AB 1578
CFC OpposesState and local officials: sexual harassment training and education: anti-hate speech training
CFC Says
CFC opposes AB 1578.
This bill would require California state and local government officials to complete regular training on anti-hate-speech topics. The bill does not define what counts as "hate speech," leaving it unclear what beliefs or expressions could be labeled as hateful during the training.
Currently at 2nd Committee, having cleared 3 stages. Hearing in Senate Appropriations Committee in 35 days.
Legislative Progress
CFC's Position Letter
March 12, 2026
The Honorable Corey Jackson
California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 5160
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Opposition to AB 1578
Dear Assemblymember Jackson,
On behalf of tens of thousands of constituents, allied organizations, and more than 2,000 churches across California, the California Family Council respectfully opposes AB 1578.
While combating genuine hatred and discrimination is a worthy goal, AB 1578 raises serious concerns about free speech, religious liberty, and the potential for ideological coercion within government.
First, the bill fails to clearly define what constitutes “hate speech.” Under AB 1578, state and local officials would be required to complete “anti-hate speech” training without a clear statutory definition of the term. This ambiguity is troubling because it leaves the meaning of “hate speech” open to interpretation by outside consultants or advocacy groups who may design and administer these training programs. Without clear limits, lawful and constitutionally protected viewpoints, especially religious or moral beliefs, could easily be mislabeled as “hate.”
Experience in other countries demonstrates how broadly such policies can expand once implemented. In Finland, Member of Parliament Päivi Räsänen faced years of legal harassment for publicly expressing her biblical beliefs about marriage and sexuality. Likewise, the European Union’s Digital Services Act pressures online platforms to suppress lawful speech under the banner of combating “hate.” These examples illustrate a troubling pattern: regulations intended to target genuine threats often expand to encompass moral disagreement, religious conviction, and dissent from prevailing cultural views.
Second, this bill risks weaponizing government training against people of faith and other ideological minorities. Public officials in California hold a wide range of deeply held religious and philosophical beliefs. Mandatory ideological training that frames certain viewpoints, particularly traditional religious beliefs about marriage, sexuality, or gender, as inherently hateful would stigmatize these individuals and undermine the pluralism that our constitutional system is designed to protect.
Finally, AB 1578 opens the door to compelled ideological instruction. The bill provides no meaningful guidance regarding who will design the training curriculum or what standards will govern it. As a result, the content will likely be shaped by outside advocacy organizations with particular political perspectives. When government requires officials to participate in training that promotes one worldview while labeling dissenting viewpoints as harmful or hateful, it creates pressure for ideological conformity rather than fostering genuine civil discourse.
Californians should be deeply concerned about any policy that empowers government authorities to label lawful viewpoints as hateful and compel individuals to undergo ideological training as a condition of public service.
For these reasons, the California Family Council respectfully opposes AB 1578. Efforts to combat hatred must never come at the expense of fundamental constitutional protections, including the freedoms of speech, conscience, and religion.
Respectfully,
Greg Burt
Director of Capitol Engagement
California Family Council
Official Description
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act makes specified employment practices unlawful, including the harassment of an employee directly by the employer or indirectly by agents of the employer with the employer’s knowledge. Under existing law, the Civil Rights Department administers these provisions. Existing law requires a specified employer with 5 or more employees to, by January 1, 2021, provide at least 2 hours of classroom or other effective interactive training and education regarding sexual harassment to all supervisory employees and at least one hour of classroom or other effective interactive training and education regarding sexual harassment to all nonsupervisory employees in California and, after that date, once every 2 years. Existing law requires an employer to include prevention of abusive conduct as a component of that training and education. This bill would additionally require, beginning on January 1, 2028, for an employer that is a state agency or local agency that the above-described training and education include, as a component of the training and education for elected officials, anti-hate speech training, as described. Existing law requires an employee who has received the above-described training and education within the prior 2 years as specified, to be given, and be required to read and to acknowledge receipt of, the employer’s anti-harassment policy within 6 months of assuming the employee’s new position. Existing law requires the employee then be put on a 2-year tracking schedule based on the employee’s last training. Under existing law, the current employer has the burden of establishing that the prior training was legally compliant with the act. This bill would specify that a state official or local official who serves more than one state agency or local agency only be required to receive the above-described training once every 2 years without regard to the number of state agencies or local agencies the official serves. Existing law requires local agency officials, as defined, to receive sexual harassment prevention training and education if the local agency provides any type of compensation, salary, or stipend to those officials. Existing law requires the training and education to include practical examples aimed at instructing the local agency official in the prevention of sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. This bill would additionally require, beginning on January 1, 2028, the above-described training and education include for any elected state or local official, as a component of the training and education, anti-hate speech training, as described. By imposing new requirements on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.