Going against Beshear, Kentucky legislators send some controversial bills on to become law
Kentucky lawmakers returned to Frankfort this week for the final two days of the 2025 legislative session — where one of the biggest priorities for the Republican supermajority was overriding vetoes from Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear.
Between March 15 and 26, Beshear vetoed 16 House bills, two House Joint Resolutions and eight Senate bills. He also line-item vetoed two House bills and one from the Senate.
The vetoes targeted several controversial bills, including one revising Kentucky's abortion law and another banning diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives at public universities.
However, legislators in the House and Senate can override Beshear's vetoes while still in session. And with Republicans in control of both chambers, they spent Thursday rolling through bills the governor had vetoed and reapproving them to become law.
House Speaker David Osborne, R-Prospect, said he doesn't begrudge Beshear for trying to make a point through vetoes. But legislators have a right to make their own point by overriding those vetoes.
"It's an exercise," Osborne said Thursday night. "There are times when I wonder why we go through it. I'm sure there's times when the governor wonders why he goes through it. But we both do what we feel compelled to do."
On Friday, Osborne said, the chambers are unlikely to take up any more controversial measures, as vetoes of those bills would not be able to be overridden. There are still a few bills that need approval, he said, which will keep legislators busy on the final day of the session.
In the meantime, here's a closer look at several bills lawmakers decided to override.
What is the bill about? HB 2, sponsored by Rep. TJ Roberts, R-Burlington, aims to stop the state from taxing gold, silver and other bullion currency, a provision legislators passed last year but was line-item vetoed by Beshear. It would also grant those who have paid sales taxes on gold and silver since last August — when the exemption was set to take effect — the power to use the courts to seek a refund, along with $1,000 for "each day that the violation occurred," paid by the governor's office, if taxation continues after passage.
Why did Beshear veto it? Beshear said the bill would "punish state officials for carrying out the law," putting executive branch employees at risk of being personally sued for acting "in good faith and in accordance with the law."
What was the vote? The veto was struck down on an 80-20 party-line vote in the House and on a 31-6 vote in the Senate.
What is the bill about? House Bill 4 was filed by Rep. Jennifer Decker, R-Waddy, and backed by the GOP supermajorities. It cracks down on diversity, equity and inclusion offices and initiatives at public universities across the state, prohibiting schools from spending money on such programs while also prohibiting them from requiring students or staff to attend DEI training sessions, among other things.
Why did Beshear veto it? Beshear said diversity programs 'help us add more voices to the table,' and HB 4 negates that by preventing schools from fully supporting students from diverse backgrounds and from investigating most allegations of bias.
What was the vote? After lengthy discussion in the House, the veto was overridden 78-19 and was overridden in the Senate on a 32-6 vote.
What is the bill about? House Bill 90 was filed by Rep. Jason Nemes, R-Middletown. It initially aimed to remove the certificate of need requirement for freestanding birthing centers but was later expanded with a measure codifying which medical conditions and obstetrical complications are not considered abortion under state law.
Why did Beshear veto it? Beshear argued the abortion portion of the legislation "actually does the opposite" of what it intends. He said it's not possible to create an exhaustive list of emergency situations that could require an abortion and includes language not used by medical professionals, as well as language that creates barriers to life-saving care. He also criticized the late addition to the bill, arguing the process "lacks transparency and violates the Kentucky Constitution."
What was the vote? The veto was overridden in the House on a 77-20 vote — Reps. Vanessa Grossl, R-Georgetown, and Kim King, R-Harrodsburg, voted with the minority, while Rep. Ashley Tackett Laferty, D-Martin, voted with Republicans — and in the Senate on 31-7 vote.
What is the bill about? HB 398 was put forward by Rep. Walker Thomas, R-Hopkinsville. It aims to ensure the state does not take up or enforce any occupational safety and health administrative regulations that are tougher than federal standards.
Why did Beshear veto it? Beshear said the bill would weaken workplace safety standards and the state's ability to investigate potential violations, as well as prevent Kentucky from enforcing key regulations related to issues such as high falls, exposure to hazardous materials and high-voltage electrical lines.
What was the vote? The veto was overridden in the House on a 78-22 vote — with Reps. Scott Lewis, R-Hartford, and Deanna Gordon, R-Richmond, joining Democrats in opposition — and was overridden in the Senate on a 29-9 vote.
What is the bill about? HB 424 was sponsored by Rep. James Tipton, R-Taylorsville. It requires state university boards to take part in performance reviews of all presidents and faculty members once every four years and allows boards to remove employees from those positions regardless of status with the school if they fail to meet performance and productivity requirements.
Why did Beshear veto it? Beshear said the bill "threatens academic freedom" and will make it harder for the state to attract and retain talent by limiting employment protections.
What was the vote? The veto was overridden in the House on an 80-20 party-line vote and in the Senate 29-9 vote.
What is the bill about? HB 495, sponsored by Rep. David Hale, R-Wellington, initially aimed to overturn Beshear's executive order banning conversion therapy but was amended in the Senate to also ban Medicaid funds from going toward hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery.
Why did Beshear veto it? Beshear has been an outspoken critic of conversion therapy, referring to it as "torture" in a social media post announcing the veto.
What was the vote? The override was approved in the House on a 78-20 vote. Rep. Kim Banta, R-Ft. Mitchell, voted with Democrats in favor of the veto, while Tackett Laferty joined Republicans in striking it down. The Senate voted to override the veto 31-6.
What is the bill about? HB 695, filed by Rep. Adam Bowling, R-Middlesboro, creates a Medicaid Oversight and Accountability Board to study the health care system in the state and makes other changes to Kentucky's Medicaid distribution, including introducing work requirements for able-bodied adults.
Why did Beshear veto it? Beshear argued the bill gives the legislature too much day-to-day control over Medicaid, a massive system with many moving parts, and said the work requirements will cut off coverage for many Kentucky residents and open the state up to litigation.
What was the vote? The veto was overridden in the House on a party-line 80-20 vote and in the Senate on a 29-7 vote.
What is the bill about? The bill requires public K-12 schools to have a moment of silence at the start of each school day. It also allows school boards to let students be excused for up to one hour each week for "moral instruction."
Why did Beshear veto it? Beshear said he rejected the measures because requiring a 'seated' time of silence does not recognize different faiths, and it would cause students to miss out on important instructional time
What was the vote? The Senate voted to override the veto on a 29-8 vote, where Republican Sens. Chris McDaniel and Michael Nemes crossed party lines. The override was approved 74-17 in the House.
What is the bill about? The bill requires courts to interpret laws without deferring to a state agency's interpretation of them when reviewing disputes between executive branch agencies and the state legislature. The language mirrors last year's Supreme Court decision overruling Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council
Why did Beshear veto it? Beshear said the bill violates the separation of powers and requires courts to "resolve ambiguous questions against a finding of an increased agency authority."
What was the vote? The Senate voted to override the veto on a 32-6 vote, with Democratic Sen. Robin Webb crossing party lines to vote "aye." The House voted 74-18 to override it.
What is the bill about? The bill reduces pollution protections for some water resources, including groundwater, and would permit coal mines and other industries to align with federal water definitions. In 2023, the federal water definitions were weakened by the Supreme Court.
Why did Beshear veto it? Beshear said he believes the bill threatens the quality of Kentucky's water by failing to protect its water sources.
"Senate Bill 89 makes Kentucky the only state in the country to cede its regulatory authority to federal government," Beshear said in his veto message.
What was the vote? The Senate voted to override the veto on a 29-8 vote, where Republican Sen. Chris McDaniel crossed party lines and voted "aye." Democratic Sen. Robin Webb also crossed party lines and voted "no." In the House, the override passed 66-23, with Reps. Kim Banta, Daniel Elliott, Ken Fleming, Kevin Jackson and Bobby McCool voting with Democrats to keep the veto in place.
What is the bill about? The bill authorizes public schools to become "schools of innovation." That means schools could seek waivers and exemptions from some state laws and regulations from the Kentucky Department of Education.
Why did Beshear veto it? Beshear vetoed the bill because it 'significantly expands the Kentucky Board of Education's discretion that currently allows it to suspend only its own regulations if requested and will create disproportionate educational standards between local school districts.'
What was the vote? The Senate voted to override the veto on a 31-7 vote. The override was approved 78-16 in the House.
Reach The Courier Journal's politics team at cjpolitics@courier-journal.com.
This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: Kentucky legislature overrides Beshear's vetoes. What will become law
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
20 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Minnesota killings spread fear in country riven by violence against politicians
Daniel Hernandez, whose life has been shaped by violence directed at politicians, woke up Saturday morning to missed calls and messages from loved ones who had seen the news that two state legislators had been shot in Minnesota and immediately worried about his safety. Hernandez, a former Democratic state lawmaker who is now running in a special election to represent Arizona's 7th Congressional District, began his political career as an intern for former Rep. Gabby Giffords and was credited with helping to save her from a mass shooter in 2011. Last week, a bullet struck the car window of one of his campaign staffers outside his family home, which doubles as his campaign headquarters. His mother and staffers were inside, he said.


Fox News
22 minutes ago
- Fox News
Left-wing advocacy groups in the hot seat as anti-ICE riots trigger investigation: 'Not protected speech'
The anti-ICE protests and riots in Los Angeles brought heightened scrutiny on activist groups, including the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, and Union del Barrio. CHIRLA and the other groups are now subject to an investigation by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-MO., through the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said that the Internal Revenue Service is looking into any possible funding of "violent" acts, according to CBS News. Hawley sent letters to the groups for an "alleged role in financing and materially supporting the coordinated protests and riots that have gulfed Los Angeles." "Credible reporting now suggests that your organization has provided logistical support and financial resources to individuals engaged in these disruptive actions," Hawley wrote in the letters. "Let me be clear: bankrolling civil unrest is not protected speech. It is aiding and abetting criminal conduct." CHIRLA Executive Director Angelica Salas condemned the ICE sweeps in Los Angeles during a news conference with Mayor Karen Bass on Thursday, adding that Republicans are "saying the most vicious lies of who we are, what we do and what we're about." "And yes, we have received a letter from Sen. Josh Hawley. But what I want you to know is that's not going to deter us, it's not going to intimidate us from standing with our immigrant community," Salas said. CHIRLA said they have not played a role in the violence, according to the New York Post earlier this week. Some parts of the city faced property damage, including vehicles and businesses. The organization has received $34 million in taxpayer funding in the past, including $750,000 under the Biden administration, according to IRS records obtained by Fox News. The group runs a "rapid-response network," which Salas mentioned in the press conference has been busy with the recent ICE arrest operations in the area. "Yesterday, our raids rapid response network did not stop receiving calls until after 7 p.m.," Salas said. "And so, there's two kinds of reports. It's the community is also very scared. So even if they're not at an enforcement site, what's happening is they're witnessing everything." CHIRLA operates a "deportation defense" legal team, along with other immigration resources, according to its website. "CHIRLA relies on the love and vision of our community to organize and build power among people, institutions, and organizations to change public opinion and craft progressive policies that promote human, civil and labor rights for everyone," the group's website states on its mission page. President Donald Trump has claimed "paid insurrections" have played a role in the riots, as a legal battle plays out between him and the state of California for his National Guard troop deployment to the civil unrest. Fox News Digital reached out to CHIRLA for further comment. The FBI told Fox News Digital earlier this week that if any evidence of a criminal conspiracy emerges, they will look into it. "We're investigating anyone who crosses the line from first-amendment protected activity to violence and are prepared to prosecute anyone who assaults a federal officer or causes damage to government property," Laura Eimiller, media coordinator for the FBI's Los Angeles Field Office, told Fox News Digital in an email at the time. "LAPD, as you know, is also making arrests for unlawful assembly. Obviously, any evidence of a criminal conspiracy will be investigated."

Politico
25 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump has a plan to remake the housing-finance system. It's baffling to many lawmakers and experts.
GOP lawmakers and the mortgage industry are raising questions about the Trump administration's plans to maintain government control over much of the nation's housing finance system, defying expectations that it would back off. President Donald Trump surprised the industry late last month by pledging to take public Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-controlled companies that stand behind half the $16 trillion residential mortgage market — while preserving an implicit federal guarantee for their solvency. His top housing regulator, Bill Pulte, who oversees the companies, added to the confusion by saying the administration is exploring ways to sell shares while keeping the companies under government authority. The insistence on preserving significant sway over the two mortgage giants, which were seized by the Bush administration during the financial crisis and placed in conservatorship, is setting up a potential rift with Republicans — and possibly even some administration aides who have long worked to reduce the government's footprint in the housing market. 'I want to get them out of conservatorship,' said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), chair of the Senate Banking subcommittee with oversight of Fannie and Freddie. 'But I want to be very careful about how we do it, because we need the secondary market, and we need it to work,' he added, referring to the market where mortgage loans are purchased and sold to investors. Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee, said 'we need to continue to investigate recapitalization and releasing' the companies from government control. The question of what to do with Fannie and Freddie has bedeviled policymakers for decades, with Republicans wanting the government to take its hands off housing finance and Democrats fearing that privatizing the firms would destabilize the market and push up mortgage rates. At stake is a potential windfall of hundreds of billions of dollars for an administration that is staring at massive fiscal deficits. The government holds a roughly $340 billion liquidation preference for the two companies, by one estimate — meaning the money would go to the Treasury Department before anyone else in the event of a sale. Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, will meet with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Paul Atkins on June 17 to discuss the future of Fannie and Freddie, underscoring the importance of the issue. Fannie and Freddie don't make loans themselves, but rather purchase them from mortgage companies and bundle them into securities to sell on the secondary market, freeing up the lenders to make more loans. That, plus the government guarantee, helps keep mortgage rates down, supporters say. Trump was widely expected to support privatization, after his first administration worked to prepare the companies for their eventual release. But his latest comments look more like what former President Joe Biden would do, according to Jim Parrott, a nonresident fellow at the Urban Institute and a former economic adviser in the Obama White House. 'In the Biden administration, you could imagine a version of this,' Parrott said. 'The fact that we're hearing about it in this administration, I think, is catching folks by surprise.' The FHFA responded in an email that it is 'studying how, if the President elects to take Fannie and Freddie public, it can be done in the safest and soundest manner which includes keeping them in conservatorship.' It added: 'In any scenario, we will ensure the [mortgage-backed securities] market is safe and sound and that there is no upward pressure on rates.' White House deputy press secretary Harrison Fields said the administration 'is committed to strengthening the Federal Housing Finance Agency to advance the President's mission of restoring the dream of homeownership for all Americans.' Keeping Fannie and Freddie in conservatorship, according to one shareholder, amounts to attaching 'training wheels' as the government figures out how to monetize its stake. 'I think Pulte has probably confused people more than anything with his message,' said Tim Pagliara, a shareholder and author of the book 'Another Big Lie: How the Government Stole Billions from the American Dream of Home Ownership and Got Caught!' 'So the idea, for example, of allowing these entities to operate in conservatorship is a strategy that they probably talked about with the investment bankers on their primary concern, which is mortgage rates going up,' he added. 'It's like putting training wheels on a bike.' The administration's pronouncements have perplexed housing finance analysts who are unsure of what a scheme to take the companies public while keeping them in conservatorship would look like — or whether there would be sufficient investor appetite to make it worthwhile. JPMorgan strategists wrote in a note that they were 'flummoxed' by the comments. 'It's just hard to imagine why anybody would think there would be strong investor interest in that kind of model, unless the government were to convey they were going to run the [government-sponsored enterprises] in a way that's investor-friendly, and I think we're a long way off from that,' Parrott said. David Dworkin, president and CEO of the National Housing Conference, a stakeholders' group, agreed. 'The most important element of a successful stock sale is a board that is truly independent and has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders,' he said. 'Under conservatorship, that is actually not even allowed. So, without an independent board with a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, there is no value to the stock.' Still, he said, 'there are far too many comments coming from major players, including the president of the United States, to avoid the conclusion that major action on conservatorship could be in the very near future.' Another housing finance analyst, granted anonymity to frankly discuss the nascent plans, also expressed skepticism about the idea that investors would bite on purchasing shares in conservatorship, with the federal government still owning the vast majority of the asset. 'The direction of that control can change at the next election,' the analyst said. 'Each administration has already demonstrated they want to use Fannie and Freddie in different ways, so what are you investing in?' For the most part, Republican lawmakers are keeping their powder dry as they wait for additional details about the administration's plans. '[Senate Banking Committee] Chairman [Tim] Scott looks forward to hearing more' from Trump and Pulte on their plans for Fannie and Freddie, spokesperson Ben Watson said. Asked if conservatorship should end, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Banking subcommittee with oversight of Fannie and Freddie, said, 'I don't know.' 'We're going to wait until the first quarter of 2026 to have that conversation,' said Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.), chair of the Financial Services housing subcommittee. 'Releasing them from conservatorship, that's one thing, but most of the folks I talked to still want the federal government on the hook.' The first Trump administration worked to build capital at the companies to prepare them for the end of conservatorship, an effort led by then-Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and former Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Mark Calabria. Calabria has returned for Trump 2.0, now in a position with the White House Office of Management and Budget. Two key Treasury officials — Jonathan McKernan and Luke Pettit — also hail from the school of thought that Fannie and Freddie should be released from conservatorship. 'The Treasury Department has not really engaged on this yet — so it does not appear to me that the administration is very far into the analysis of options phase,' Parrott said. 'Until the Treasury Department really engages in any of this meaningfully, it's hard to know where all this lands.'