California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a Democratic bill shielding future reparations payments from state income tax, leaving the author deeply disappointed as cash payouts stay stalled by budget limits.
On Sept. 30, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed Assembly Bill 2186 while acting on a series of measures. The bill, authored by Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, D-Inglewood, would have excluded any reparations benefit or payment from California personal income tax for taxable years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2028, and before Jan. 1, 2033.
Fox News Digital reported that McKinnor told the outlet she was deeply disappointed by the decision. The measure defined a reparations benefit or payment as any monetary payment, grant, trust distribution, debt forgiveness or other financial compensation from a qualifying state, local or federal program.
Newsom signed a separate reparations-related bill the same day. Assembly Bill 2599, from Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, D-Ladera Heights, requires certain large companies to file sworn affidavits on slavery-era records once the legislature funds it.
In his official veto message, Newsom thanked McKinnor for her work but pointed straight at the cost risks. He wrote that the full scope of the proposed tax exclusion remained unknown and that fiscal caution was warranted.
Newsom stated the proposed exclusion for unspecified federal initiatives could be interpreted broadly, resulting in substantial fiscal uncertainty. He added that the potentially significant General Fund implications meant the measure should be considered as part of the annual budget process. When reached for comment, Newsom’s office said the veto message speaks for itself.
The governor has previously signed legislation establishing the Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery. He described that agency as a first-in-the-nation body that will advise on reparative justice programs for Black Americans and said California’s work on the endeavor is just beginning.
Yet concrete direct cash payout initiatives at the state level have stalled over budget concerns and legal vulnerabilities. California was the first state to establish a formal task force to study the legacy of slavery and recommend potential restitution measures. Local efforts elsewhere have moved differently: Black residents in Evanston, Illinois, received $25,000 housing grants under a municipal program, and a Chicago suburb extended a guaranteed income effort while running a similar $25,000 payment program.
Newsom’s record on high-profile state actions continues to draw attention, including earlier moves such as the 25% tax on private ICE detention centers aimed at limiting federal enforcement.
McKinnor rejected any framing of the payments as optional generosity. She emphasized that the money would repair documented harm rather than function as a gift.
"I am deeply disappointed that Governor Newsom vetoed AB 2186. Reparations are not a gift or a government handout,"
She continued that reparations are meant to repair harm, not be partially taken back through taxation. In further comments she framed the payments as compensation for generations of injustice, discrimination and economic harm.
"California cannot claim to support reparative justice while taxing the very compensation intended to repair that harm. I respect the Governor's concerns about fiscal responsibility, but justice must also be a priority."
McKinnor argued the state cannot keep studying injustice, acknowledge the harm, and then hesitate when it is time to act. She said she remains committed to working with colleagues and the new governor to bring the legislation back in 2027, adding that justice delayed should not become justice denied.
That reference to a new governor lands against the backdrop of Newsom’s own 2028 calculations, including his public pledge to stand aside if Kamala Harris enters the race.
AB 2599 applies to businesses with more than $100 million in annual worldwide gross receipts that existed, or that have a predecessor entity, on or before Dec. 31, 1964. Once funded by the legislature, covered companies must submit sworn affidavits under penalty of perjury. Those affidavits must verify searches for historical records involving the purchase or sale of enslaved people, their use as loan collateral, slave-related insurance policies and other transactions. Covered companies will have until January 2029 to submit their first affidavits.
The contrast is clear on the ledger: one bill creates paperwork requirements for large corporations years down the road. The other would have protected actual cash or benefits from state taxation if any qualifying reparations program ever materialized. Newsom signed the disclosure measure and vetoed the tax exclusion.
Readers tracking the governor’s wider profile have also seen coverage of Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s sidestep on his presidential ambitions during a recent MSNBC interview.
AB 2186 would have applied only if qualifying programs were established. No statewide direct cash program was in place that would have been affected immediately. The veto therefore blocked a future tax shield rather than an existing payout stream. Newsom’s own message tied the decision to unknown federal initiatives and General Fund pressure rather than a rejection of the underlying cause.
Related reporting on the same veto decision has already circulated among readers following California policy fights, including prior pieces on how Newsom handled the reparations tax break.
McKinnor’s 2027 restart pledge keeps the issue alive past the current administration. Whether a future governor and legislature treat the tax exclusion as budget-neutral justice or another open-ended fiscal risk will be decided after Newsom leaves office.
Talk of repair is easy. Writing blank checks against the General Fund is harder when the bill finally comes due.
