The bill requires the California Office of Emergency Services (OES), working through its California Specialized Training Institute (CalSTI) and in consultation with the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), to develop a transnational repression recognition and response training curriculum by January 1, 2027. The curriculum must cover identification of physical and nonphysical repression tactics (including digital surveillance), which foreign governments commonly use such tactics, recommended prevention and reporting practices for state and local law enforcement, and culturally competent outreach to impacted diaspora communities.
This is a capacity-building measure: it creates a standardized training product for law enforcement rather than imposing new criminal penalties or requiring agencies to adopt the curriculum. The training codifies federal guidance and highlights risks such as mislabeling dissidents and abuses involving international law enforcement cooperation—practical content that could change local policing practice and information-sharing with federal partners and communities.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs OES/CalSTI, with POST input, to produce a transnational repression recognition and response training module by Jan. 1, 2027. The curriculum must include subject-matter guidance—from tactics to affected communities to federal trends—and culturally competent outreach components.
Who It Affects
Primary targets are state and local law enforcement trainers and agencies that rely on CalSTI materials; diaspora and exile communities are intended beneficiaries. Civil-rights groups, local police training coordinators, and agencies that manage information-sharing with federal partners will also be affected.
Why It Matters
It standardizes how California law enforcement will be taught to spot and handle foreign-state attempts to intimidate or harass residents abroad or in California, filling a gap in many local training programs. The curriculum’s treatment of digital surveillance, INTERPOL misuse, and federal guidance could change investigative thresholds, reporting practices, and community engagement protocols.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill asks California’s emergency-services training arm to build a course on transnational repression—meaning actions by foreign governments that cross borders to intimidate, coerce, or harm diaspora communities. OES must develop the course through CalSTI and consult POST so the material is relevant to policing and consistent with state standards.
The mandate is procedural: deliver a training product by a fixed date rather than compel individual departments to adopt it.
The course must teach officers how to spot a range of tactics, emphasizing both traditional physical threats and modern nonphysical methods such as cyber-surveillance and digital harassment. It must also identify which governments are known to use such tactics and the specific methods associated with particular states—information intended to sharpen investigators’ ability to differentiate ordinary criminality from foreign-directed harassment.Practical response content is required: prevention, reporting, and response best practices tailored to state and local capabilities, plus direction to incorporate federal guidance on national-security and public-safety trends.
The bill also instructs course developers to engage diaspora communities and subject-matter experts so outreach and response recommendations are culturally competent and less likely to retraumatize or alienate affected populations.Two definitional points are baked into the text. The bill defines “human rights” by reference to state and federal constitutional and statutory protections and gives a detailed working definition of “transnational repression,” which explicitly includes cross-border information-gathering used to facilitate harassment.
Finally, the text preserves First Amendment rights, making clear the training should not be read to restrict protected speech.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires OES, through CalSTI and in consultation with POST, to produce the training by January 1, 2027.
The curriculum must cover identification of physical and nonphysical tactics—explicitly including digital surveillance and other cybertools.
Developers must list governments known to employ transnational repression and the tactics those governments commonly use.
Training must include best practices for state and local prevention, reporting, and response, plus culturally competent outreach to impacted diaspora communities and input from subject-matter experts.
The statute defines “transnational repression” to include cross-border information-gathering intended to enable harassment and contains an explicit First Amendment carve-out.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Development mandate, timeline, and responsible agencies
This subsection sets the core obligation: OES must develop the training through CalSTI and consult with POST. The only hard deadline is January 1, 2027. Practically, that means state training infrastructure is responsible for product development and curricular decisions but POST’s consultation role gives the commission input on law-enforcement relevance and standards.
Scope: tactics and digital tools
Subsection (b)(1) compels inclusion of content on how to recognize a spectrum of transnational repression tactics, with an explicit callout to digital surveillance and cybertools. For trainers, this requires assembling subject-matter expertise in cyber-threats and translating technical indicators into actionable signs officers can use in community policing and investigations.
Threat attribution and response guidance
These clauses require the curriculum to identify governments known to use transnational repression, describe the tactics linked to specific states, and present best practices for prevention, reporting, and response; they also require incorporating any federal guidance or identified trends. That combination pushes the course beyond awareness into operational guidance, which raises practical questions about how to present attribution-sensitive material and how local agencies should coordinate with federal partners when national-security considerations arise.
Targeted communities, misinformation, and cultural competence
Subsection (b)(4) calls for material about communities targeted by repression and misinformation tactics—including improper labeling of dissidents and misuse of international law-enforcement mechanisms like INTERPOL—while (b)(6) requires culturally competent outreach and SME engagement. Together these provisions force course developers to combine investigatory technique with community-relations strategies and trauma-aware practices.
Definitions and First Amendment preservation
Subdivision (c) supplies working definitions for “human rights” and “transnational repression,” anchoring the curriculum in constitutional protections and an operational definition that covers cross-border data collection for harassment. Subsection (d) explicitly states the statute cannot be construed to prohibit First Amendment activity, signaling that the training should avoid treating political speech as per se suspect.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Civil Rights across all five countries.
Explore Civil Rights 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
- Diaspora and exile communities targeted by foreign-state intimidation — the training aims to improve identification, reporting channels, and culturally informed engagement so affected individuals have clearer options and protections when incidents occur.
- State and local law enforcement trainers and investigators — they receive a standardized curriculum and federal-context guidance that can improve detection of foreign-directed harassment and reduce misattribution of incidents.
- Civil-rights and community organizations — improved training can reduce harmful practices (e.g., wrongful labeling) and provide a common vocabulary and reporting expectations when they coordinate with law enforcement.
Who Bears the Cost
- Office of Emergency Services/CalSTI and POST — they must allocate staff time and expertise to develop the curriculum, potentially seeking funds for SMEs, technical content, and community outreach.
- Local law enforcement agencies, especially small departments — implementing or delivering new training imposes staff hours, overtime, and potential travel costs; departments with limited budgets may struggle to integrate new modules quickly.
- Privacy and advocacy organizations — they will likely invest time to monitor curriculum content, demand revisions, or push for protective safeguards if the training blurs law enforcement and intelligence functions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is protecting vulnerable diaspora communities from foreign-state intimidation while avoiding the expansion of local policing into intelligence and foreign-policy functions that can chill free expression, misclassify legitimate dissent, or strain local resources; the measure strengthens awareness but offers no clear guardrails, funding, or adoption mechanism to resolve that trade-off.
The bill creates a framework for a training product but leaves numerous implementation questions unanswered. It does not require law enforcement agencies to adopt the curriculum, nor does it supply funding or metrics for effectiveness, so practical uptake depends on agency priorities and budgets.
The statute also anticipates the use of federal guidance; relying on classified or sensitive intelligence to inform local training raises procedural and legal hurdles about how to incorporate that material without exposing officers or communities to risk.
Content choices will be politically and operationally fraught. Identifying specific foreign governments and their tactics has diplomatic implications and risks mischaracterization; trainers will need careful sourcing and legal review to avoid defamation or operational overreach.
The law’s emphasis on culturally competent outreach is important but operationally difficult—engaging diaspora communities while protecting those communities’ privacy and avoiding retraumatization will require resources and clear protocols that the bill does not prescribe.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.