On any given weekend, thousands of Californians head onto the water expecting that if something goes wrong, help will come.
Usually, it does.
Just this month, Coast Guard crews rescued passengers after the vessel Volare began taking on water in San Francisco Bay. In another incident, a Coast Guard helicopter evacuated a woman suffering a serious medical emergency aboard a Carnival cruise ship shortly after it departed port. And halfway across the country, Americans watched Coast Guard Rescue Swimmer Scott Ruskan enter floodwaters in Texas to save 165 people trapped by catastrophic flooding—heroism that earned him the Pat Tillman Award for Service.
These stories make headlines because they bring to mind something easy to overlook: the United States Coast Guard is one of the nation’s most trusted public safety institutions.
Yet a bill moving through the California Legislature could unintentionally place Coast Guard service members and veterans at a disadvantage when seeking employment with state or local governments.
Assembly Bill 1896 was introduced to address concerns over cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Reasonable people can disagree about that policy. But the legislation casts a remarkably wide net, treating federal service as though every agency performs the same mission.
The Coast Guard does not.
California depends on the Coast Guard every day. Its crews conduct search-and-rescue missions, respond to maritime disasters, enforce boating safety laws, protect commercial shipping, assist local law enforcement, safeguard ports, and handle environmental emergencies. Along California’s 840-mile coastline, no state agency can replace that mission.
More importantly, the Coast Guard is not simply a federal law enforcement agency. It is one of America’s six armed services.
That distinction matters because Coast Guardsmen do not enjoy the discretion of civilian employees. They serve under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Like members of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force, they are legally required to obey lawful orders. Refusing those orders is not simply a policy disagreement; it can result in criminal prosecution under military law.
That makes the Coast Guard fundamentally different from civilian federal agencies.
A Coast Guardsman ordered to participate in a federally authorized operation is not making a political statement. He or she is fulfilling a legal obligation imposed by military service.
If AB 1896 is enacted without recognizing that distinction, California would effectively tell Coast Guard veterans and reservists that carrying out military orders may limit prospective opportunities to serve their communities as police officers, firefighters, emergency managers, harbor patrol officers, or other public servants.
That outcome serves neither California nor the legislation’s stated purpose.
The irony is difficult to ignore. California routinely celebrates veterans for their service. Communities actively recruit former military personnel because they bring leadership, discipline, technical expertise, and crisis-management skills developed through years of public service. Coast Guard veterans are especially valuable because many continue careers centered on emergency response, maritime safety, and public protection.
Discouraging those men and women from entering state and local government weakens the institutions Californians rely upon in times of crisis.
If legislators believe certain federal civilian agencies should be treated differently because of their immigration enforcement responsibilities, they should narrowly tailor the bill to exclude the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard should not become collateral damage in a wider political debate.
The next time a boat begins taking on water in San Francisco Bay, a hiker falls from coastal cliffs, or a cruise passenger suffers a life-threatening medical emergency offshore, Californians will hope the Coast Guard arrives in time.
The Legislature should ensure that those who answer that call are welcomed, not penalized, when they later choose to continue serving the people of California, and should make clear that AB 1896 does not disadvantage Coast Guard service members and veterans.
Steve Smith is a senior fellow of urban studies at the Pacific Research Institute.