Assembly Joint Resolution No. 3 is a nonbinding California legislative statement that calls on the state's U.S. Representatives to support repeal of any H.R.1 provisions that the resolution says adversely affect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and to oppose privatization or further cuts. It also calls on the President to restore program staffing levels, rescind an executive order halting paper Social Security checks, publicly disavow privatization of Social Security, and work with Congress to protect and improve these programs.
Why it matters: the resolution frames large, interlocking risks to income and health security for millions of Californians—pointing to staff reductions at the Social Security Administration, projected trust fund timing changes attributed to H.R.1, and state-level modeling of potential Medi‑Cal coverage losses. Although symbolic, the resolution creates a formal state-level record urging federal action and highlights specific operational problems (staffing and paper‑check access) that the Legislature wants addressed immediately.
At a Glance
What It Does
AJR 3 is a joint resolution that formally urges repeal of H.R.1 provisions said to harm Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, directs California’s federal delegation to oppose privatization and cuts, and asks the President to restore staffing and rescind an executive order stopping paper Social Security checks. It does not change California law or appropriate funds.
Who It Affects
The resolution targets California’s federal delegation and the President, but its stated beneficiaries are millions of Californians—the bill cites over 6 million residents receiving Social Security/Medicare and nearly 15 million on Medi‑Cal. It also calls attention to the Social Security Administration’s workforce and operations.
Why It Matters
The measure elevates specific operational problems (reduced SSA staffing and the paper‑check suspension) into formal legislative demands and records California’s position on federal policy choices about program funding, privatization, and administration. For policy teams, it signals where state leadership expects federal fixes and provides factual claims that advocates can use in lobbying.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AJR 3 assembles a factual record and a set of nonbinding requests. The 'whereas' clauses compile statistics and assertions about the role of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid in California—how many residents rely on them, the economic contribution of Social Security benefits, an asserted $2.7 trillion Social Security surplus at end of 2024, administrative cost metrics, and a description of recent staffing cuts to the Social Security Administration.
The preamble also references the federal H.R.1 (labeled in the resolution as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act), citing its tax cuts and other policies as causing projected earlier depletion of the Social Security trust fund and as creating Medicaid funding limits that could reduce coverage.
The operative text contains three main actions. First, the Legislature asks California’s Representatives in Congress to support repeal of H.R.1 provisions that the resolution identifies as harmful, to oppose privatization or further cuts to these programs, and to support legislation to protect and improve them.
Second, it asks the President to honor a stated campaign promise not to cut these programs, to immediately restore program staffing levels, to rescind the executive order that halts issuance of paper Social Security checks, to publicly disavow privatization of Social Security, and to work with Congress on protective legislation. Third, the resolution directs the Chief Clerk of the Assembly to send copies of the resolution to the President, Vice President, Congressional leadership, and each California member of Congress.AJR 3 creates no binding federal obligations and does not appropriate funds.
Its practical effect is political and administrative: it formalizes California’s policy priorities, documents specific operational problems the state wants fixed, and provides a posture for state officials and advocates when engaging with federal actors. The resolution also cites state-level modeling (California Health and Human Services) predicting substantial Medi‑Cal coverage losses under H.R.1’s work requirements and redetermination rules, which the Legislature uses to justify urging federal repeal and program protections.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution asks California’s U.S. Representatives to support repeal of all H.R.1 provisions that the Legislature says adversely affect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and to oppose privatization or further cuts.
It calls on the President to immediately restore Social Security and related program staffing levels and to rescind an executive order that halts issuance of physical Social Security checks.
AJR 3 cites specific operational data: it reports a cut of 7,000 Social Security Administration staff (12 percent) and states SSA would go from serving 480 to 1,480 beneficiaries per staff member.
The text asserts a Social Security surplus of $2.7 trillion at the end of 2024 and claims H.R.1’s tax changes are projected to accelerate the trust fund’s depletion by two years.
The Chief Clerk of the Assembly is directed to transmit copies of the resolution to the President, Vice President, House Speaker, Senate Majority Leader, and each California member of Congress.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings: scale, effects, and rationale for action
This section compiles statistics and claims the Legislature uses to justify its requests: beneficiary counts, economic contributions of Social Security to the state, administrative cost percentages, the asserted $2.7 trillion surplus, SSA staffing reductions, effects attributed to H.R.1 (including trust‑fund timing and Medicaid funding limits), and state agency estimates of potential Medi‑Cal disenrollments. Practically, these findings establish the Legislature’s factual narrative and policy priorities; they also set the baseline arguments state advocates will use when lobbying federal officials.
Request to California's congressional delegation
This operative clause asks each Representative from California to back legislation repealing H.R.1 provisions identified as harmful and to oppose privatization or additional cuts. Mechanically, it is a formal request and has no force over federal legislators, but it singles out repeal and opposition to privatization as the state's explicit federal policy positions and creates a public record of the Legislature’s expectations.
Request to the President: staffing, checks, and public stance
This clause asks the President to restore program staffing levels, rescind an executive order stopping paper Social Security checks (cited as Executive Order No. 14247), publicly disavow privatization efforts, and work with Congress to protect and improve these programs. The clause mixes administrative requests (restore staff, rescind an EO) with political requests (public disavowal and partnership with Congress). The practical implication is to press the executive branch on both immediate operational items and broader policy posture; it does not allocate funds or change hiring authorities.
Transmission and formal notification
This brief clause instructs the Chief Clerk of the Assembly to send copies of the resolution to specific federal officials: the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, and each California member of Congress. That step creates a formal administrative record of California’s position and supplies a discrete list of recipients for advocacy and correspondence tracking.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Social Services across all five countries.
Explore Social Services in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Older Californians receiving Social Security and Medicare: the resolution advocates preserving current benefit structures, and highlights operational fixes (staffing, paper checks) that directly affect benefit delivery and access.
- People with disabilities and Medi‑Cal beneficiaries, including users of In‑Home Supportive Services: the Legislature frames H.R.1 as a threat to long‑term care and coverage, so these populations are presented as intended beneficiaries of any federal reversals.
- State health and aging advocates and service providers: the resolution supplies an evidentiary and political tool they can use when lobbying federal officials or mobilizing public support.
- California policymakers and agencies: the formal statement documents state priorities and provides a basis for coordination with local stakeholders and outreach to federal counterparts.
Who Bears the Cost
- California’s federal delegation: the resolution publicly requests legislative action from them, creating political pressure and expectation that they pursue repeal or votes, which can carry electoral or resource costs.
- The federal executive branch and Social Security Administration: the resolution asks the President and administrators to restore staffing and reverse an executive order—actions that would have budgetary and operational implications for federal agencies if implemented.
- Federal budget and appropriators: restoring staffing or altering delivery methods (reinstating paper checks) would require funding and administrative resources, shifting fiscal choices to Congress and federal agencies.
- Private interests positioning for privatization or revenue‑side reforms: insurers and firms that would profit from privatization face reduced policy space if federal actors heed the resolution, representing a potential commercial cost to those actors.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between symbolic pressure and structural reality: AJR 3 demands immediate administrative fixes (staffing, paper checks) and legislative repeal of H.R.1 provisions, yet those outcomes depend on federal appropriations, statutory change, and complex administrative logistics—areas where a state resolution can signal priorities but cannot deliver operational or budgetary solutions on its own.
AJR 3 is a politically forceful but legally nonbinding instrument. It documents the Legislature’s priorities and sets out detailed factual claims, but it cannot compel federal spending, repeal of federal statutes, or executive action.
Several implementation gaps and uncertainties follow from its requests. Restoring 'program staffing levels' is phrased as an immediate executive action, but federal hiring, pay, and appropriations are constrained by multi‑year budgets and congressional appropriations processes; meaningful staffing increases typically require funding and lengthy recruitment.
Likewise, rescinding an executive order halting paper checks is within presidential authority, but reversing the operational effects of that order—reestablishing printing and distribution logistics, addressing banking coverage gaps among beneficiaries, and ensuring fraud controls—would require agency planning and resources.
The resolution also relies on contested causal claims and projections. It attributes an accelerated depletion of the Social Security trust fund and potential Medi‑Cal disenrollments to H.R.1; those outcomes depend on modeling choices, future economic performance, and separate legislative responses.
Finally, one of the policy prescriptions mentioned in the findings—eliminating the payroll tax cap to stabilize Social Security—engages a classic distributional trade‑off (higher taxes on high earners versus broader program solvency). The resolution calls for repeal and protection without specifying legislative mechanisms, financing, or transitional arrangements, leaving open the question of what precise federal reforms the state prefers and how they would be achieved.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.