Home | About Joshua | News & Media | Email Updates | The Ledger | Contact
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
The 2026 legislative session has come to a close, and I want to share a fuller look at what happened during these 60 days in Olympia, what shaped the biggest fights of session, and where I spent much of my time working on your behalf.
This was a short session, but it was not a small one. It was marked by major fights over child safety, artificial intelligence and emerging technology, affordability, taxes, spending, and public safety. Some of the most important battles were over bills that passed. Just as important were the bills that were challenged, amended, exposed, or stopped before they could move further.
For me, this session was about more than simply voting yes or no on legislation. It was about asking whether Washington is moving in the right direction. Are we protecting children when they are in danger? Are we making it easier or harder for families to afford life here? Are we encouraging innovation and economic growth, or smothering it with uncertainty and regulation? Are we holding government accountable when it fails?
Too often this year, the answer was not what it should have been. But that also made it all the more important to speak up, fight hard, and make the case for a better path forward.
Fighting for children and demanding accountability at DCYF
If there was one issue that stood above the rest for me this session, it was child safety.
I spent a significant amount of time this year focused on the growing crisis inside the Department of Children, Youth, and Families and the consequences of a system that too often places process above protection. This was not a side issue for me. It was one of my top priorities, and it remains one of the issues I will continue pressing long after session has ended.
To help expose what is happening, I launched a dedicated webpage titled “Help Save Our Children: The Crisis at DCYF.” The page lays out the timeline of failure, policy concerns, reform proposals, data gaps, and the stories behind the issue. It also gives families, foster parents, social workers, and others a place to share their experiences directly. If you have not seen it yet, I encourage you to visit the page and spend some time with the information there.
The crisis did not appear overnight. A major part of the problem traces back to House Bill 1227, the so-called Keeping Families Together Act, which took effect in 2023 and raised the threshold for removing a child from a dangerous home to cases involving “imminent physical harm.” In practice, that standard has proven too vague and too restrictive, especially in cases involving fentanyl, methamphetamine, and other hard drugs. It has created hesitation where the law should create clarity, and that hesitation has come at a terrible cost.
This year, Republicans again pushed for legislation to fix that problem and restore common sense to child protection decisions. House Bill 1092, introduced by Rep. Travis Couture, would have created a rebuttable presumption that active use of hard drugs in a home constitutes imminent physical harm. House Bill 2511 would have provided a clearer statutory definition of “imminent physical harm” so caseworkers and judges are not left to interpret that standard while children remain in unsafe environments. These bills addressed one of the most obvious failures in the current law. Neither made it through the process. Both were blocked from advancing.
That failure mattered. It meant the Legislature once again refused to give the system the clarity it needs to intervene earlier when children are exposed to some of the most dangerous conditions imaginable.
House Bill 2660 moved further and dealt with shelter care conditions and the problem of children being returned too quickly to unsafe environments. While it addressed part of the broader concern, it did not go far enough to resolve the deeper structural problems that continue putting children at risk. It advanced to Rules, but the stronger reforms many of us were fighting for never materialized.
I also worked on accountability measures tied directly to DCYF operations and child care oversight. That included strengthening House Bill 2253, a DCYF licensing bill, with provisions designed to address fraud and improve child safety. The reforms included stronger anti-fraud language, electronic attendance requirements to reduce ghost billing, lifetime licensure bans for providers found guilty of subsidy fraud, and immediate licensing consequences when high-potency synthetic opioids are found in child care settings. House Bill 2253 passed the House overwhelmingly, including my ‘yes’ vote, showing support for meaningful accountability, but it ultimately stalled in the Senate and did not make it across the finish line.
Another part of this fight involved the Pediatric Interim Care Center in Kent, a facility that provides around-the-clock care for drug-exposed newborns and helps families safely reunify. I originally prepared an amendment to restore the state’s contract with the center, but after working with Rep. Mia Gregerson, a Democrat from SeaTac, we took a different path. She sponsored an amendment that was adopted, directing DCYF to negotiate a contract with the PICC and report back to the Legislature. That was an important step forward, and I was glad to help move it. But it also underscored the larger concern: when a proven, life-saving resource for vulnerable newborns has to fight this hard just to stay in the conversation, it raises serious questions about whether the state’s priorities are aligned with what children and families actually need.
I also pressed for better data and transparency from DCYF. One of the most troubling admissions in this entire debate was that the agency does not track the kind of near-fatality and longitudinal information needed to fully understand how often children are surviving one serious incident only to later die in the same unsafe conditions. That is unacceptable. Government cannot solve a crisis it refuses to measure honestly.
This issue should never be partisan. If the state knows children are in homes where fentanyl and other hard drugs are present, the system should act clearly, quickly, and decisively. Instead, we are still debating whether an obvious danger is dangerous enough. That is a profound moral failure, and I will keep fighting until that changes.
Supporting child care and tackling barriers for working families
That same concern for children and families also shaped my work on child care.
One of the bills I introduced this year was House Bill 2187, which would have created a pilot child care tax credit for employers who help provide child care for their employees’ dependents. The idea behind the bill was simple. Child care is one of the biggest challenges facing working families, and employers are increasingly looking for ways to help. Washington should be encouraging those partnerships, not ignoring them.
House Bill 2187 would not have solved the child care crisis on its own, but it was a practical, targeted step toward helping parents stay in the workforce while making it easier for employers to support their employees. Unfortunately, like many relief-focused proposals this session, it did not advance.
That was a recurring frustration throughout the year. Bills designed to relieve pressure on families or expand practical options often stalled, while proposals that increased cost, complexity, or government control moved forward.
Leading on technology and the future of innovation
Another major area of focus for me this session was technology, innovation, and Washington’s economic future.
This is an issue that matters deeply to me because Washington has an opportunity to lead in artificial intelligence, advanced computing, digital infrastructure, and the next generation of problem-solving industries. We should be creating an environment where innovators, researchers, entrepreneurs, and job creators can build here with confidence. Instead, too often, Olympia seems determined to regulate emerging technology before it fully understands either the opportunities or the risks.
That concern was front and center in the debate over House Bill 1170, which imposes disclosure requirements on AI-generated content. Transparency matters, and I understand the instinct behind the bill. But the larger problem is that Washington continues moving toward a regulate-first mindset that risks putting our state at a disadvantage in a rapidly evolving field. If every policy conversation begins with restrictions, mandates, and compliance burdens, we should not be surprised when investment and innovation look elsewhere.
I spoke against House Bill 1170 for that reason. My concern was not about defending the irresponsible use of AI. It was about making sure Washington does not undercut its own future by approaching every emerging technology through the lens of fear rather than opportunity. That bill continued moving through the process this session.
At the same time, I supported a more forward-looking alternative. House Bill 1833, the Spark Act, would have created a grant program to help small businesses, local governments, and researchers apply AI tools to real-world problems. That is the kind of approach I believe makes more sense. It recognizes that innovation is not just something to regulate. It is something to harness. It is how we improve public services, strengthen small business competitiveness, and prepare for the future economy.
House Bill 1833 moved farther than many expected, but it did not reach final passage. Even so, I believe that effort helped move the conversation in the right direction. Washington should be talking not only about the risks of AI, but also about the cost of falling behind.
That matters to families, too. Innovation policy is not separate from affordability or opportunity. The business climate we create today shapes the jobs, wages, investment, and economic stability that Washington families will depend on tomorrow.
Affordability remained the issue families feel every day
From there, the conversation naturally leads to what may be the most immediate issue for families across our state: affordability.
For many Washingtonians, affordability is not an abstract policy debate. It is the price of groceries, the monthly utility bill, the rent or mortgage payment, the cost of child care, the cost of fuel, and the question of whether there is enough left at the end of the month. This issue was everywhere during session because it is everywhere in real life.
Unfortunately, while lawmakers often talked about affordability, too many of the proposals moving through Olympia would have made life more expensive, not less.
That is why House Republicans spent much of the session fighting bills that added cost pressure to families, workers, employers, and consumers. Some of those proposals ultimately passed. Others did not. That distinction matters because in a session like this, stopping a bad bill is often just as important as passing a good one.
One example was House Bill 2442, which passed and gives local governments broader authority to increase certain housing-related taxes and related taxes. Supporters framed it as a local flexibility measure. The practical concern is that it opens the door to higher local taxes and weakens direct taxpayer guardrails.
By contrast, other proposals that would have increased costs were stopped before final passage. The broader story of session was that Washington families spent much of the year under constant threat of new fees, taxes, or mandates while meaningful relief proposals struggled to gain traction.
That included Republican efforts focused on actual relief. My House Bill 2187, the child care tax credit bill, did not advance. House Bill 2746, a property tax relief proposal, also did not move forward. This was one of the clearest patterns of session: relief proposals stalled, while revenue proposals kept moving.
That disconnect is what made the session so frustrating. If affordability is truly the concern leaders say it is, then policy should consistently move in the direction of lowering cost pressure, encouraging supply, supporting work, and expanding opportunity. Too often this year, it did the opposite.
Taxes and spending shaped the biggest battles of session
That broader affordability problem was made worse by the dominant budget and tax debates of the session.
Washington came into 2026 facing another major budget problem, yet instead of seriously addressing the structural causes of overspending, the majority relied again on taxes, fund shifts, and accounting maneuvers. That set the stage for one of the biggest and most contentious fights of the year.
As I mentioned in my last update, the most high-profile example was Senate Bill 6346, the state income tax proposal. Supporters presented it as a tax on high earners, but I opposed it because it would create the framework for Washington’s first true income tax and signal a long-term shift in the state’s tax structure. Once that framework is in place, the pressure to expand it does not disappear. It grows.
This bill also raised major concerns about competitiveness, predictability, and economic confidence. Washington should be sending a message that we are a stable place to build, invest, hire, and grow. Instead, this legislation sends the opposite signal. Senate Bill 6346 passed after an extraordinary and historic 24-hour floor debate, becoming one of the defining stories of the session.
The supplemental operating budget was another major flashpoint. I opposed it because it increased spending in a deficit environment, relied on reserves and questionable assumptions, and failed to grapple with the deeper problem that got the state here in the first place. Budget debates are never just about numbers. They are about priorities. They are about what gets protected, what gets cut, and whether government is willing to live within realistic limits.
What made this especially troubling was that many of the same families already struggling with affordability are now being asked to bear the effects of a state government that continues to grow, yet still falls short of some of its most basic responsibilities.
Public safety priorities and budget priorities for our district
Public safety remained another area of concentration for me throughout session.
I was also proud to sponsor and move House Bill 2203. The bill arose from a real-world public safety concern I witnessed during the Orting flood response and creates stronger penalties for drivers who ignore emergency barricades, interfere with emergency operations, or put first responders at risk. It passed the House on a 94-2 vote and was sent to the Senate. It did not reach final passage this year, but I intend to keep working on it.
I also worked on targeted budget provisos aimed at solving real problems that do not always make headlines but can have a real impact on people’s lives.
One involved disability placards. I worked to improve the documentation process so individuals with disabilities are not forced to navigate unnecessary red tape just to obtain or renew a placard. Too often, people were being required to make extra trips, track down specific paper forms, or deal with inconsistent interpretations of what documentation was acceptable. This proviso work aimed to reduce those barriers, modernize the process, and ensure the system is more responsive to the people it is supposed to serve.
Another involved residential habilitation center dental respite services. This work focused on improving access to specialized dental care for individuals with developmental disabilities and complex medical or behavioral needs, particularly those for whom routine community-based dental treatment may not be realistic or safe. This is an issue because some patients require deep sedation, general anesthesia, or short-term supportive care in order to receive even basic dental treatment. The broader policy conversation this session made clear that RHC settings can play an important role in filling that gap when community options are unavailable.
These kinds of budget provisos matter because they are among the most practical ways lawmakers can address gaps that might otherwise be overlooked in the larger policy fights of session. They can help agencies focus on specific problems, improve access to care or services, remove administrative obstacles, and respond to very real needs, even if they are not always high-profile.
While they may not generate the same attention as a major tax debate or a contentious floor vote, this work is an important part of legislating. It is about listening carefully, identifying where the system is falling short, and using the budget process to pursue targeted solutions that make government work better for the people who rely on it.
Looking ahead
Although the 2026 legislative session has ended, my work as your state representative has not. I represent you year-round, not just during the 60 days we are in session. If you need help with a state agency, have a question about legislation, or want to share a concern or idea, please get in touch with my office. My legislative assistant, Paul, and I are here to help.
It is an honor to serve you.
Sincerely,
Joshua Penner
