Progressive California lawmakers are once again pushing a slate of privacy bills, this time aimed at shielding women, transgender individuals, and immigrants from potential data misuse by anti-abortion activists, conservative states, and federal law enforcement agencies. These measures respond to President Donald Trump’s recent declarations that the nation “will be woke no longer” as he flexes executive power to roll back certain protections. But while these bills claim to defend individuals from intimidation and retaliation, do they hinder law enforcement’s ability to maintain public safety?

Supporters argue that these measures prevent private medical and personal data from being weaponized against vulnerable populations. However, law enforcement agencies already face significant obstacles in pursuing criminal suspects, including those involved in human trafficking, gang activity, and violent offenses. By further restricting access to personal data, these bills could make it even harder for authorities to track down suspects, respond to credible threats, and prevent crimes before they happen.

California’s soft-on-crime approach has already led to dangerous consequences, particularly in the way the state handles criminal immigrants. Instead of cooperating with federal immigration authorities, the state’s policies allow convicted criminals to be released back onto the streets. This forces Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to track them down individually in unpredictable and high-risk situations—endangering both officers and the public. Rather than allowing for controlled, secure transfers from jails and prisons, state policies require these criminals to be captured in public spaces, often leading to violent encounters.

Suppose privacy laws become so broad that they restrict law enforcement’s ability to investigate criminal activity, locate fugitives, or even apprehend domestic abusers. In that case, public safety takes a back seat to political ideology. Balancing personal privacy with law enforcement’s ability to protect the community is critical. Yet, these new proposals appear to tip the scales in a way that could ultimately put more people at risk.

While ensuring that individuals are protected from unjust surveillance or intimidation is important, lawmakers must also recognize that the law applies to everyone—including criminals who hide behind privacy protections to evade justice. Suppose these bills result in dangerous individuals being harder to track and apprehend. In that case, California may find itself once again prioritizing ideological battles over the safety of its citizens.