California Assembly approves 2025 budget package and multiple trailer bills, sending measures to governor and Senate

SACRAMENTO — The California State Assembly on June 4 approved the 2025 budget framework and a slate of budget “trailer” bills that implement the annual budget’s policy and spending provisions, sending measures to the Senate and the governor for final action.

Assemblymembers approved Assembly Bill 102 — the bill reflecting the Legislature’s three‑party agreement on the budget — and a series of trailer bills on matters ranging from childcare and higher education to climate, transportation, taxation and public safety. Assemblymember Gabriel presented the package on the floor and repeatedly “respectfully request[ed] your I vote” as members moved from bill to bill.

The package includes major program changes and appropriations: SB 120 implements childcare and preschool fiscal provisions, restoring a cost‑of‑living adjustment (COLA) and adding $128,000,000 to begin funding programs prospectively based on enrollment starting July 1, 2026; SB 127 is a climate omnibus trailer advancing funding for zero‑emission trucks and buses and local Air Resources Board allocations; SB 132 is a revenue trailer providing tax relief for military retirement pay, wildfire settlement tax relief and expansion of the film and television tax credit; SB 141 authorizes cannabis enforcement funding and local grants; and SB 142 extends the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program. On the human services and health front, AB 116 and AB 1 16 implement health‑related budget provisions and Medi‑Cal adjustments described on the floor as delaying some reductions while backfilling federal cuts to HIV programs.

Floor votes recorded on the floor included: AB 102 (Ayes 55, Noes 16), SB 103 (Ayes 52, Noes 16), SB 120 (Ayes 65, Noes 1), SB 124 (Ayes 69, Noes 1), SB 127 (Ayes 53, Noes 17), SB 128 (Ayes 53, Noes 17), SB 132 (Ayes 64, Noes 1), SB 141 (Ayes 71, Noes 1), SB 142 (Ayes 68, Noes 1 on urgency and on the measure), AB 116 (Ayes 52, Noes 13), AB 118 (Ayes 62, Noes 0), AB 121 (Ayes 65, Noes 0), AB 123 (Ayes 73, Noes 1), AB 134 (Ayes 69, Noes 1), AB 136 (Ayes 76, Noes 1), AB 137 (Ayes 57, Noes 17), AB 143 (Ayes 56, Noes 17), and AB 470 (Ayes 54, Noes 1). Where the clerk recorded “immediate transmittal” or “without objection,” the Assembly proceeded to transmit measures as required.

Assemblymember Gabriel, who opened many of the floor presentations, framed the package as reflecting the Legislature’s work to balance “compassion and fiscal responsibility,” citing investments in housing, health care, childcare, education, wildfire resilience and public safety. He said the bills “reflect the architecture that the legislature put forward” and asked colleagues repeatedly to support concurrence with Senate amendments where applicable.

Floor leader Flora repeatedly registered formal opposition on several items, saying the package “continues unsustainable spending levels” and criticizing funding choices, including what he described as insufficient funding for Proposition 36 implementation, lack of new wildfire prevention and water‑storage funding, and other priorities. During debate on various bills, other members voiced support for specific items or described concerns about particular program impacts — for example, advocates for increased funding for family justice centers and expanded film tax credits emphasized jobs and services supported by the measures.

Key policy and budget details recorded on the floor included: an identified $395,000,000 shortfall addressed at CDCR (as described during SB 103), the $128,000,000 childcare enrollment funding in SB 120, expansion of the film and TV tax credit cap to $750,000,000 mentioned during SB 132 debate, and funding directed to local grants and enforcement for illicit cannabis markets under SB 141. Members also discussed Medi‑Cal changes in AB 116, including delayed reductions for some programs and administrative adjustments; specific provisions and the timing of their implementation were debated on the floor.

Several members urged the public and colleagues to read the details of the bills. Assemblymember Gabriel warned that federal policymaking and economic shifts in Washington could force further budget adjustments, and he urged colleagues to oppose federal actions that would exacerbate state fiscal pressure. Opposing members cautioned that some measures do not go far enough to protect certain populations or to correct long‑standing funding shortfalls.

The Assembly concluded the day’s business after voting on the consent calendar and scheduling the next floor session for June 30. Measures requiring concurrence were transmitted as recorded on the floor; those sent to the governor were noted as “immediate transmittal.”

Votes counted on the Assembly floor and recorded in the Clerk’s tally determine whether thresholds required for particular bills were met; measures designated as 54‑vote bills were recorded with the required majority where applicable.