vetoes

California Gov. Gavin Newsom this week signed a suite of privacy protection bills for transgender patients amid continuing threats by the Trump administration.

But there was one glaring omission that LGBTQ+ advocates and political strategists say is part of an increasingly complex dance the Democrat faces as he curates a more centrist profile for a potential presidential bid.

Newsom vetoed a bill that would have required insurers to cover, and pharmacists to dispense, 12 months of hormone therapy at one time to transgender patients and others. The proposal was a top priority for trans rights leaders, who said it was crucial to preserve care as clinics close or limit gender-affirming services under White House pressure.

Political experts say Newsom’s veto highlights how charged trans care has become for Democrats nationally and, in particular, for Newsom, who as San Francisco mayor engaged in civil disobedience by allowing gay couples to marry at City Hall. The veto, along with his lukewarm response to anti-trans rhetoric, they argue, is part of an alarming pattern that could damage his credibility with key voters in his base.

“Even if there were no political motivations whatsoever under Newsom’s decision, there are certainly political ramifications of which he is very aware,” said Dan Schnur, a former GOP political strategist who is now a politics lecturer at the University of California-Berkeley. “He is smart enough to know that this is an issue that’s going to anger his base, but in return, may make him more acceptable to large numbers of swing voters.”

Earlier this year on Newsom’s podcast, the governor told the late conservative activist Charlie Kirk that trans athletes competing in women’s sports was “deeply unfair,” triggering a backlash among his party’s base and LGBTQ+ leaders. And he has described trans issues as a “major problem for the Democratic Party,” saying Donald Trump’s trans-focused campaign ads were “devastating” for his party in 2024.

Still, in a conversation with YouTube streamer ConnorEatsPants this month, Newsom defended himself “as a guy who’s literally put my political life on the line for the community for decades, has been a champion and a leader.”

“He doesn’t want to face the criticism as someone who, I’m sure, is trying to line himself up for the presidency, when the current anti-trans rhetoric is so loud,” said Ariela Cuellar, a spokesperson for the California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network.

Caroline Menjivar, the state senator who introduced the measure, described her bill as “the most tangible and effective” measure this year to help trans people at a time when they are being singled out for what she described as “targeted discrimination.”

In a legislature in which Democrats hold supermajorities in both houses, lawmakers sent the bill to Newsom on a party-line vote. Earlier this year, Washington became the first to enact a state law extending hormone therapy coverage to a 12-month supply.

In a veto message on the California bill, Newsom cited its potential to drive up health care costs, impacts that an independent analysis found would be negligible.

“At a time when individuals are facing double-digit rate increases in their health care premiums across the nation, we must take great care to not enact policies that further drive up the cost of health care, no matter how well-intended,” Newsom wrote.

Under the Trump administration, federal agencies have been directed to limit access to gender-affirming care for children, which Trump has referred to as “chemical and surgical mutilation,” and demanded documents from or threatened investigations of institutions that provide it.

In recent months, Stanford Medicine, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, and Kaiser Permanente have reduced or eliminated gender-affirming care for patients under 19, a sign of the chilling effect Trump’s executive orders have had on health care, even in one of the nation’s most progressive states.

California already mandates wide coverage of gender-affirming health care, including hormone therapy, but pharmacists can currently dispense only a 90-day supply. Menjivar’s bill would have allowed 12-month supplies, modeled after a 2016 law that allowed women to receive an annual supply of birth control.

Luke Healy, who told legislators at an April hearing that he was “a 24-year-old detransitioner” and no longer believed he was a woman, criticized the attempt to increase coverage of services he thought were “irreversibly harmful” to him.

“I believe that bills like this are forcing doctors to turn healthy bodies into perpetual medical problems in the name of an ideology,” Healy testified.

The California Association of Health Plans opposed the bill over provisions that would limit the use of certain practices such as prior authorization and step therapy, which require insurer approval before care is provided and force patients and doctors to try other therapies first.

“These safeguards are essential for applying evidence-based prescribing standards and responsibly managing costs — ensuring patients receive appropriate care while keeping premiums in check,” said spokesperson Mary Ellen Grant.

An analysis by the California Health Benefits Review Program, which independently reviews bills relating to health insurance, concluded that annual premium increases resulting from the bill’s implementation would be negligible and that “no long-term impacts on utilization or cost” were expected.

Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, said Newsom’s economic argument was “not plausible.” Although he said he considers Newsom a strong ally of the transgender community, Minter noted he was “deeply disappointed” to see the governor’s veto.

“I understand he’s trying to respond to this political moment, and I wish he would respond to it by modeling language and policies that can genuinely bring people along.”

Newsom’s press office declined to comment further.

Following the podcast interview with Kirk, Cuellar said, advocacy groups backing SB 418 grew concerned about a potential veto and made a point to highlight voices of other patients who would benefit, including menopausal women and cancer patients. It was a starkly different strategy than what they might have done before Trump took office.

“Had we run this bill in 2022-2023, the messaging would have been totally different,” said another proponent who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the issue.

“We could have been very loud and proud. In 2023, we might have gotten a signing ceremony.”

Advocates for trans rights were so wary of the current political climate that some also felt the need to steer clear of promoting a separate bill that would have expanded coverage of hormone therapy and other treatments for menopause and perimenopause. That bill, authored by Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, who has spoken movingly about her struggles with health care for perimenopause, was also vetoed.

In the meantime, said Jovan Wolf, a trans man and military veteran, patients like him will be left to suffer. Wolf, who had taken testosterone for more than 15 years, tried to restart hormone therapy in March, following a two-year hiatus in which he contemplated having children.

Doctors at the Department of Veterans Affairs told him it was too late. Days earlier, the Trump administration had announced it would phase out hormone therapy and other treatments for gender dysphoria.

“Having estrogen pumping through my body, it’s just not a good feeling for me, physically, mentally. And when I’m on testosterone, I feel balanced,” said Wolf, who eventually received care elsewhere. “It should be my decision and my decision only.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday vetoed legislation that would have allowed public and private colleges to provide preferential admissions to applicants directly descended from individuals who were enslaved in the United States before 1900.

The governor thanked the bill’s author for his commitment to addressing disparities and urged educational institutions to review and determine “how, when, and if this type of preference can be adopted.”

“This bill clarifies, to the extent permitted by federal law, that California public and private postsecondary educational institutions may consider providing a preference in admissions to an applicant who is a descendant of slavery,” Newsom wrote Monday in his veto. “These institutions already have the authority to determine whether to provide admissions preferences like this one, and accordingly, this bill is unnecessary.”

The legislation would not have required applicants to belong to any particular race or ethnicity — a crucial detail that proponents said distinguished it from affirmative action, which is banned at California colleges. Critics, however, argued the term “slave” was used as a proxy for race.

Legal experts told The Times last month the measure probably would have faced challenges in court if the governor signed it into law.

“The question with this sort of provision is does this count as on the basis of race?” said Ralph Richard Banks, professor at Stanford Law School and the founder and faculty director of the Stanford Center for Racial Justice. “A secondary issue is going to be whether, even if it is not formally about racial classification, was it really adopted to get around the no-racial-classification rule? The law prohibits indirect methods of doing something that would be prohibited if you were to do it directly.”

Race-based college admissions are banned by federal and state law.

Proposition 209, which California voters approved nearly three decades ago, amended the state Constitution to bar colleges from considering race, sex, national origin or ethnicity during admissions. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 in effect ended race-conscious college admissions nationwide, ruling in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard that such policies violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

California became the first state government in the country to study reparations, efforts to remedy the lingering effects of slavery and systemic racism, after the 2020 killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer sparked a national conversation on racial justice.

Newsom and state lawmakers passed a law to create a “first in the nation” task force to study and propose effective ways to help atone for the legacy of slavery. That panel spent years working on a 1,080-page report on the effects of slavery and the discriminatory policies sanctioned by the government after slavery was abolished, and the findings became the genesis for a slate of legislation proposed by the California Legislative Black Caucus.

Last week, Newsom signed Senate Bill 518, which will create a new office called the Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery. That bureau will create a process to determine whether someone is the descendant of a slave and to certify someone’s claim to help them access benefits.

Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles), who introduced Assembly Bill 7, said his legislation would have allowed colleges to grant preference to the descendants of enslaved people in order to rectify a “legacy of exclusion, of harm.”

Andrew Quinio, an attorney specializing in equality issues for the Pacific Legal Foundation, believes AB 7 was blatantly unconstitutional. The foundation is a conservative public interest law firm that seeks to prevent government overreach.

“This was a bill that was born out of the Reparations Task Force recommendations; it was part of the package of bills of the Road to Repair from the California Legislative Black Caucus so this has a very clear racial intent and racial purpose and it will have a racial effect,” he said. “[Legislation] doesn’t have to benefit the entirety or even the majority of a demographic in order for it to be unlawfully based on race.”

Lisa Holder, a civil rights attorney and president of the Equal Justice Society, a progressive nonprofit that works to protect policies that promote diversity, argued the measure’s framing made it highly likely to satisfy legal challenges.

“This (legislation) is very specifically tailored to correct the harms that we have seen, the harms from the past that continue into the present,” she said. “… Because this bill seeks to erase those harms by focusing specifically on the descendant community, it is strong enough to establish a compelling interest.”

Gary Orfield, a law and education professor and co-founder of the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA, agreed the legislation was carefully written in a way that could have withstood legal challenges. He pointed out California allows university programs that support Native American students because they were narrowly tailored to focus on tribal affiliation — which is considered a political classification — instead of race or ethnicity.

Orfield said applicants of various races could have potentially benefited from the new admissions policy, as many Native Americans were enslaved and Asiatic coolieism, or Asian indentured servitude, was declared a form of human slavery in the state constitution in 1879.

“All Black people weren’t slaves and all slaves were not Black,” he said. “I think there is a good argument to say that slavery isn’t defined strictly by race and is not just a proxy for race and there certainly is a legitimate concern when you are thinking about remediation for historic violations.”

Orfield, however, said convincing the public was a different matter.

“I don’t think all people will easily understand this,” he said. “Americans tend to think that discrimination doesn’t cross over multiple generations. But I think that it does — I think there has been a long-lasting effect.”

Staff writer Melody Gutierrez contributed to this report.

Lula approved the controversial bill easing environmental licensing rules, but struck down or altered 63 articles.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has signed into law a bill easing environmental licensing rules, but bowed to pressure from activist groups as he vetoed key provisions that would have made it easier for companies to secure environmental permits.

Lula approved on Friday what detractors have dubbed the “devastation bill”, but struck down or altered 63 of its nearly 400 articles, his office’s executive secretary, Miriam Belchior, told reporters.

The president had faced mounting pressure from environmental groups to intervene in the bill, which was backed by Brazil’s powerful agribusiness sector and focused on rolling back strict licensing rules that had kept the destruction of the Amazon rainforest in check.

A previous version of the bill adopted by lawmakers last month would have meant that for some permits, all that would have been required is a simple declaration of the company’s environmental commitment.

Lula’s revisions, however, reinstated the current strict licensing rules for strategic projects.

Belchior said the new proposal sought to preserve the integrity of the licensing process, ensure legal certainty, and protect the rights of Indigenous and Quilombola communities.

She added that Lula will introduce a “Special Environmental Licence” designed to fast-track strategic projects while filling the legal gaps created by the vetoes.

“We maintained what we consider to be significant advances in streamlining the environmental licensing process,” she said.

Nongovernmental organisation SOS Atlantic Forest, which garnered more than a million signatures calling for a veto of the law, hailed Lula’s move as “a victory” for environmental protection.

Lula’s environmental vetoes

Of the provisions struck down by Lula, 26 were vetoed outright, while another 37 will either be replaced with alternative text or modified in a new bill that will be sent to Congress for ratification under a constitutional urgency procedure.

Securing support for the amendments is far from guaranteed for the leftist leader. Brazil’s conservative-dominated Congress has repeatedly defeated key government proposals, including overturning previous presidential vetoes.

Lawmakers aligned with embattled ex-president Jair Bolsonaro are also blocking legislative activity amid an escalating political standoff, as they call for the former president’s charges around an alleged failed coup attempt in 2022 to be dropped.

Speaking at a Friday news conference in the capital, Brasilia, Environment Minister Marina Silva maintained a positive tone, telling reporters that Lula’s vetoes would ensure that “the economy does not compete with ecology, but rather they are part of the same equation”.

“We hope to be able to streamline licensing processes without compromising their quality, which is essential for environmental protection at a time of climate crisis, biodiversity loss and desertification,” said Silva.

Silva said a previous version of the bill, approved by Congress last month, threatened the country’s pledge to eliminate deforestation by 2030 and described it as a “death blow” to Brazil’s licensing framework.

But, she said, Lula’s revised version meant Brazil’s “targets to reach zero deforestation” and its goal to “cut CO2 emissions by between 59 percent and 67 percent remain fully on track”.

Lula’s environmental credentials are under close scrutiny in advance of the annual UN climate summit in November in the Amazon city of Belem.

Despite his austerity measures, the president’s party is expected to do well in the crucial October mid-term elections.

Argentina’s libertarian president, Javier Milei, has vetoed bills aimed at increasing pensions and disability spending, amid ongoing protests against his austerity fiscal policies, which are hitting many people in their day-to-day lives.

Milei’s administration announced the decision on Monday, less than three months before the crucial mid-term elections, saying the country does not have enough money to finance the legislation.

The vetoes can still be overturned by a two-thirds majority in the Congress, where politicians passed the laws in July.

The Argentinian president, whose party only holds a small number of seats in parliament, will hope for a repeat of last year, when he managed to successfully stop pension rises, thanks to support from the conservative PRO bloc.

In a statement published on X on Monday, the president’s office suggested that the now-vetoed laws had been approved by Congress in an “irresponsible manner”, without identifying funding sources.

It claimed that the spending rises would have amounted to 0.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) this year and 1.68 percent of GDP in 2026.

“This president prefers to tell an uncomfortable truth rather than repeat comfortable lies,” the president’s office said.

“The only way to make Argentina great again is with effort and honesty, not the same old recipes,” it added, echoing the “make America great again” rhetoric of the United States President Donald Trump.

Since taking office in December 2023, Milei, a self-described “anarcho-capitalist”, has slashed federal spending in an attempt to reduce inflation.

As part of these largescale economic changes, his government has removed tens of thousands of civil service jobs and made drastic cuts to social spending and public works.

In 2024, Milei’s policies saw Argentina gain its first annual surplus in 14 years, and in June, Argentina’s monthly inflation rate fell below 2 percent for the first time since 2020.

However, the president’s measures have been blamed for tipping millions of people into poverty in the first half of last year.

Unemployment has also grown, and prices are up 40 percent year-on-year, conditions which have led people to protest.

Researchers say pensioners, who have been at the centre of weekly demonstrations, are the hardest-hit group.

Despite the public protests, polls show that Milei’s party holds a sizeable lead ahead of October’s mid-term elections, which will be seen as a referendum on his first two years in office.

June 21 (UPI) — North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein vetoed a bill to require state law enforcement to work more closely with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in addition to another that would allow permit-less concealed carry of firearms.

The Democratic governor on Friday announced vetoes of the legislation, which had been approved by both legislative chambers.

Stein said the state is already stretched to assist federal officers.

“My oath of office requires that I uphold the Constitution of the United States,” Stein said. “Therefore, I cannot sign this bill because it would require sheriffs to unconstitutionally detain people for up to 48 hours after they would otherwise be released.

He noted the federeal Fourth Circuit “is clear that local law enforcement officers cannot keep people in custody solely based on a suspected immigration violation.”

Stein said he also wants offenders to be held accountable.

“Let me be clear, anyone who commits a serious crime in North Carolina must be prosecuted and held accountable regardless of their immigration status.”

He said he supports the bills’ efforts to require sheriffs to contact federal immigration authorities about people in their custody charged with dangerous crimes, including sexual battery, armed robbery, arson, assault on public officials and court personnel.

The vetoes were supported by Guilford County Sheriff Danny Rogers, Forsyth County Sheriff Bobby Kimbrough and Mecklenburg County Sheriff Gary McFadden.

Republicans blasted the decision by the governor, who was elected in November.

“Gov. Stein proved where his allegiances are,” state Senate Leader Phil Berger posted on X. “He’d rather prioritize his far-left donors and their dangerous open-border policies over the citizens of North Carolina who are desperately pleading for us to put an end to the illegal immigration crisis. I look forward to the Senate overriding his veto.”

Stein also vetoed a bill that would have allowed permitless concealed carry in North Carolina.

“This bill makes North Carolinians less safe and undermines responsible gun ownership,” Stein said. “The bill eliminates training requirements associated with concealed carry permits and reduces the age to carry a concealed weapon from 21 to 18 years old.

“We can and should protect the right to bear arms without recklessly endangering law enforcement officers and our people.”

Berger criticized the veto of this bill.

“Law-abiding North Carolinians shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to effectively exercise their Second Amendment rights,” the Senate leader said. “It’s past time for us to join the majority of states that recognize Constitutional Carry. I look forward to the Senate overriding Gov. Stein’s veto.”

To override a veto, three-fifths of the House and Senate must approve the bills.

In the latest election, Democrats broke the Republican supermajority in the House by gaining one seat. The GOP has a one-vote supermajority in the Senate.

The United States has vetoed a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution that called for an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, as Israeli strikes across the enclave have killed nearly 100 Palestinians in the past 24 hours amid a crippling aid blockade.

The US was the only country to vote against the measure on Wednesday while the 14 other members of the council voted in favour.

The resolution also called for the release of Israeli captives held in Gaza, but Washington said it was a “non-starter” because the ceasefire demand is not directly linked to the release of captives.

In remarks before the start of the voting, Acting US Ambassador Dorothy Shea made her country’s opposition to the resolution, put forward by 10 countries on the 15-member council, painfully clear, which she said “should come as no surprise”.

“The United States has taken the very clear position since this conflict began that Israel has the right to defend itself, which includes defeating Hamas and ensuring they are never again in a position to threaten Israel,” she told the council.

China’s Ambassador Fu Cong said Israel’s actions have “crossed every red line” of international humanitarian law and seriously violated UN resolutions. “Yet, due to the shielding by one country, these violations have not been stopped or held accountable.”

Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst Marwan Bishara noted that the US veto makes it “so isolated.”

“Clearly there is a gathering storm … with so many countries” that are standing against the US at the UNSC. “It’s only the US that is trying to block this converging and rising current against Israel and what it’s doing in Gaza … Israel is not defending itself in Gaza, Israel is defending its occupation and siege in Gaza,” Bishara added.

‘Open the crossings’

Despite global demands for a truce, Israel has repeatedly rejected calls for an unconditional or permanent ceasefire, insisting Hamas cannot stay in power, nor in Gaza. It has expanded its military assault in Gaza, killing and wounding thousands more Palestinians and maintaining a brutal blockade on the enclave, only allowing a trickle of tightly-controlled aid in where a famine looms.

At least 95 Palestinians have been killed on Wednesday and more than 440 injured, according to health officials in Gaza.

Al Jazeera’s Tareq Abu Azzoum, reporting from Deir el-Balah, said, “There has been a clear surge of attacks.” He said there were relentless Israeli strikes there in central Gaza and throughout the territory.

Meanwhile, Israel’s military warned starving Palestinians against approaching roads to the US-backed aid distribution sites run by the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), saying the areas will be “considered combat zones” while it halted aid for a whole day.

That move came after Israeli forces opened fire at aid seekers several times, killing more than 100 Palestinians and injuring hundreds more since the GHF started operating on May 27.

Witnesses said Israeli soldiers opened fire on crowds that massed before dawn to seek food on Tuesday. Images of starving Palestinians scrambling for paltry aid packages, herded in cage-like lines and then coming under fire have caused global outrage.

The Israeli military admitted it shot at aid seekers on Tuesday, but claimed that they opened fire when “suspects” deviated from a stipulated route.

At a hospital in southern Gaza, the family of Reem al-Akhras, who was killed in Israel’s mass shooting on Tuesday, mourned her death.

“She went to bring us some food, and this is what happened to her,” her son Zain Zidan said through tears. Her husband, Mohamed Zidan, said “every day unarmed people” are being killed. “This is not humanitarian aid – it’s a trap.”

The new aid distribution process – currently from just three sites – has been widely criticised by rights groups and the UN, who say it does not adhere to humanitarian principles. They also say the aid model, which uses private US security and logistics workers, militarises aid.

Ahead of the UNSC vote, UN aid chief Tom Fletcher again appealed for the UN and aid groups to be allowed to assist people in Gaza, stressing that they have a plan, supplies and experience.

“Open the crossings – all of them. Let in lifesaving aid at scale, from all directions. Lift the restrictions on what and how much aid we can bring in. Ensure our convoys aren’t held up by delays and denials,” Fletcher said in a statement.

The UN has long blamed Israel and lawlessness in the enclave for hindering the delivery of aid and its distribution in Gaza. Israel accuses Hamas of stealing aid, which the group vehemently denies, and the World Food Programme says there is no evidence to support that allegation.

UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) spokesman James Elder, currently in Gaza, described the “horrors” he witnessed within just 24 hours. Speaking from al-Mawasi, Elder told Al Jazeera that Gaza’s hospitals and streets are filled with malnourished children. “I’m seeing teenage boys in tears, showing me their ribs,” he said, noting that children were pleading for food.

The UNSC has voted on 14 Gaza-related resolutions and approved four since the war began in October 2023. Wednesday’s vote was the first since November 2024.

Hamas is still holding 58 captives, a third of them believed to be alive, after most of the rest were released in previous short-lived ceasefire agreements or other deals.

Israel’s offensive has killed more than 54,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

May 17 (UPI) — Maryland Governor Wes Moore vetoed a measure that would have created a commission to study reparations in the former slave state.

Moore vetoed the bill on Friday but said he will propose other methods to address the effects of slavery, Jim Crow laws and other forms of discrimination against blacks in Maryland.

“Together, we must take urgent action to address the barriers that have walled off black families in Maryland from work, wages and wealth for generations,” Moore said Friday in a letter to state lawmakers.

Moore said he will make an announcement regarding the wealth gap in Maryland during the Juneteenth holiday.

The bill was among several that Moore vetoed about 10 days before the deadline to act on them.

The proposed commission would have explored options for addressing the state’s past and subsequent laws deemed discriminatory toward blacks from 1865 to 1965.

The options would have included a formal apology, cash payments or enacting laws that would make amends for past wrongs.

“You can’t have unity without justice, and you can’t have justice without truth-telling, and you can’t have truth-telling without courage,” Delegate Gabriel Acevero, D-Montgomery County, said upon the measure’s introduction in April.

The measure would have created a 23-member commission tasked with studying the effects of slavery and how to make amends with the descendants of former slaves.

Potential state policy changes might have included help with social services and down payments, debt forgiveness, child care coverage and property tax rebates.

A Maryland lawmaker who opposed the proposed reparations commission said it would create a race-based reparations tax.

“It is disgraceful that we are going to set up a reparation tax that will tax one race and give to another race, all in the name of equity,” Delegate Matthew Morgan, R-Calvert and St. Mary’s counties, said upon the bill’s passage in April.

He called “equity” a “Marxist term.”