Here's Everything You Need To Know About Ohio's 136th General Assembly
A flurry of legislation introduced by Republicans seeks to bring Ohio into line with the policies of the Trump admin. Critics warn: Discrimination, targeting of marginalized groups.
Columbus, OH — Ohio Republicans say they intend to align the state more closely with President Donald Trump’s national agenda, introducing a slate of legislation during the 136th General Assembly that would expand cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, encourage the development of large-scale artificial intelligence data centers and further restrict the rights of transgender people, particularly in public schools.
Ohio offers significant sales tax exemptions for the construction and equipment of data centers that meet a minimum investment threshold of $100 million and an annual payroll of at least $1.5 million.
Gov. Mike DeWine has preserved the tax incentive, arguing it is necessary for Ohio to remain competitive in attracting technology jobs and capital investment.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency is considering changes to its permitting process that would streamline water discharge approvals for data centers. The proposal would allow facilities to release cooling wastewater directly into lakes and streams, prompting concern from environmental advocates.
Environmental groups warn the policy could increase thermal pollution, strain local water resources and weaken oversight of large-scale industrial facilities.
Dozens of bills have been introduced in the 136th general assembly. Below is a categorized summary of legislation that targets specific minority groups, along with primary sponsors and key arguments raised by opponents.
Legislation Targeting Immigrants
SB 172 - “Specify persons unlawfully present are not privileged from arrest.”
Primary Sponsor - Sen. Kristina D. Roegner.
Status: Passed by Senate, In House Committee.
Summary: SB 172 specifies that individuals unlawfully present in the United States are not privileged from arrest and allows law enforcement officers to inquire about the citizenship status of individuals they detain.
Opposition Arguments: Opponents say the bill fosters an environment in which immigrants are treated as threats rather than neighbors and workers. Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson called the measure “an abomination,” warning it could lead to unlawful detention based on suspicion rather than evidence and erode civil liberties. Sen. Beth Liston argued the bill elevates immigration enforcement within state government without adequate oversight or local input.
Organizations including the ACLU of Ohio, Ohio Immigrant Alliance, and Advocates for Basic Legal Equality (ABLE) warn the measure could encourage racial profiling and expose local governments to civil rights litigation.
HB 1 - “Enact Ohio Property Protection Act.”
Primary Sponsors - Reps. Angela N. King, Roy Klopfenstein.
Status: In House Committee.
Summary: HB 1 restricts national governments and state-run entities identified by the federal government as “foreign adversaries” from purchasing “protected property” in Ohio, including agricultural land and property within 10 miles of military installations or critical infrastructure.
Opposition Arguments: Civil rights and immigrant advocacy organizations argue the bill unfairly targets people based on national origin and may violate the Equal Protection Clause and the federal Fair Housing Act. Opponents note similarities to historical “alien land laws” that barred Asian immigrants from owning property. Critics also warn that Ohio’s broad definition of critical infrastructure could make large swaths of land off-limits, harming lawful immigrants and investors.
HB 42 - “Require certain agencies to collect and report citizenship data.”
Primary Sponsors - Reps. Tex Fischer, Josh Williams.
Status: In House Committee.
Summary: HB 42 would require state agencies — including law enforcement, school districts and Medicaid programs — to collect and report data on the citizenship and immigration status of individuals they serve.
Opposition Arguments: Groups including Vibrant Ohio and the Refugee Advocacy Lab say the requirement would erode trust between immigrant communities and service providers, making people less likely to report crimes or seek education, health care or benefits. Critics also argue the mandate would impose costly administrative burdens with little demonstrated public safety benefit.
HB 200 - “Enact the America First Act.”
Primary Sponsor - Reps. Gary Click, Nick Santucci.
Status: In House Committee.
Summary: HB 200 would make it a felony for a person who is unlawfully present in the United States to enter, attempt to enter or remain in Ohio. The bill would also require state and local law enforcement agencies and detention facilities to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and would allow the state to withhold funding from local governments that do not comply.
Opposition Arguments: Civil rights and immigrant advocacy organizations, including the ACLU of Ohio, Ohio Immigrant Alliance and Advocates for Basic Legal Equality (ABLE), argue the bill would criminalize individuals based solely on immigration status, transforming a federal civil matter into a state felony offense.
Opponents say the proposal represents a significant departure from long-standing federal authority over immigration enforcement and could increase arrests and prosecutions absent any underlying criminal conduct. Civil liberties advocates warn the measure could encourage racial profiling, expand unnecessary contact between immigrants and local police, and further erode trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement.
HB 281 - “Regards hospitals and enforcement of federal immigration law.”
Primary Sponsor - Rep. Josh Williams.
Status: In House Committee.
Summary: HB 281 would require hospitals that receive state funds or Medicaid reimbursements to allow ICE agents access to their facilities to interview or arrest individuals with a warrant. Hospitals would also be required to adopt written policies governing cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Opposition Arguments: The Ohio Nurses Association has raised concerns about tying health care delivery to enforcement cooperation. Opponents warn the bill could deter patients from seeking medical care, particularly undocumented or mixed-status families, posing broader public health risks.
HB 282 - “Add immigration status as a required factor for sentencing, bail.”
Primary Sponsor - Rep. Josh Williams.
Status: In House Committee.
Summary: HB 282 would require courts to consider a person’s immigration status when determining bail or sentencing.
Opposition Arguments: The ACLU of Ohio, Ohio Justice & Policy Center, and Ohio Immigrant Alliance warn the bill could institutionalize discrimination in the criminal legal system by penalizing individuals based on immigration status rather than conduct. Critics argue it undermines due process and equal protection guarantees by treating similarly situated defendants differently.
Immigrant justice groups also say the bill could discourage cooperation with law enforcement and destabilize families by increasing pretrial detention risks for noncitizens.
Legislation Targeting Vulnerable LGBTQ+ Groups
SB 274 - “Prohibit minor mental health services without parental consent.”
Primary Sponsors - Sens. Jerry C. Cirino, Andrew O. Brenner.
Status: In Senate Committee.
Summary: SB 274 would repeal current law allowing minors ages 14 to 18 to access limited outpatient mental health services without parental consent, expanding parental control over youth mental health care.
Opposition Arguments: Mental health advocates, including the American Nurses Association of Ohio, warn the bill could discourage minors from seeking early mental health care. Groups such as NAMI Ohio and Mental Health America of Ohio say confidential access to limited outpatient services is often critical for youth experiencing depression, anxiety or family conflict.
Opponents argue mandatory parental consent in all cases could place vulnerable youth — including LGBTQ+ teens — at greater risk when home environments are unsupportive or unsafe.
HB 190 - “Enact the Given Name Act.”
Primary Sponsors - Reps. Johnathan Newman, Josh Williams.
Status: In House Committee.
Summary: HB 190 would prohibit public school employees from referring to students by names or pronouns that do not align with their sex assigned at birth without parental consent. The bill would also require educators to report such requests to school administrators and direct the Department of Education and Workforce to establish a formal complaint process.
Opposition Arguments: LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, educators and civil rights organizations describe the bill as a targeted attack on transgender and gender-expansive students. Groups including Equality Ohio, TransOhio, ACLU of Ohio, and the Human Rights Campaign say the reporting requirements would effectively force schools to out transgender students without their consent.
Critics also point to similarities with model legislation promoted by the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank behind Project 2025.
HB 196 - “Regards candidate nomination protests, names on candidacy forms.”
Primary Sponsors - Reps. Rodney Creech, Angela N. King.
Status: In House Committee.
Summary: HB 196 would revise election procedures by requiring space for former legal names on candidacy petitions and expanding who may challenge a candidate’s eligibility.
Opposition Arguments: Critics say the bill could enable partisan or discriminatory challenges to candidates under the guise of transparency. Organizations including Equality Ohio, TransOhio, and voting rights advocates at the Ohio Voter Rights Coalition warn that requiring disclosure of former legal names could force transgender candidates to reveal “deadnames,” exposing them to harassment or frivolous eligibility challenges.
Opponents argue the bill could deter LGBTQ+ Ohioans from running for office and chill political participation.
HB 249 - “Enact the Indecent Exposure Modernization Act.”
Primary Sponsors - Reps. Angela N. King, Josh Williams.
Status: In House Committee.
Summary: HB 249 would expand definitions of “adult cabaret” and restrict certain performances outside adult-only venues. The bill includes performers who express a gender identity different from their biological sex, a provision that could encompass many drag performances.
Opposition Arguments: The ACLU of Ohio, Stonewall Columbus, Equality Ohio, and arts advocacy groups such as CreativeOhio argue the bill constitutes broad censorship of drag and gender-expressive performances. Critics say vague definitions of “adult cabaret” and “harmful to juveniles” could chill constitutionally protected speech and invite costly legal challenges.
Venue owners and performers have also warned the restrictions could harm local arts economies by discouraging festivals, community events and nightlife programming.