Relative to Military Appreciation Month.
Assembly Concurrent Resolution 89 is a nonbinding legislative resolution that designates May 2025 as Military Appreciation Month in California. It expresses the Legislature’s intent to honor men and women who have served or are serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, including active-duty personnel, National Guard members, reservists, retirees, veterans, military families, and those who died in service. The resolution also highlights several May observances tied to military service, including Loyalty Day, V-E Day, Military Spouse Appreciation Day, Children of Fallen Patriots Day, Armed Forces Day, and Memorial Day.
The resolution is largely ceremonial and commemorative rather than regulatory. It does not create new programs, impose duties on agencies, or amend existing statutes governing veterans’ benefits, military affairs, or state operations. Its practical effect is to formally recognize Military Appreciation Month and encourage federal, state, local, and private entities to participate in related observances and educational activities.
ACR 89 has no direct fiscal or regulatory impact on state law and does not alter the California Government Code, Veterans Code, or other substantive statutes. Its legal effect is limited to an official legislative expression of appreciation and recognition, with the Chief Clerk directed to transmit copies of the resolution for distribution. The measure’s impact is primarily symbolic, reinforcing public awareness of military service and encouraging observances by government and private organizations.
The sentiment around the bill appears strongly positive and unanimous. The resolution passed both chambers without any recorded opposition, including a 6-0 committee vote and a 35-0 floor vote. The text itself is highly supportive of service members and their families, emphasizing patriotism, sacrifice, morale, and public gratitude.
There is little to no visible contention surrounding ACR 89 in the available record. Because it is a commemorative resolution, the bill does not appear to have generated policy disputes over funding, implementation, or legal authority. Any discussion implied by the measure is centered on the appropriateness of formally recognizing military service and the scope of the observance, rather than on competing policy positions.