logo
Governor Green releases list of bills he plans to veto

Governor Green releases list of bills he plans to veto

Yahoo4 days ago

HONOLULU (KHON2) — Governor Josh Green has released a list of bills he plans to veto.
Governor Green Reflects on the Impact of Maui Week
On June 6, Green informed legislative leaders and stakeholders of 19 bills passed during the 2025 legislative session of the Hawaiʻi State Legislature that he plans to veto.
Green is not required to veto every bill indicated on the Intent-to-Veto list, but cannot veto a bill that is not included.
'Let me be clear: of the 320 bills passed by the Legislature this session, 19 are on our Intent-to-Veto list,' said Governor Green. 'Our team has completed a review of every measure and the overwhelming majority of legislation will become law. Each bill on today's list is based on thorough legal and fiscal analysis, and as always, was guided by what will best serve the people of Hawai'i, protect our resources and strengthen our future.'
The list includes a measure that would allow the film tax credit to expire, as well as allowing the state to sell naming rights to facilities like the New Aloha Stadium.
The following is a full list of bills being considered for vetoes:
HB126: RELATING TO PROPERTY FORFEITURE
HB300: RELATING TO THE STATE BUDGET
HB302: RELATING TO CANNABIS
HB496: RELATING TO MĀMAKI TEA
HB796: RELATING TO TAX CREDITS
HB1369: RELATING TO TAXATION
SB583: RELATING TO NAMING RIGHTS
SB589: RELATING TO RENEWABLE ENERGY
HB235: RELATING TO TRAFFIC SAFETY
HB800: RELATING TO GOVERNMENT
HB958: RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION
HB1296: RELATING TO THE MAJOR DISASTER FUND
SB15: RELATING TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION
SB31: RELATING TO PROPERTY
SB38: RELATING TO HOUSING
SB66: RELATING TO HOUSING
SB104: RELATING TO CORRECTIONS
SB447: RELATING TO A DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PILOT PROGRAM
SB1102: RELATING TO THE AIRCRAFT RESCUE FIRE FIGHTING UNIT
To date, Green has signed 200 bills into law benefiting the people and the 'āina.
Download the free KHON2 app for iOS or Android to stay informed on the latest news
Green has until July 9 to issue final vetoes. All other bills will become law.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘Come and get me': Gavin Newsom has entered the meme war
‘Come and get me': Gavin Newsom has entered the meme war

Washington Post

time30 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

‘Come and get me': Gavin Newsom has entered the meme war

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has found himself in the center of the internet's spotlight after squaring off with President Donald Trump on social media over the deployment of military troops to counter protesters in Los Angeles. While police deployed tear gas and shot at protesters in Los Angeles with rubber bullets on Monday, Newsom shared a screenshot on TikTok of a Washington Post headline reporting that California would sue Trump over the National Guard's presence, paired with a trending sound sampled from the movie 'Mean Girls. ' The video was captioned 'We will not stand while Donald Trump illegally federalizes the National Guard' and was liked more than 255,000 times.

Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. Appeals court decides
Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. Appeals court decides

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. Appeals court decides

By Dietrich Knauth (Reuters) -A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect on Tuesday while it reviews a lower court decision blocking them on grounds that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing them. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. means Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico. The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the appeals play out. The tariffs, used by Trump as negotiating leverage with U.S. trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause. The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 U.S. states. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the U.S. or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs. Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at U.S. borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. trading partners imposed in April were a response to the U.S. trade deficit. The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long U.S. practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA. At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, D.C., also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed. Errore nel recupero dei dati Effettua l'accesso per consultare il tuo portafoglio Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati

Judge tosses lawsuit over Trump's firing of US African Development Foundation board members
Judge tosses lawsuit over Trump's firing of US African Development Foundation board members

Associated Press

time31 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Judge tosses lawsuit over Trump's firing of US African Development Foundation board members

A federal judge has tossed out a lawsuit over President Donald Trump's dismantling of a U.S. federal agency that invests in African small businesses. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., dismissed the case on Tuesday, finding that Trump was acting within his legal authority when he fired the U.S. African Development Foundation's board members in February. In March, the same judge ruled that the administration's removal of most grant money and staff from the congressionally created agency was also legal, as long as the agency was maintained at the minimum level required by law. USADF was created as an independent agency in 1980, and its board members must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In 2023, Congress allocated $46 million to the agency to invest in small agricultural and energy infrastructure projects and other economic development initiatives in 22 African countries. On Feb. 19, Trump issued an executive order that said USADF, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation and the Presidio Trust should be scaled back to the minimum presence required by law. At the time, USADF had five of its seven board seats filled. A few days later, an administration official told Ward Brehm that he was fired, and emails were sent to the other board members notifying them that they had also been terminated. Those emails were never received, however, because they were sent to the wrong email addresses. The four board members, believing they still held their posts because they had not been given notice, met in March and passed a resolution appointing Brehm as the president of the board. But Trump had already appointed Pete Marocco as the new chairman of what the administration believed to now be a board of one. Since then, both men have claimed to be the president of the agency, and Brehm filed the lawsuit March 6. Leon said that even though they didn't receive the emails, the four board members were effectively terminated in February, and so they didn't have the authority to appoint Brehm to lead the board. An attorney for Brehm did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Another lawsuit over the dismantling of the agency is still pending before the same judge. In that case, two USADF staffers and a consulting firm based in Zambia that works closely with USADF contend that the Trump administration's efforts to deeply scale back the agency wrongly usurps Congress' powers. They also say Marocco was unlawfully appointed to the board, in part because he was never confirmed by the Senate as required. Leon's ruling in Brehm's case did not address whether the Trump administration had the power to install Marocco as board chair on a temporary basis.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store