Looking for a summary of our Top Bills?
These are the bills we deem major and significant. Click the image below.
Are you looking for a summary of our Top Bills for 2026? These are bills we deem major and significant. If so, use the filter below.
Bill Summary
A bipartisan bill, HB 2629 strengthens Washington’s approach to protecting critical infrastructure by tightening regulation of scrap metal transactions and creating new criminal and civil penalties for damaging communications systems. It expands and standardizes the records scrap metal businesses must keep for nonferrous metal purchases, including seller identification, vehicle details, material descriptions, and a signed declaration that the seller believes the material is not stolen. The bill further restricts how sellers can be paid by largely prohibiting cash transactions, requiring delayed payment by mailed nontransferable check or electronic methods, and allowing only limited immediate payment when the recycler captures a digital ID image and a picture or video of the materials as received. It increases accountability through longer record retention, clearer inspection authority for law enforcement, and escalating civil penalties, including substantial fines and eventual loss of licensure for repeat violations involving stolen copper tied to telecommunications.
Separately, the bill creates the new crime of “destruction of critical communications infrastructure,” making it a class C felony to intentionally damage or render inoperable voice, video, or data services, recognizing that these attacks can disrupt 911 access, emergency coordination, and essential commerce. It also creates a civil cause of action so victims can recover damages and costs, including reasonable investigative and attorneys’ fees, which improves restitution and deterrence when public safety or businesses are harmed. By adding this conduct to the criminal profiteering framework and placing it on the sentencing seriousness scale, the bill signals that coordinated infrastructure attacks are not minor property crimes but high-impact offenses that warrant meaningful consequences. HB 2629 targets the real economic incentive behind metal theft and infrastructure sabotage, improves traceability and enforcement at the point of sale, and helps keep Washington’s communications networks reliable for residents, employers, and emergency responders.
-
Citizenship & Immigration
Modernizing terminology when referring to individuals who are not citizens or nationals of the United States.
Bill Summary
Washington State is a sanctuary state, and in accord, House Bill 2632 is an attempt to change language in order to soften views toward illegal immigration and illegal aliens specifically. It changes Washington statutes by replacing the term “alien” with “noncitizen” across dozens of provisions in state law, including definitions, firearms statutes, crime victim compensation statutes, and other administrative sections, and it creates a new definition of “noncitizen” in chapter 1.16 RCW. The bill expressly directs that, except where federal law requires otherwise, all state and local statutes and official documents enacted after July 1, 2026, must use the term “noncitizen” or another context-appropriate term instead of “alien,” and it urges agencies to update existing materials accordingly. It amends a wide range of RCW sections, including provisions governing civil procedure, crime victim compensation, firearms definitions, and workers’ compensation, to substitute terminology without materially altering underlying policy frameworks.
Although framed as a modernization effort, the bill spans extensive code sections, including detailed firearms statutes in RCW 9.41.010, where definitions such as “nonimmigrant alien” are conformed to the new terminology. Supporters argue that the change promotes respectful and contemporary language, but the measure does not create new substantive rights, benefits, or enforcement standards beyond terminology updates. Opponents may contend that dedicating legislative time and administrative resources to broad terminology revisions across dozens of statutes imposes workload and potential implementation costs without delivering measurable policy outcomes. Agencies would need to review, revise, and republish regulations and materials to align with the new terminology, which could divert attention from higher-priority fiscal, public safety, or human services reforms. Because the bill touches sensitive areas such as firearms eligibility language and benefit eligibility provisions, even technical wording shifts could generate interpretive disputes or litigation over statutory construction.
-
Crime & Public Safety
Providing supervision of a sexually violent predator after release or discharge.
Bill Summary
HB 2635 is a bipartisan bill that amends the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute so that when an SVP is conditionally released or discharged, the court must impose detailed conditions and can require intensive community‑based services and monitoring. Conditions can include appropriate housing, strict limits on social contacts, bans on alcohol and drugs, mandatory inpatient or outpatient sex‑offender treatment, GPS monitoring, and supervision by a Department of Corrections community corrections officer. The proposed legislation also updates community‑custody supervision statutes to ensure that high‑risk sexual offenders coming out of confinement remain on DOC’s radar and are subject to active oversight, with risk assessments and ongoing review. The bill requires a discharge plan with a community care coordinator, regular contact with treatment providers, community escorts if needed, and a transition plan that covers access to services after unconditional discharge—closing gaps that predators could otherwise exploit.
Courts must review each released SVP’s case no later than one year after release and annually afterward to decide whether they remain conditionally released, should be returned to confinement, or qualify for unconditional discharge. The court and supervising agencies can quickly respond if the person violates conditions or shows signs of renewed danger, which is critical given the high risk associated with sexually violent predators. HB 2635 clearly prioritizes victims and potential victims over the convenience of offenders by layering supervision, treatment, monitoring technology, and court review on anyone with an SVP history who is back in the community. It respects due process—release is ordered by a court—but insists that release is not freedom without strings; SVPs must live under conditions designed to minimize risk to families and neighborhoods. The bill supports law enforcement and DOC by giving them explicit statutory authority and tools (risk assessment, GPS, community‑custody terms) to manage this very small but very dangerous group, rather than leaving officers to work around legal gray areas.
-
Citizenship & Immigration
Safeguarding personal information entrusted to agencies that is of no legitimate concern to the public.
Bill Summary
House Bill 2637 is another anti-ICE bill. It amends Washington’s Public Records Act to dramatically expand the categories of personal information exempt from public inspection, based on legislative findings that disclosure could chill access to state services and aid civil immigration enforcement. In short, this bill would nullify information often used for immigration enforcement. While protecting privacy is a legitimate goal, this bill goes far beyond targeted safeguards by sweeping vast amounts of routine data—such as age, residential address, place of birth, utility data, and precise location—out of public view whenever held by an agency.
By declaring this information “of no legitimate concern to the public,” the bill undermines the core transparency principle that allows residents, journalists, and watchdogs to evaluate how government programs operate and whom they serve. The exemptions are so broad that they risk shielding agency decision-making, eligibility determinations, and potential misuse of authority from meaningful oversight. Existing law already protects highly sensitive data like social security numbers, financial information, medical records, and student files, making this expansion redundant rather than carefully calibrated. Tying public disclosure limits to immigration enforcement concerns also politicizes the Public Records Act and shifts it away from its neutral role as a transparency tool. Over time, these exemptions could frustrate investigations into waste, fraud, or inequitable treatment by preventing verification of basic facts. The bill places the balance almost entirely on secrecy, trusting agencies to self-police without the corrective pressure of public scrutiny. Once transparency is curtailed this broadly, restoring it becomes politically and legally difficult.
Bill Summary
House Bill 2639 creates a new annual permit allowing short-term rental operators to provide complimentary prerolled cannabis products of up to one gram to guests aged 21 or older, subject to a $75 fee and on-site ID verification. The bill effectively turns vacation rentals into quasi-cannabis distribution points by authorizing operators or their staff to offer and facilitate cannabis use as part of a lodging experience. While framed as tightly regulated, the proposal introduces new enforcement challenges, including age verification consistency, diversion risks, and the difficulty of ensuring products are not consumed publicly or by unintended users.
It also blurs the line between licensed cannabis retailers, who face strict oversight and taxation, and rental operators who would gain a special carve-out with comparatively light regulation. Local communities and neighbors could see increased nuisance complaints, impaired driving risks, and public safety concerns tied to short-term rentals already under strain in many areas. The bill further complicates Washington’s cannabis framework by adding another permit category rather than strengthening existing compliance and enforcement systems. Allowing cannabis giveaways in lodging settings risks normalizing on-site consumption without adequate safeguards or public input from affected communities.
-
Crime & Public Safety
Prohibiting certain law enforcement agencies from hiring certain federal employees.
Bill Summary
HB 2641 prohibits all Washington state law‑enforcement agencies from hiring anyone who was hired as a sworn officer of ICE or CBP during the previous five years. It also bans hiring anyone who committed misconduct while employed as a federal immigration officer, with that misconduct standard tied to findings by federal agencies or courts. The bill singles out only one class of federal law‑enforcement professionals—immigration officers—rather than using a neutral, misconduct‑based standard that would apply equally to all prior federal agents. Framing this as the “ICE Out Act” makes clear the political message: immigration enforcement officers are uniquely suspect and unfit for local policing in Washington, regardless of their record or service.
Washington agencies already face recruitment and retention problems; cutting off a pipeline of trained, experienced federal officers further shrinks the pool of qualified candidates at a time of crime and fentanyl concerns. Instead of evaluating applicants on their individual record, training, and character, HB 2641 imposes a five‑year cooling‑off blacklist and a permanent bar tied to past ICE service, which can deprive communities—especially rural ones—of seasoned officer. The bill effectively punishes lawful service in a federal law‑enforcement agency associated with Trump‑era immigration policy, turning partisan disagreement over border enforcement into a career disability. Misconduct is already handled through existing federal and state processes; adding a special, permanent disqualification only for immigration officers treats them as a uniquely tainted group rather than holding all officers to the same due‑process‑based standards.
-
Transportation
Addressing the emergency replacement of failed infrastructure on state route number 165.
Bill Summary
HB 2645 declares the failure and permanent closure of the Fairfax Bridge on SR‑165 over the Carbon River an emergency that requires immediate attention, and directs WSDOT to restore access as soon as possible. It grants the transportation secretary temporary authority to waive or suspend specified statutory and regulatory requirements that would otherwise slow planning and construction (inter-local agreement liability, certain L&I inspection fees, UTC regulations and tariffs, some tax‑deadline rules, and other procedural obligations) when strict compliance would “prevent, hinder, or delay” necessary action. In addition, it explicitly forbids any waiver that would conflict with federal funding requirements or with First‑Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful assembly, and exempts the bridge‑replacement work from the climate‑related Executive Order 25‑07 so it cannot be bogged down by extra executive‑branch process.
This legislation focuses state action on core government infrastructure—keeping a highway bridge open—rather than new social programs, and does it through targeted regulatory relief rather than permanent growth in bureaucracy. It uses emergency authority to streamline existing rules in a specific, local crisis instead of expanding regulatory reach and it temporarily pares back regulations that would otherwise slow rebuilding. The bill also protects constitutional rights by expressly barring any emergency waiver that would infringe on free speech or peaceful assembly, which is an unusually strong guardrail for an emergency‑powers provision. It would be easy to ignore this legislation if it doesn’t specifically impact you; however, “love your neighbor as you love yourself” applies. Imagine if this bridge closing was affecting your commute to and from work or school and register accordingly.
Bill Summary
House Bill 2647 requires every grantee and subgrantee receiving state homeless housing or assistance grants must file an annual plan stating how many people they will move out of homelessness in the next year and how much they expect to spend per person to get them housed. The State Auditor must perform yearly performance audits of all these grant programs, examining whether funds were spent only on authorized purposes, how much went to direct services versus administrative costs, and whether grantees are meeting their own goals and complying with the law. In addition, grantees must provide detailed documentation—receipts, spending breakdowns, and data on how many people moved into housing, cost per person, and how long they stayed housed—on a regular schedule.
The Auditor must send an annual report with findings and recommendations to the Legislature, creating a public, data‑driven record of which programs actually get people off the streets and which just burn money. Any grantee or subgrantee that fails to submit plans or data on time, misuses funds, or is found out of compliance becomes ineligible for future homelessness grant funding, and Commerce must cut them off. Grantees are responsible for their subgrantees’ compliance; if a subgrantee fails, the main grantee is also treated as non‑compliant, giving big nonprofits a strong incentive to clean up their own networks instead of blaming partners.
Conservative legislators frame the bill as ending the practice of “pouring money into programs that don’t work” and insisting that every tax dollar actually move people off the streets and improve public safety. That matches a conservative focus on outcomes, not spending levels. Furthermore, HB 2647 forces the homelessness bureaucracy to show basic metrics—people housed, cost per success, time housed—so citizens and legislators can compare programs and redirect funds to what works instead of what sounds compassionate. Encampments have become hotbeds for crime, drugs, and violence, and failing programs are putting neighborhoods and law enforcement at risk. By cutting off ineffective providers, the bill aims to reduce entrenched street camping and associated crime, not normalize it with endless funding.
-
Citizenship & Immigration
Concerning state and local law enforcement interactions with federal immigration enforcement officials.
Bill Summary
House Bill 2648 would require Washington peace officers to treat encounters with suspected federal immigration enforcement agents as reportable, recorded events, mandating camera activation, agency notification, and post-encounter documentation whenever an officer has “reasonable suspicion” that someone is conducting immigration enforcement. While framed as transparency, the bill effectively forces state and local officers into a monitoring and reporting role over federal agents, inserting them into sensitive intergovernmental operations that are outside their core public safety mission. The vague standard of “reasonable suspicion” risks frequent misidentification and unnecessary confrontations, potentially escalating routine interactions and creating confusion on the ground. Mandatory reporting and community notification could undermine operational security, inflame public tensions, and expose officers and agencies to political backlash regardless of their intent.
-
Citizenship & Immigration
Gathering and preserving digital data and evidence relating to federal agent misconduct.
Bill Summary
House Bill 2651 is essentially another “anti-ICE” bill that targets federal agents. It authorizes the attorney general or county prosecutors to direct the Washington State Patrol to collect and retain expansive categories of digital data to identify federal agents whenever a misconduct complaint is received. The bill defines “identifying digital data” extraordinarily broadly, sweeping in cell phone data, cell tower records, location and GPS data, license plate data, facial recognition results, stingray data, and virtually any other recoverable digital information. While framed as an accountability measure, the proposal effectively mandates a state-run surveillance apparatus triggered by allegations that may be unproven, incomplete, or ultimately unfounded. It risks normalizing the bulk collection and long-term retention of sensitive digital information without clear limits on scope, duration, or data minimization standards.
The bill also creates significant civil liberties concerns by encouraging the preservation of invasive data tied not only to federal agents, but potentially to bystanders and unrelated individuals swept up in location or communications records. Its vague definition of “credible complaint” invites politicization and selective enforcement, turning misconduct allegations into a gateway for intrusive data gathering. The measure further raises serious federalism and jurisdictional issues by positioning state agencies to systematically collect intelligence on federal law enforcement and DHS contractors. There are no clear guardrails addressing intergovernmental conflicts, chain-of-custody risks, or liability if improperly obtained data is later challenged in court. Existing mechanisms already allow courts to order discovery and evidence preservation in civil rights and criminal cases without creating a standing digital dragnet. For these reasons, HB 2651 sacrifices privacy, due process, and institutional restraint in favor of an overbroad and legally risky approach, and citizens should oppose it.