veterans is wrong. They've earned their benefits. They deserve their benefits.”

California’s new law is part of a tug-of-war over how to regulate claims consulting companies. Congress for several years has been at a stalemate on whether to ban them outright, allow them to operate as they are or regulate them in some other way.

California is among 11 states that have moved to put the companies out of business, while another group of mostly Republican-led states has legalized them, according to reporting by the veteran news organization The War Horse.

That split in some ways reflects the different ways veterans themselves view the companies. The bill had overwhelming support from organizations that help veterans file benefits claims at no cost, such as the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, as well as from Democratic Party leaders, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.

But the VA’s claims process can take months and sow uncertainty among applicants. Several of the claims consulting companies say they have helped tens of thousands of veterans across the country, and that they have hundreds of employees.

Those trends led some lawmakers to vote against the measure, including Democrats with military backgrounds.

“We're going to say to you, ‘Veteran, you know what, I don't know if you are too stupid or too vulnerable or your judgment is so poor you can't choose yourself,'” said Sen. Tom Umberg, a Democrat and former Army colonel, during a debate over the measure last month.

The new law was such a close call for lawmakers that nine of 40 senators did not vote on it when it passed that chamber last month, which counts the same as a “no” vote but avoids offending a constituency that the lawmaker wants to keep.

It was also one of the 10 most-debated measures to go before the Legislature last year, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database. Lawmakers spent 4 hours and 39 minutes on the bill at public hearings in 2025 and heard testimony from 99 speakers.

Two claims consulting companies spent significant sums hiring lobbyists as they fought the bill, according to state records. They were Veterans Guardian, a North Carolina-based company that spent $150,000 on California lobbyists over the past two years; and Veterans Benefit Guide, a Nevada-based company that spent $371,821 lobbying on Archuleta’s bill and a similar measure that failed in 2024.

Those companies view laws like California’s as an existential threat. Both have founders with military backgrounds. Veterans Benefit Guide sued to block New Jersey’s law prohibiting fees for veterans claim consulting, and a federal appeals court sided with the company last year.

"This was the hardest bill I’ve had to work on since I’ve been in the Legislature," said Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo, a Santa Clarita Democrat who supported the law. "We know why that is, because there was so much money on the other side."

Charlotte Autolino, who organizes job fairs for former military service members as the chairperson of the Veterans Employment Committee of San Diego, criticized Newsom’s decision to sign the law. She spoke to CalMatters on behalf of Veterans Benefit Guide.

“The veterans lose,” she said. They lose the option. You’re taking an option away from them and you’re putting all of the veterans into one box, and that to me is wrong.”

But David West, a Marine veteran who is Nevada County’s veterans service officer, commended Newsom. West was one of the main advocates for the new law.

“The veterans of California are going to know that when (Newsom) says he’s taking care of everybody, he’s including us; that he values those 18- and 19-year-olds who are raising their hands, writing a blank check in the form of their lives; to then ensure that they aren’t writing checks to access their benefits,” West said.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.