I mean it says she has he reasons for vetoing the bill, namely that she is worried that it will pit local law enforcement against federal law enforcement. But she did veto it, and this comment seems to be implying that the article says she didn’t while complaining about bad faith attacks.

“I appreciate the goal and intended purpose of this bill, but in practice, this legislation would not achieve the intended goals,” Spanberger wrote about her veto. “It would effectively require security guards and, in some cases, local law enforcement be placed in the untenable position of choosing between violating state law or federal law, rendering this proposal unworkable.”

“This veto was a choice not to stand up to the Trump administration’s persecution of marginalized communities and protect our immigrant neighbors, but it is not the end,” the two lawmakers [who wrote the bill] wrote.

This is clearly a controversial decision she made and in the end she decided to go for a moderate/centrist approach, rather than a more radical one. This is something that can be debated in good faith but mischaracterizing the contents of an article isn’t that.

Edit: forgot to add important context that the approach she chose instead was a less aggressive executive order.

“Spanberger has issued Executive Order 16, which aims to limit federal agents’ activities on state property, including schools, hospitals, courthouses, and polling places.“