Gov. Kevin Stitt reflects on the 2024 legislative session and what’s next in final year

In a sit-down interview with Haley Hetrick, Governor Kevin Stitt reflects on this year’s legislative session, discussing the wins, the frustrations, and what could be his final policy pushes in 2025.

What are your overall thoughts from this session, including the highs and lows?

Stitt:

So the big policy wins, we obviously got a 1/4 of a point tax cut for all Oklahomans, which is important, and then we flattened the bracket. So, even the people in the lower income brackets literally got some of their taxes totally removed, which was great.

We got business courts done, which is a huge win for the business community and being a business-friendly state. Behind the meter is a huge one, and then we eliminated the income tax over time. Which is really important that as we have excess revenue, when revenue goes up, we can modestly grow expenses. But we can't grow expenses wildly like we've done in the past. So it'll put a governor or a limit on the expense side, and we'll be able to eliminate income tax over time.

Tennessee did this. Now, Tennessee has a 0% income tax, and I'm really excited about just continuing the momentum that I've created over the last seven years with a business-friendly state.

So overall was great. Tort reform—we capped non-economic damages. Which is also great, bringing more doctors into Oklahoma. More access to healthcare, which is really important when I talk to Oklahomans across the state.

Looking to next year, are there any issues or ideas you’d like to see addressed in 2026?

Stitt:

First off, in my State of the State, my big three priorities—we got done, so I was really thankful we got those accomplished. And it was a conservative session.

Some of the things that we didn't get done that I'm always focused on, like asset seizure. OK, forfeiture of civil asset seizures is what it's called. Most people don't know what this is, but if you've been pulled over for some reason—even though you're not charged with a crime or you're not convicted of a crime—law enforcement can take your truck, can take your vehicle, can take, in some cases, cash that you had and suspect that you were involved with the crime.

And listen, I don't want to limit law enforcement. They have to have the ability to enforce, and obviously, if there's a drug trade, we want to take that asset out of the equation. But there's also another side of that—if you're acquitted or you're found not guilty, they got to give their stuff back. And right now, that is a huge issue, and there's some abuse in that system. So I’d love to see that finished up.

Fines, fees, and court costs is something that I'm always working on. We passed a bill this year that limited that. And you know, we have to fund our court system, but we should not fund the court system off of the backs of people after they've served their time. They're trying to get back on their feet, and they're trying to get their kids back, and they're trying to provide for their families. And we shouldn't saddle them with all this tremendous debt.

Next year is your final session as governor. Do you think sports betting will get done before you leave office?

Stitt:

You know, I would. I hope it gets done. But it needs to get done as a free market approach. It needs to get done that—you know, it's a commercial license. Just like we don't limit how many gas stations you can have in Oklahoma or we don't limit how many—you know, just name the industry. So why don't we just set this up? If anybody wants to apply and operate a sportsbook, would they have that ability, right? So that's a free market approach.

And in my approach, the state was going to make a lot of money, and I want to maximize that license, right? We wanted to charge $500,000 if you wanted to set up a sportsbook. Other states charge that much. And then the state of Oklahoma should get 20% of that revenue.

The bill that was proposed by one of the legislators this year had almost no fee upfront, and it was just giving it away, only to the tribes. And that’s the problem with these type of bills. So again, I hope it's a free market approach, but I'm not going to just pick winners and losers and set up a special deal for one special interest group.

The House settlement now allows schools to pay players directly for NIL. What’s your take?

Stitt:

Well, I haven't studied that a lot—how that's going to have some repercussions. But generally, you know, we're supportive of NIL. We think players should be able to monetize their efforts, for sure.

What I think most fans really are disappointed with is the transfer portal, right, when people can just transfer at the drop of a hat. It's really disrupting college athletics, and there needs to be some parameters around that.

But in the effort to compete in the SEC and the Big 12, I know we're trying to keep up with the Joneses, so to speak, and make sure that we can attract the best players at OU and OSU and the different schools. So generally, I'm OK with it. But we need to figure out—how do we make sure that it's a contract and it goes both ways? It doesn't just give money to a player and allow them to jump ship anytime, and just go to the highest bidder all over the country.

Do you see the state playing a legislative role in shaping NIL?

Stitt:

You know, I’d signed an executive order, and that was a request from the athletic departments at OU and OSU. And then they kind of codified that bill here. But sure—if the NCAA, if the SEC, if the Big 12—if they need further legislation or clarification from the state perspective, or if the athletic department at OU or OSU needs us to do something else, I know that the legislature would be happy to get that done.

This year, you vetoed more bills than any other governor in state history. Why?

Stitt:

Sure. Yeah. So, first off, for Oklahomans to understand, I think it's ridiculous how many bills are introduced every year. So Oklahomans need to understand this: there were 616 bills that hit my desk. 616, right? Why? How can there be 616 new things to saddle Oklahomans with—new rules and laws and blah blah blah?

And so I vetoed 68 of them that I thought were growing government. I'm always going to be for limited government. Get government out of our lives. Let's believe in the free markets. So I vetoed 68 bills. Probably should have vetoed more.

But, you know, the way this thing works—and when they override my veto—nobody cares. Nobody knows, really, right? People in rural Oklahoma they’re like, “Way to go, Governor. You should veto every bill,” right? Because we don't need more rules and regulations, and all this stuff, and more government giveaways.

But the bill that really bothered me the most was the National Guard. And I think it's important that Oklahomans understand this. So there was a bill—they called it the National Guard bill. So then everybody's afraid to vote against it because you'd be anti-National Guard.

I'm the commander in chief of the National Guard. And they do a lot of great work. We love the National Guard. But what this bill did is, it created another pension plan.

Let me give you an example: if you retire from the National Guard, let's say you're 44 or 45 and you put in 25 years. A lot of kids start at 17/18/19 in the National Guard. So let's say you're 42 or 43 or 44—you put in 25 years. Well, remember you're a part-time soldier. You do one weekend a month, and you do two weeks in the summer. OK. And then you earn a retirement after 25 years that starts when you're 60. The federal government pays that, just like we have Social Security benefits that start when we’re 62½ or 65.

So you have this benefit that starts at 60. The federal government pays for it. What the legislature just did—I vetoed it and they overrode it—is this would mean the state would start paying that retirement benefit at 43 or 44. So we would pay for 16, 17 years until they turned 60.

So now we're paying—and I’ll give you an example—if you're a colonel in the National Guard, it’s about a $2,800 a month benefit. And so now the state is on the hook to pay a retirement of $2,800. That's why I had problems with it, because there's not an unlimited amount of money here for us to keep paying every single thing.

If there’s an unlimited amount of money, pay me a retirement, right? Let's pay nurses a better retirement. Let's pay teachers a bigger retirement. How can we afford to keep giving out taxpayer money over and over again?

And then the fact that they held that vote open—if you’ll look at it—for five or six hours and were twisting arms and making people switch from no to yes. OK. And that’s just the stuff that I think Oklahomans—when they understand that and they start opening their eyes and understanding what these things are doing—who is that benefiting? Who ran that bill? Who benefits from it? Right?

That’s the connecting the dots that I'm trying to explain. And my job is to call balls and strikes. And it's Oklahomans’ job to understand this and hold us accountable and hold your Senate and your House accountable.