California’s Most Ridiculous Laws for 2026

A new year always brings change – and in California, it also brings a long list of new laws. In 2025, Governor Newsom signed 794 bills into law,[1] touching nearly every aspect of daily life. And while I’d love to believe all 794 were thoughtful, effective, and necessary...that just usually is not the case in our state!

Today, we’re going to break down a handful of the worst bills passed in 2025 — some so ridiculous they’re almost funny, and others that should genuinely worry you. But whether we laugh at them or not, these laws are now shaping life in California, making it more important than ever that we understand what is set to change in 2026!

Goodbye Plastic Bags!

First up, in 2026 there will no longer be ANY plastic bags at grocery stores! Senate Bill 1053 – which was actually passed in 2024, so technically it’s not a 2025 bill, but it goes into effect this week – closed the loopholes on a previous bill passed back in 2014 to ban plastic bags.[2]

If you have lived in California for over 10 years, then you have likely witnessed firsthand the shift in plastic bags over the last decade. We used to have the standard, flimsy grocery bags, but in the last few years the bags have gotten thicker and are often reusable. But the environmentalists are still not pleased with this, and so our legislature has decided no more plastic bags, regardless of if they are theoretically reusable or not.[3]

This is ridiculous. Why? Well for one thing, this doesn’t change the fact that everything you buy at the store comes in some type of packaging. Think about it! If you buy meat, it has to come in plastic for sanitary purposes. If you’re buying more than two or three produce items, you put them in the little bags to keep them together and make checkout easy. No one is just throwing raw chicken or naked cilantro in their reusable cloth bag. So is the problem really the handful of plastic bags that you carry all of your heavily packaged foods out to your car in?

But even beyond that, look at the impact that switching to only paper bags really has. Paper bags can actually have a larger carbon footprint than plastic bags because they require more energy, water, and transportation emissions to make. A life-cycle study found that paper bags must be reused several times more to break even environmentally compared with a plastic bag’s lower per-use impact.[4] But many consumers aren’t going to do that, because if you’ve ever tried to reuse a paper bag then you know it breaks and rips way too easily, which means the extra resources used to make the paper bags can end up producing more emissions and waste overall. In other words: simply swapping one material for another doesn’t automatically reduce environmental harm.

So, if it isn’t proven to be effective, then we shouldn’t be passing a law requiring it, which will also have a consumer and business impact. For consumers, paper bags are less durable and reliable, especially for heavy items. But think also of the impact on businesses – paper bags are more expensive than plastic bags, and so while it can seem like a small cost, it adds up over time to just be another regulation on stores that increases their costs. This might be easy for large chains to absorb, but it could disproportionately impact small businesses. In the end, this is another mandate with questionable environmental benefits and very real costs for both shoppers and stores.

Yay for Higher Rent Costs!

Next up, let’s increase the cost of rent! How? Well per Assembly Bill 628, starting today, rental units in California must include a working refrigerator and stove as part of what makes housing legally habitable.[5] The argument for passing this bill is the idea that refrigerators and stoves are essential to modern life, and so renters shouldn’t have to buy these appliances themselves. But while that sounds good, and I agree that you likely are going to need a refrigerator and stove, this is another housing regulation that burdens landlords and will increase costs for renters. Do you think that landlords who haven’t supplied these appliances previously will now just happily and willingly include them at no extra cost? No! This will result in higher rents passed on in order for the landlord to recoup the cost of buying and replacing appliances.

This is yet another move on the slippery slope of defining what people are entitled to, or have a right to. Habitability is traditionally focused on health and safety – making sure there is running water, that the heat works, that there is structural integrity to the building, that you aren’t overrun by cockroaches. But now California is setting the precedent to expand the baseline to include these certain appliances. Where will it end? Dishwashers, microwaves, a washer and dryer in unit? Once we start to regulate one aspect, it continues from there until every aspect is regulated. Plus, this doesn’t consider that some tenants may already own their own appliances or prefer to buy something specialized – instead, this forces a one-size-fits-all model on every landlord and tenant.

Ultimately, this bill treats symptoms, not causes. If tenants can’t afford basic appliances, that points to a high cost of living, high rent, and a lack of affordable housing. Mandating appliances be included in housing doesn’t fix those problems, it just layers regulation on top of them, potentially making housing even more expensive and scarce.

Reparations or Racism?

Now, if you want to go a step further and talk about a bill that not only will not be effective, but is entirely about virtue signaling, then we have to talk about Senate Bill 518. This bill establishes the “Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery” as a permanent state agency within the California Civil Rights Department.[6] What will this agency do, you might ask? Well, their sole job will be to create defined divisions for individuals based on genealogy, property reclamation and education, which will then provide a framework for distributing – you guessed it! – reparations.

The Chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus said about the bill, “For generations, Black Americans have faced exclusion, exploitation, and systemic barriers to opportunity. With SB 518, we lay the foundation for a future built on truth, equity, and repair.”[7]  

But here’s the problem: dividing people by race or ancestry is wrong. For decades, our laws have rejected the idea that the government should sort people into racial categories. We’ve recognized that granting benefits based on ancestry isn’t justice, it’s actually a form of discrimination. Lawmakers are framing this as “equity” and “repairing past wrongs,” but race-based policymaking repeats the same mistake we spent generations trying to move past by treating people not as individuals, but as members of a racial group. That’s regression, not progress.

Our state needs to stop looking backwards at the past, at wrongs that haven’t been perpetuated for decades, and instead needs to focus on empowering individuals, regardless of their race or background. In America, in California, you can get ahead. You can work hard and see the fruit of that work. You can make something of yourself. It does not matter what race you are! The opportunity is available to each and every person. We need to stop driving forward this narrative that you are owed something because potentially in the past you had an ancestor who suffered harms. You aren’t owed anything. It is your responsibility to take the life you have been given, the circumstances you have been given, and to make the most of them. Don’t rely on your government for a handout, that is fundamentally un-American.

This also won’t do anything. Giving taxpayer money to people of one race doesn’t right any historical wrongs. Those wrongs were made right when slavery was abolished and subsequently when segregation was outlawed. We have done those things, now it’s time to keep building. This bill doesn’t accomplish anything – it’s a virtue signal and our lawmakers know it.

ICE Suffers, Once Again

Which brings us to another virtue signal bill, Senate Bill 627. This bill prohibits law enforcement officers from wearing masks or other face coverings while interacting with the public,[8] and it was passed specifically to target members of Immigration and Customs Enforcement who have been wearing masks as they conduct federal immigration enforcement.

Here’s the problem: ICE agents are wearing face masks in California because they are being targeted by extremist activists who want to get them killed. ICE officers literally fear for their lives because Los Angeles and California do not work with them or work to protect them as they try to carry out their jobs. The Department of Homeland Security released data that evidenced an over 1,000 percent increase in assaults and violence against ICE agents as compared with levels in 2024 under the Biden Administration.[9]

Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin put it bluntly: after months of Democrat politicians comparing ICE to Nazis and the Gestapo, and even encouraging illegal immigrants to resist arrest, violence against agents has exploded. She warned that this rhetoric is going to get a law enforcement officer killed.[10] And instead of condemning that violence or working to protect law enforcement, California’s response is to strip officers of one of the few tools they have to protect themselves – the ability to conceal their identity.

At a time when ICE agents are being hunted, doxed, and threatened, Gavin Newsom signed a bill that makes them more visible, more vulnerable, and more exposed. It is completely reckless of him. 

Of course, it’s also completely unconstitutional. This bill seeks to regulate federal law enforcement behavior, but a state law that applies to federal officers is likely to run into serious constitutional and legal challenges under the Supremacy Clause, because federal agencies aren’t subject to state rules on how they perform their duties. This could make the law largely unenforceable in practice and just symbolic rather than substantive. Which is no surprise, given most of our laws are symbolic, but is still upsetting, nonetheless.

New Tortilla Requirements??

And last but not least, we have to talk about Assembly Bill 1830, which will now require corn tortillas and masa products all through California to include folic acid.[11] You’re probably thinking, what? Why is this a law and what does this mean?

Frankly, this bill is laughable. But let me try to explain. Folic acid is often preached as helping to prevent birth defects, and so it is recommended for women to take while pregnant. It’s why women are encouraged to take a prenatal vitamin, usually it contains some level of folic acid. Well, according to California lawmakers, apparently about 28% of Hispanic pregnant women reported taking folic acid, while 46% of white women reported taking it as a prenatal.[12] Lawmakers argue this puts the Latina community at a higher risk of having babies born with birth defects. So, to solve this problem, California is committed to public health and nutrition education as well as supporting individualized health care to make sure moms are well-informed to make the best choices for their babies…pysch! That approach would make too much sense. Instead, California has decided if it shoves folic acid into tortillas, this will protect the Latino community.

I don’t understand how this isn’t offensive and working off of stereotypes, but there you have it – our lawmakers believe that to help pregnant Hispanic women in the month before they become pregnant, they will force every person who is eating corn or masa products to ingest folic acid. Make it make sense!

This is insane for a few reasons. First, the underlying assumption here is insulting: to assert that certain communities can’t be reached through education, access to healthcare, or personal choice, so the state needs to quietly shove vitamins into their food instead. That’s not empowerment, it’s stereotyping – and I thought we weren’t allowed to stereotype these days?  

But beyond that, health is not one-size-fits-all, yet this law treats it that way. Instead of investing in health education, prenatal care, or making supplements affordable and accessible, California chose the laziest possible option by mandating an ingredient in a staple food and calling it equity. That’s not nuanced public health policy! This also doesn’t apply to the majority of the population, so why are we blanket mandating that now every single person who wants to eat a tortilla must ingest folic acid?

And here’s where this really falls apart: not everyone can safely process folic acid. Some people have genetic variations that make it difficult or harmful to metabolize synthetic folic acid, as opposed to natural folate. For those individuals, mandatory fortification isn’t helpful, it’s actually potentially harmful. This is why it’s so important for women to be informed and equipped to make their own health decisions. Not every woman decides to take a prenatal vitamin, and not every woman will take the same prenatal vitamin. It is important to let women make informed decisions, not shove something literally down their throats that isn’t going to help their bodies. I thought California believed in “my body, my choice”?

This law also raises a bigger question: how comfortable are we with the state deciding what must go into our food? I’m not comfortable with it at all! I would like to get more and more things OUT of our food and let people make choices for themselves. So, overall, this is once again insane and is very bad public policy. It’s clear that our lawmakers do not respect people’s intelligence, their autonomy, or their individual health needs. This bill is clumsy, patronizing, and completely emblematic of California’s approach to policy.

Come 2026!

This is just a quick snapshot of some of the most ridiculous bills going into effect, but trust me, there’s a whole lot more where that came from. At the end of the day, our lawmakers need to stop passing laws that aren’t effective, and that have negative outcomes for their constituents. And we need to hold them accountable! So, as we walk into 2026, let’s hit the ground running, excited to keep doing that together here each week.

 
References:

[1] Edelman, Adam. “Gavin Newsom Signed Nearly 800 Bills This Year. Here’s What’s in Them — and What They Mean for 2028.” NBC News, December 20, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2028-election/gavin-newsom-signed-nearly-800-bills-year-mean-2028-rcna247834.

[2] CBS 8 Staff. “2026 New California Laws | Banning Single-use Carryout Bags.” Cbs8.Com, December 18, 2025. https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/california/banning-single-use-carryout-bags/509-74305d93-23f8-420a-bab3-f56f69ec2a77.

[3] Hayes, Rob. “California Passed a Ban on Plastic Bags in 2014. Here’s Why Gov. Newsom Has Now Signed a Similar Law.” ABC7 Los Angeles, September 24, 2024. https://abc7.com/post/california-passed-ban-plastic-bags-2014-heres-gov-newsom-has-now-signed-similar-law/15345718/.

[4] Carr, Ada. “Banning Plastic Bags May Not Have the Environmental Impact We Hoped For.” The Weather Channel, June 15, 2016. https://weather.com/science/environment/news/plastic-paper-cotton-bag-ban-reusable-recycle-pollution.

CalMatters. “AB 628: Hiring of Real Property: Dwellings: Untenantability.” Digital Democracy, October 6, 2025. https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260ab628

[6] CalMatters, “SB 518: Descendants of Enslaved Persons: Reparations.,” Digital Democracy, October 10, 2025, https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260sb518.

[7] California Legislative Black Caucus. “Governor Newsom Signs Landmark Bill Creating Slavery Descendants Bureau,” October 10, 2025. https://blackcaucus.legislature.ca.gov/news/governor-newsom-signs-landmark-bill-creating-slavery-descendants-bureau.

[8] CalMatters, “SB 627: Law Enforcement: Masks.,” Digital Democracy, September 20, 2025, https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260sb627.

[9] Department of Homeland Security. “Sanctuary Politicians’ Rhetoric Fuels More Than 1,150% Increase in Violence Against ICE Law Enforcement.” Press Release, November 24, 2025. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/11/24/sanctuary-politicians-rhetoric-fuels-more-1150-increase-violence-against-ice-law#:~:text=%E2%80%9COur%20law%20enforcement%20officers%20have,ICE%20and%20law%20enforcement%20partners.

[10] Department of Homeland Security. “Despite 1,000% Increase in Assaults on ICE Officers, Governor Newsom Signs Unconstitutional Law to Ban Law Enforcement Officer Protections.” Press release, September 20, 2025. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/09/22/despite-1000-increase-assaults-ice-officers-governor-newsom-signs-unconstitutional.

[11] CalMatters, “AB 1830: Corn Masa Flour and Wet Corn Masa Products: Folic Acid Fortification.,” Digital Democracy, January 28, 2024, https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202320240ab1830.

[12] Ibarra, Ana B. “A New California Law Requires Tortillas to Include an Extra Ingredient. Here’s Why.” CalMatters, December 26, 2025. https://calmatters.org/health/2025/12/tortilla-law-folic-acid-california/.