Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D- Hollister) and Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez (D- Los Angeles) have announced Assembly Bill 1896, legislation to bar Department of Homeland Security employees who participated in immigration enforcement during the second Trump administration from holding any public employment in California — including peace‑officer positions.
It’s the most recent in a cluster of anti DHS bills that would have a sweeping reach. Assembly Bill 1537, for example, would bar current peace officers from serving in any part time or volunteer capacity with DHS or its contractors. Taken together, these measures do not merely target isolated wrongdoing. They broadly exclude anyone with DHS ties, a move that sweeps in thousands of employees who served lawfully and, in most cases, honorably.
The consequences would be particularly stark for the members of the U.S. Coast Guard. Unique among the armed services, the Coast Guard is both a military branch and a federal law‑enforcement agency. It has been under DHS since 2003, making it the only service not in the Department of Defense. The Coast Guard’s statutory missions — ports and coastal security, search and rescue, drug interdiction, marine environmental protection, migrant interdiction, and defense readiness — are essential to California’s safety and economy. In 2025, the Coast Guard interdicted thousands of individuals attempting illegal maritime entry – in many cases saving them from peril at sea.
Today, many former Coast Guard members and reservists now serve as California educators, firefighters, public employees, and peace officers, bringing mission‑tested skills to local communities.
Reservists deserve special attention. Coast Guard reservists, like members of other reserve components, live and work in California often as full‑time public‑sector employees while remaining subject to recall for federal duty. They perform dual roles: maintaining civilian public safety and answering lawful federal orders for maritime interdiction, disaster response, and defense readiness when on active duty. Broad bans on DHS service would jeopardize their civilian careers, deter reserve recruitment, and strain the many state and local agencies that rely on these experienced personnel.
There are legal conflicts that lawmakers appear to have overlooked in proposing these measures. California law provides hiring preference for veterans — explicitly including Coast Guard service — under the California Government Code and related civil‑service provisions. Statutes designed to protect veterans from employment discrimination would be undercut if state policy effectively excludes those whose federal service included DHS or Coast Guard duty. Worse, by forcing reservists to choose between their government employment and readiness to obey lawful federal orders, the bills risk compelling service members to disobey orders — conduct that can carry severe consequences under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
If the Legislature seeks accountability for specific actions by ICE or Border Patrol agents, it should draft narrowly targeted measures that address identifiable wrongdoing rather than imposing blanket bans that punish lawful service. Otherwise, California will risk sidelining experienced public servants, undermining reserve readiness, running afoul of veteran‑preference protections, and further shrinking an already limited pool of qualified candidates for critical state roles.
Lawmakers can and should pursue justice without sacrificing public safety or betraying the men and women who have served our country in the US Coast Guard.
Steve Smith is a senior fellow in urban studies at the Pacific Research Institute, focusing on California’s ongoing crime challenges.
