essential politics

SACRAMENTO — Sen. Alex Padilla had heard all he could stand from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. For good reason. She was sounding like a military dictator and brushing off California voters.

So the California senator interrupted her. He tried to ask a question — and wound up being shoved out of the room by federal bodyguards, strong-armed to the floor and handcuffed.

This is how the Trump administration intends to “Make America Great Again”?

The unprecedented act of disrespecting and roughing up a U.S. senator occurred at the Westwood federal building during a Noem news conference Thursday. Padilla, a Democrat, was standing behind reporters when the secretary said federal agents would continue to conduct immigration raids in Los Angeles indefinitely.

“[We’ll] continue to sustain and increase our operations in this city,” Noem said.

“We are not going away,” she emphasized. “We are staying here to liberate the city from the socialist and the burdensome leadership that this governor and this mayor have placed on this country.”

Definitely fighting words.

“Liberate” the city? That’s the sort of language used by dictators — fascist, Communist or any Third World despot.

“Socialist” leadership? A pejorative straight out of the right-wing playbook of political talking points.

Was Noem saying the Trump administration’s real goal is to overthrow Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass because of their “burdensome” regimes?

Perhaps the secretary has forgotten what she presumably was taught in civics class.

Noem talks without thinking

But Noem, 53, was governor of South Dakota. And before that she was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and a state legislator. So she knows about the election process. And we can only conclude that, at her news conference, she was talking without thinking.

Because in America, the “liberators” are the voters. Not immigration agents, Cabinet secretaries or even the president.

California citizens reelected Newsom by a 59% landslide vote in 2022. The Democrat will be termed out of office next year — a policy set by voters, not by some federal administration.

Bass also was elected in 2022 by a margin of nearly 10 percentage points. If Angelenos want to liberate themselves from her, they’ll have the opportunity when she’s up for reelection next year.

Socialist is such a tired characterization of practically any policy the political right doesn’t like. You could tag lots of government spending with socialism — including Social Security and Medicare.

Anyway, Padilla listened to Noem’s dumb comments about liberating citizens from the governor and mayor, and, he said later in TV interviews, “it was just too much.”

He broke in with a shouted question.

OK, he shouldn’t have done that. There’s a protocol at formal news conferences. Only reporters ask questions. Certainly not visiting politicians. And questioners really shouldn’t interrupt the person at the lectern, although it happens.

This wasn’t a Senate committee hearing in which Padilla could ask anything he wanted — when it was his turn. He wasn’t “doing his job” at Noem’s event, as his Democratic colleagues later asserted. He was there as an observer. If he wanted to ask the secretary a question, this wasn’t the time or place.

Wrong but understandable

But his emotional reaction to Noem’s comments was totally understandable.

Padilla ordinarily is a very polite guy, extraordinary civil — calm, soft-spoken, the opposite of an aggressive loudmouth.

But he is passionate about the cause of immigrant rights and comprehensive reform that would offer a path to citizenship for undocumented people. It’s what inspired him to enter politics.

He was motivated by Latino activists’ losing fight in 1994 against Proposition 187, which would have denied most public services to immigrants living here illegally if it wasn’t tossed out by a judge.

Padilla, 52, is a proud L.A. native, the son of Mexican immigrants. His dad was a short-order cook, and his mom cleaned affluent people’s houses. He graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with a mechanical engineering degree. But he caught the political bug and was elected to the L.A. City Council at age 26.

Later he was elected to the state Senate and as secretary of state. He ultimately became California’s first Latino U.S. senator.

On Thursday, the lawmaker was at the federal building to meet a general. He heard Noem was holding a news conference, asked to attend and was escorted in.

After he was forced to the ground by federal agents who considered him a security threat, Padilla declared repeatedly: “If that’s what they do to a United States senator with a question, imagine what they do to farmworkers, day laborers, cooks and the other nonviolent immigrants they are targeting in California and across the country.”

White House Communications Director Steven Cheung claimed Padilla acted like “a complete lunatic … by rushing toward Secretary Noem.” Noem said he “lunged” at her.

Wrong. A video recording disproved that.

Federal bodyguards contended Padilla didn’t identify himself. More bull. They just didn’t listen.

“Hands off! I am Sen. Alex Padilla,” he’s heard saying and repeating several times on the recording.

A federal agent turned to a Padilla staffer recording the sorry incident and said: “There’s no recording allowed out here, per FBI rights.”

Sorry. If it’s a right not to be recorded piling on a senator trying to exercise his rights, then it should be repealed.

The Trump administration did another stupid thing. Padilla came out a hero.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: ‘Protest is patriotic.’ ‘No Kings’ demonstrations across L.A. against ICE sweeps, Trump presidency
The TK: Will mom get detained? Is dad going to work? Answering kids’ big questions amid ICE raids
The L.A. Times Special: Voices from the raids: How families are coping with the sudden apprehension of loved ones

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON — The mission of President Trump’s extraordinary deployment of U.S. Marines and National Guardsmen to Los Angeles depends on whom you ask — and that may be a problem for the White House as it defends its actions in court on Thursday.

The hearing, set before U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco, will set off a rare test over the legality of a military deployment on American soil.

While California has asked for a temporary restraining order against the government, a judicial decree ordering a full withdrawal would be extraordinary, scholars said. But so, too, was the deployment itself, raising the stakes for the judge entering Thursday’s hearing.

Breyer, a veteran of the bench appointed by President Clinton and the younger brother of Stephen Breyer, the former Supreme Court justice, could instead define the parameters of acceptable troop activity in a mission that has been murky from its start over the weekend.

In an interview, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta told The Times that he was told that Trump’s mission set for both the Marines and the National Guard in Los Angeles “is to protect federal property, functions and personnel.”

“The property part may well be compliant with the Posse Comitatus Act,” Bonta said, referring to a landmark law passed after the Civil War prohibiting the use of U.S. troops to engage in local law enforcement.

“If all the Marines do is protect buildings, that might be compliant,” he added. “But it needs to be made clear that they cannot go out into the community to protect federal functions or personnel, if that means the ‘functions’ of civil immigration enforcement conducted by the ‘personnel,’ ICE. That means they’ll be going to Home Depots, and work sites, and maybe knocking on doors.”

Vague mission set

Trump told reporters Tuesday that without federal involvement, “Los Angeles would be burning down right now,” suggesting their role was to confront violent rioters throughout the city. But that same day, Air Force Gen. Gregory Guillot told The Times that Marines sent to L.A. County were limited in their authority and without arrest power, deployed only to defend federal property and personnel. The Los Angeles Police Department continues to lead the response to the protests.

Still a third potential mission set emerged within 24 hours, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement posted a photo on Facebook indicating that National Guardsmen were accompanying its agents on the very immigration raids that generated protests in the first place. And White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told The Times that the president’s primary motivation behind the federal show of force was to send a message to protesters — an effort to deter agitators in the crowd from resorting to violence.

Clarifying the true nature and purpose of the deployment — whether to protect federal property, to supplement ICE raids, to quell unrest, or all of the above — will prove critical to the administration’s success on Thursday. Breyer denied California’s request for an emergency restraining order on Tuesday, instead giving both sides 48 hours to prepare their case for the hearing.

“He’s the most well-regarded district judge in the United States,” said Robert Weisberg, a professor at Stanford Law School. “He will be very meticulous in asking all of these questions.”

‘Posse Comitatus’

Unprecedented though Trump’s actions may be, signs of caution or restraint in his decision to refrain from invoking the Insurrection Act could ultimately salvage his mission in court, experts said.

The Insurrection Act is the only tool at a president’s disposal to suspend Posse Comitatus and deploy active-duty Marines on U.S. soil. While Trump and his aides have made a coordinated public effort to reference the L.A. protesters as insurrectionists, he has, so far, stopped short of invoking the act.

The president instead invoked Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which grants him the authority to federalize the National Guard. Even still, California argues that Trump has overstepped the law, which still requires directives to the Guard “be issued through the governors of the States.” And the White House has suggested that Title 10 authority also justifies the Marine deployment.

“We expect an order from the court making clear what’s lawful and what’s unlawful, and part of that is making clear that the deployment of the National Guard by Trump is unlawful,” Bonta said.

“And so he might just strike down that deployment,” he added, “returning the National Guard to the command of its appropriate commander-in-chief, the governor.”

Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, said that Title 10 “requires a ‘rebellion or danger of rebellion,’ and inability of regular law enforcement authorities to execute the laws.”

“I would be shocked if a court determined that those conditions were met by what is actually happening in L.A. at the moment, as those of us living here know,” Arulanantham added.

Yet, by relying on Title 10 authorities and by refraining from invoking the Insurrection Act, Trump could save himself from a definitive loss in court that would probably be upheld by the Supreme Court, Weisberg said.

“I do think that Trump is trying to take just one step at a time,” Weisberg said, “and that he contemplates the possibility of invoking the Insurrection Act, but it’s premature.”

“There’s always the possibility he’s being rational,” he added.

Another front in California vs. Trump

For Bonta, the case before Breyer is just the latest in a series of legal battles California has brought against the Trump administration — cases that have compelled the White House to lay out evidence, based on truth and facts, before seasoned judges.

Moments before Bonta spoke with The Times, Leavitt told reporters in a briefing that “the majority of the behavior that we have seen taking place in Los Angeles” has been perpetrated by “mobs of violent rioters and agitators.”

“It’s completely untrue and completely unsurprising,” Bonta responded. “It’s what the Trump administration — the press secretary, the secretary of Defense and the secretary of Homeland Security — it’s what they’ve been on a full 24-hour campaign to try to do, to manufacture and construct a reality that’s not actually true.”

The LAPD and L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, Bonta noted, have dealt with worse in the past, not just during major historic events such as the Rodney King riots of 1992 or the George Floyd protests of 2020, but after relatively routine annual events, such as the NBA Finals or the Super Bowl.

“There is absolutely no doubt that the National Guard was unnecessary here,” Bonta said, adding, “They’re using words like insurrection and emergency and rebellion and invasion, because those are the words in the statutes that would trigger what they really want. They want the president to be able to seize more power.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: 9-year-old Torrance Elementary student deported with father to Honduras
The deep dive: Newsom, in California address, says Trump purposely ‘fanned the flames’ of L.A. protests
The L.A. Times Special: Brian Wilson, musical genius behind the Beach Boys, dies at 82

More to come,
Michael Wilner

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom is up to his old tricks, trying to ram major policy change through the state Legislature on short notice. And again lawmakers are pushing back.

Not only lawmakers, but the Legislature’s nonpartisan, independent chief policy analyst.

The Legislative Analyst‘s Office has recommended that legislators hold off voting on what the governor seeks because they’re being pressed to act without enough time to properly study the complex matter.

Newsom is asking the Legislature to “fast-track” construction of his controversial and costly water tunnel project in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

The $20-billion, 45-mile, 39-feet-wide tunnel would enhance delivery of Northern California water to Southern California.

Delta towns and farmers, environmental groups and the coastal salmon fishing industry are fighting the project and the governor’s latest move to expedite construction.

If there are any supporters at the state Capitol outside the governor’s office for his fast-track proposal, they’re not speaking up.

“Nobody’s told me they’re excited about it,” says state Sen. Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton), an East San Francisco Bay lawmaker who is co-chairman of the Legislative Delta Caucus. The 15-member bipartisan group of lawmakers who represent the delta region strongly oppose the tunnel — calling it a water grab — and are fighting Newsom’s bill.

The black mark on the governor’s proposal is that he’s trying to shove it through the Legislature as part of a new state budget being negotiated for the fiscal year starting July 1. But it has nothing to do with budget spending.

The tunnel would not be paid for through the budget’s general fund which is fed by taxes. It would be financed by water users through increased monthly rates, mainly for Southern Californians.

Newsom is seeking to make his proposal one of several budget “trailer” bills. That way, it can avoid normal public hearings by legislative policy committees. There’d be little scrutiny by lawmakers, interest groups or citizens. The measure would require only a simple majority vote in each house.

“We’re battling it out,” says Assemblywoman Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City), the Delta Caucus’ co-chair whose district covers the delta as it enters San Francisco Bay.

“This is not about the project itself. This is about how you want to do things in the state of California. This [fast-track] is comprehensive policy that the budget is not intended to include,” says Wilson.

Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek issued a report concluding: “We recommend deferring action … without prejudice. The policy issues do not have budget implications. Deferring action would allow the Legislature more time and capacity for sufficient consideration of the potential benefits, implications and trade-offs.”

The analyst added: “In effect, approving this proposal would signal the Legislature’s support for the [tunnel], something the Legislature might not be prepared to do — because it would remove many of the obstacles to move forward on the project.

“Moreover, even if the Legislature were inclined to support the project, some of the particular details of this proposal merit closer scrutiny.”

Newsom tried a similar quickie tactic two years ago to fast-track the tunnel. And incensed legislators balked.

“He waited now again until the last moment,” Wilson says. “And he’s doubled down.”

She asserts that the governor is seeking even more shortcuts for tunnel construction than he did last time.

“There are some people who support the project who don’t support doing it this way,” she says. “The Legislature doesn’t like it when the governor injects major policy into a budget conversation. This level of policy change would usually go through several committees.”

Not even the Legislature’s two Democratic leaders are siding with the Democratic governor, it appears. They’re keeping mum publicly.

Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) has always opposed the tunnel project. So quietly has Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), I’m told by legislative insiders.

McGuire and Rivas apparently both are trying to avoid a distracting fight over the tunnel within their party caucuses at tense budget time.

Newsom insists that the project is needed to increase the reliability of delta water deliveries as climate change alters Sierra snowpack runoff and the sea level rises, making the vast estuary more salty.

He also claims it will safeguard against an earthquake toppling fragile levees, flooding the delta and halting water deliveries. But that seems bogus. There has never been a quake that seriously damaged a delta levee. And there’s no major fault under the delta.

The tunnel would siphon relatively fresh Sacramento River water at the north end of the delta and deliver it to facilities at the more brackish south end. From there, water is pumped into a State Water Project aqueduct and moved south, mostly to Southern California.

“A tunnel that big, that deep, is going to cause a lot of problems for agriculture and tourism,” says McNerney. “One town will be totally destroyed — Hood. It’s a small town, but people there have rights.”

Newsom’s legislation would make it simpler to obtain permits for the project. The state’s own water rights would be permanent, not subject to renewal. The state would be authorized to issue unlimited revenue bonds for tunnel construction, repaid by water users. It also would be easier to buy out farmers and run the tunnel through their orchards and vineyards. And it would limit and expedite court challenges.

“For too long, attempts to modernize our critical water infrastructure have stalled in endless red tape, burdened with unnecessary delay. We’re done with barriers,” Newson declared in unveiling his proposal in mid-May.

But lawmakers shouldn’t be done with solid, carefully reasoned legislating.

On policy this significant involving a project so monumental, the Legislature should spend enough time to get it right — regardless of a lame-duck governor’s desire to start shoveling dirt before his term expires in 18 months.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Candidates for California governor face off about affordability, high cost of living in first bipartisan clash
The TK: State lawmakers considering policy changes after L.A. wildfires
The L.A. Times Special: Homeland Security’s ‘sanctuary city’ list is riddled with errors. The sloppiness is the point

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON — When a fire erupts in California, it is a lab across the country, at the University of Maryland, that works together with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to determine where the smoke is going. Those unsung scientists help warn the people downwind of dangerous air quality levels.

About a half-hour drive away, NOAA’s Satellite Operations Facility provides the bulk of the work used to forecast atmospheric rivers that are crucial — and sometimes threatening — to communities across the state.

And it is the National Weather Service, working with buoys at sea and satellites in orbit, figuring out the risks of increased winds and dryness that could prompt devastating fires in highly populated areas such as Los Angeles.

It is not just meteorologists and technicians being forced out of their jobs en masse, jeopardizing the standards of those programs, said Craig McLean, a 40-year veteran of NOAA who served as the agency’s assistant administrator for research and acting chief scientist until his retirement in 2022.

The Trump administration proposes to go further, seeking to eliminate the entire research team that provides forecasters with tools to make their assessments. The Satellite Operations Facility has been hit with deep layoffs. Contracts for the buoys, and other equipment, are on hold while under review by the Commerce Department.

It is a cascade of delays and setbacks that could become evident to the public sooner rather than later, McLean said.

“The forecast risk is apparent upon us,” he told The Times. “I think it’s ridiculous to assume that it’s not — whether it’s for the fire season and the hydrology, whether it’s for the atmospheric rivers and the inundation and deluge, or whether it’s just for the high wind.”

Trump seeks cuts both to forecast and response

Workers put up a sign as wildfire victims seek disaster relief services at a FEMA center in Pasadena in January.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

The Trump administration’s cuts to NOAA, which have resulted in roughly 600 employee departures, or an about 15% of its workforce, appear to involve across the entire agency, based on self-reporting from employees and the National Weather Service Employees Organization. But the agency itself has provided few details to the public on the extent of its reductions.

“When the voluntary early retirement separation initiative was put up, in one day, NOAA lost 27,000 person years of experience, which is extraordinary in an agency of what was 12,000 personnel,” said Rick Spinrad, who served as administrator of the agency under President Biden.

“So much of what is done at NOAA is interpretive,” he added. “At the end of the day, when your weather forecast office or your local sea grant extension agent is informing you of what might happen, there’s a lot of interpretation of the environment, of local geography, local roads. That experience is gone.”

But if NOAA and the National Weather Service are ill-prepared for hazardous weather events — entering fire season in the West and hurricane season in the East — the Federal Emergency Management Agency may be worse off, having lost nearly a third of its employees since January. This week, Reuters reported that President Trump’s acting FEMA chief, David Richardson, told staff that he wasn’t aware the country had a hurricane season.

Trump has already raised concerns that he is rejecting disaster relief to states for political reasons. In the first three months of his presidency, Trump issued conditions on disaster aid to California after fires ravaged Los Angeles and rejected requests for disaster relief from Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein, both Democrats.

Californians may find themselves more vulnerable to other natural disasters, as well. FEMA announced this month it would cancel $33 million in grants for Californians to retrofit their homes to gird against earthquakes, sparking “grave concern” among state officials. “This move must be reversed before tragedy strikes next,” Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California wrote to the agency.

More disruption for ports and fisheries

Each year, before fishing season begins, NOAA issues a series of scientific reports surveying fish populations and environmental conditions, a basic precaution to prevent permanent damage and overfishing along America’s coasts.

But this spring, staff cuts to NOAA forced the agency to take emergency action on the East Coast so that fishing could begin by May 1. And in Alaska, it took the state’s two Republican senators to plead with the White House to take action to allow fishing to resume.

“The federal government has to do two things: They need to do robust surveys for accurate stock assessments and timely regulations to open fisheries. That is it. When the federal government does not do that, you screw hardworking fishermen,” GOP Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska said at a hearing in May. “To be honest, right now, it is not looking good, and I am getting really upset.”

Their challenges don’t stop there. Fishing ships will not able to sail on time without reliable forecasts from the National Weather Service, likely resulting in a reduction of the number of days out at sea and, in turn, leading to fewer profits and staff members.

Americans are already being told to expect higher seafood prices, due to Trump’s tariff policies driving up duties on seafood imports by 10% to 30%, according to a new United Nations report.

“A fisherman who goes out to collect their lobster pots or go fish for tuna needs a reliable weather report,” said Mark Spalding, president of the Ocean Foundation. “Everybody who works with NOAA, from fishermen to shipping, to other businesses that rely on weather and the predictability of currents and storms, are going to feel less secure if not operating blind.”

Similar problems are facing the country’s largest ports, which rely on government experts in ocean monitoring that have left their jobs.

“At the ports of Long Beach and L.A., the systems used to optimize the ships coming in and out of the ports — the coastal ocean observing systems — are being compromised,” Spinrad said. “The president’s budget threatens to eliminate a lot of that capability.”

Vulnerabilities across the Pacific

In Singapore over the weekend, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned that a Chinese assault on Taiwan “could be imminent” and would threaten the entire Pacific region, including the United States. He touted U.S. partnerships across the region on maritime security — an acknowledgment that any conflict that might arise in the Pacific would be a fight at sea.

Cuts to NOAA could threaten U.S. readiness, McLean said.

“Because we have territories throughout the Pacific, NOAA is responsible for providing weather forecasts in those areas,” he said. “The defense community doesn’t operate completely dependent on NOAA in military conflicts — they have meteorologists in the Air Force and the Navy. But they are using NOAA models and are heavily guided by what the NOAA forecasts are offering, certainly for bases, whether it’s in Guam or Hawaii.”

The military, for example, uses data produced by thousands of buoys deployed and tracked by NOAA — called the Argo Float Network — that are considered the gold standard in ocean monitoring. The program faces cuts from the Trump administration because of its affiliation with climate change.

“There is a national defense component here,” McLean said. “The defense community is dependent upon what NOAA provides, both in models and in research.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: California FEMA earthquake retrofit grants canceled, imperiling critical work, Schiff says
The deep dive: ‘Another broken promise’: California environmental groups reel from EPA grant cancellations
The L.A. Times Special: ‘It’s a huge loss’: Trump administration dismisses scientists preparing climate report

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — This just seems wrong: Californians overwhelmingly approved an anti-crime ballot measure in November. But our governor strongly opposed the proposition. So he’s not funding it.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic legislative leaders, however, are now under pressure to fund the measure in a new state budget that’s being negotiated and must pass the Legislature by June 15.

A core principle of democracy is the rule of law. A governor may dislike a law, but normally is duty- bound to help implement and enforce it. Heaven save us if governors start traipsing the twisted path of President Trump.

But this isn’t the first time for Newsom. Voters twice — in 2012 and 2016 — rejected ballot measures to eliminate the death penalty. Moreover, in 2016 they voted to expedite executions. But shortly after becoming governor in 2019, Newsom ignored the voters and declared a moratorium on capital punishment.

Nothing on California’s ballot last year got more votes than Proposition 36, which increases punishment for repeated theft and hard drug offenses and requires treatment for repetitive criminal addicts.

It passed with 68.4% of the vote, carrying all 58 counties — 55 of them by landslide margins, including all counties in the liberal San Francisco Bay Area.

“To call it a mandate is an understatement,” says Greg Totten, chief executive officer of the California District Attorneys Assn., which sponsored the initiative. Big retailers bankrolled it.

“It isn’t a red or blue issue,” adds Totten, referring to providing enough money to fund the promised drug and mental health treatment. “It’s what’s compassionate and what’s right and what the public expects us to do.”

Rolled back Proposition 47

Proposition 36 partly rolled back the sentence-softening Proposition 47 that voters passed 10 years earlier and was loudly promoted by then-Lt. Gov. Newsom.

Proposition 47 reduced certain property and hard drug crimes from felonies to misdemeanors and arrests plummeted, the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found.

Proposition 36 was inspired by escalating retail theft, including smash-and-grab burglaries, that were virtually unpunished. Increased peddling of deadly fentanyl also stirred the public.

The ballot measure imposed tougher penalties for dealing and possessing fentanyl, treating it like other hard drugs, such as heroin and cocaine. But the proposition offered a carrot to addicted serial criminals: Many could be offered treatment rather than jail time.

Newsom adamantly opposed Proposition 36.

“We don’t need to go back to the broken policies of the last century,” the governor declared. “Mass incarceration has been proven ineffective and is not the answer.”

Newsom tried to sabotage Proposition 36 by crafting an alternative ballot measure. Top legislative leaders went along. But rank-and-file Democratic lawmakers rebelled and Newsom abandoned the effort.

The Legislature ultimately passed 13 anti-theft bills that Newsom and Democrats hoped would satisfy voters, but didn’t come close. Totten called the legislative product “half measures.”

Proposition 36 was flawed in one regard: It lacked a funding mechanism. That was part of the backers’ political strategy. To specify a revenue source — a tax increase, the raid of an existing program — would have created a fat target for opponents.

Let the governor and the Legislature decide how to fund it, sponsors decided.

“We didn’t want to tie the hands of the Legislature,” Totten says. “The Legislature doesn’t like that.”

Anti-crime measure won’t work without funding

Without funding from Sacramento, Proposition 36 won’t work, says Graham Knaus, chief executive officer of the California State Assn. of Counties.

“We believe strongly that if it’s not properly funded, it’s going to fail,” Knaus says. “Proposition 36 requires increased capacity for mental health and substance abuse treatment. And until that’s in place, there’s not really a way to make the sentencing work.”

There’s a fear among Proposition 36 supporters that if treatment isn’t offered to qualifying addicts, courts won’t allow jail sentencing.

“That will probably get litigated,” Totten says.

“Counties can’t implement 36 for free,” Knaus says. “Voters declared this to be a top-level priority. It’s on the state to determine how to fund it. Counties have a very limited ability to raise revenue.”

The district attorney and county organizations peg the annual cost of implementing the measure at $250 million. State Senate Republicans are shooting for the moon: $400 million. The nonpartisan legislative analyst originally figured that the cost ranged “from several tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars each year.”

Newson recently sent the Legislature a revised $322-billion state budget proposal for the fiscal year starting July 1. There wasn’t a dime specifically for Proposition 36.

The governor, in fact, got a bit surly when asked about it by a reporter.

“There were a lot of supervisors in the counties that promoted it,” the governor asserted. “So this is their opportunity to step up. Fund it.”

One supervisor I spoke with — a Democrat — opposed Proposition 36, but is irked that Newsom isn’t helping to implement it.

“It’s disappointing and immensely frustrating,” says Bruce Gibson, a longtime San Luis Obispo County supervisor. “Voters have spoken and we need to work together with the state in partnership.”

In fairness, the governor and the Legislature are faced with the daunting task of patching a projected $12-billion hole in the budget, plus preparing for the unpredictable fiscal whims of a president who keeps threatening to withhold federal funds from California because he doesn’t like our policies.

“I am quite concerned about adequately providing the necessary funding to implement Proposition 36,” says state Sen. Tom Umberg of Santa Ana, a strong Democratic supporter of the measure.

He’s fearful that the Legislature will approve only a token amount of funding — and the governor will veto even that.

Under California’s progressive system of direct democracy, voters are allowed to bypass Sacramento and enact a state law themselves. Assuming the statue is constitutional, the state then has a duty to implement it. To ignore the voters is a slap in the face of democracy.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Villaraigosa, despite climate credentials, pivots toward oil industry in run for governor
The what happened: Trump threatens to strip federal funds to California over transgender youth athletes
The L.A. Times Special: Killing wolves remains a crime in California. But a rebellion is brewing

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON — A Starship spun out of control in suborbital flight on Tuesday, failing to meet critical testing goals set by SpaceX in its plans for a mission to Mars. A poll released last week showed the national brand reputation for Tesla, once revered, had cratered. And later that same day, House Republicans passed a bill that would balloon the federal deficit.

It has been a challenging period for Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, who not long ago thought he had conquered the private sector and could, in short order, do the same with the federal government. That all ended Wednesday evening with his announcement he is leaving the Trump administration.

“As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending,” Musk wrote on X, his social media platform.

The mission of the program he called the Department of Government Efficiency “will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government,” he added.

Musk’s departure comes on the heels of a ruling from a federal judge in Washington on Wednesday questioning Musk’s initial appointment as a temporary government employee and, by extension, whether any of his work for DOGE was constitutional.

“I thought there were problems,” Musk said in a recent interview with the Washington Post, “but it sure is an uphill battle trying to improve things in D.C., to say the least.”

Growing conflicts with Trump

Musk’s role as an omnipresent advisor to President Trump began to wane weeks ago, amid public backlash against DOGE’s cuts to treasured government programs — from cancer research to the National Park Service — and after Trump bucked Musk’s counsel on economic policy, launching a global trade war that jolted supply chains and financial markets.

But the entrepreneur has grown increasingly vocal with criticism of the Trump administration this week, stating that a megabill pushed by the White House proposing an overhaul to the tax code risks undermining his efforts to cut government spending.

Musk responded to a user on X, his social media platform, on Monday lamenting that House Republicans “won’t vote” to codify DOGE’s cuts. “Did my best,” he wrote.

“I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not decrease it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing,” Musk explained further in an interview with “CBS Sunday Morning” later in the week. “I think a bill can be big, or it can be beautiful, but I don’t know if it can be both. My personal opinion.”

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” would increase border security and defense spending, renew tax cuts passed in 2017 and extend a new tax deduction to seniors, while eliminating green energy tax benefits and cutting $1 trillion in funding to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Despite the cuts, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would add so much money to the debt that Congress may be forced to execute cuts across the board, including hundreds of billions to Medicare, in a process known as sequestration.

Hours after the CBS interview aired, the White House appeared to respond directly to Musk with the release of a press release titled “FACT: One, Big, Beautiful Bill Cuts Spending, Fuels Growth.” And Trump responded directly from the Oval Office, noting Democratic opposition and the challenges of unifying a fractious GOP caucus. Negotiations with the Senate will result in changes to the legislation, Trump said.

“My reaction’s a lot of things,” Trump said. “I’m not happy about certain aspects of it, but I’m thrilled by other aspects of it.”

“That’s the way they go,” he added. “It’s very big. It’s the big, beautiful bill.”

Cuts in question

It is unclear whether Musk succeeded in making the government more efficient, regardless of what Congress does.

While the DOGE program originally set a goal of cutting $2 trillion in federal spending, Musk ultimately revised that target down dramatically, to $150 billion. The program’s “wall of receipts” claims that $175 billion has been saved, but the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service has documented an increase in spending over last year.

“DOGE is just becoming the whipping boy for everything,” Musk said in the Post interview this week. “So, like, something bad would happen anywhere, and we would get blamed for it even if we had nothing to do with it.”

Musk had been brought into the Trump administration designated as a special government employee, a position limited to 130 days that does not require Senate approval.

But the legal case making its way through the Washington courtroom of U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan is questioning the entire arrangement.

The White House attempted to “minimize Musk’s role, framing him as a mere advisor without any formal authority,” Chutkan wrote, while granting him broad powers that gave him “unauthorized access” to “private and proprietary information,” like Social Security numbers and medical records. Those actions, Chutkan added, provide the basis for parties to claim Musk inflicted substantial injury in a legal challenge.

‘I think I’ve done enough’

Musk was scheduled to speak on Tuesday after SpaceX’s Starship test launch, setting out the road ahead to “making life multiplanetary.” But he never appeared after the spacecraft failed early on in its planned trajectory to orbit Earth.

The SpaceX Starship rocket is launched Tuesday in Texas. It later disintegrated over the Indian Ocean, officials said.

(Sergio Flores / AFP / Getty Images)

Starship is supposed to be the vehicle that returns Americans to the moon in just two years. NASA, in conjunction with U.S. private sector companies, is in a close race with China to return humans to the moon for the first time since the end of the Apollo program.

But none of Musk’s endeavors has suffered more than his electric car company, Tesla, which saw a 71% plunge in profits in the first quarter of 2025 and a 50% drop in stock value from its highs in December. An Axios Harris Poll released last week found that Tesla dropped in its reputation ranking of America’s 100 most visible companies to 95th place, down from eighth in 2021 and 63rd last year.

The reputational damage to Tesla, setbacks at SpaceX and limits to his influence on Trump appear to be cautioning Musk to step back from his political activity.

“I think in terms of political spending, I’m going to do a lot less in the future,” Musk told Bloomberg News on May 20, during the Qatar Economic Forum. “I think I’ve done enough.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: 217 days and counting: Trump’s rules slow the release of migrant children to their families
The deep dive: Villaraigosa, despite climate credentials, pivots toward oil industry in run for governor
The L.A. Times Special: Supreme Court clears way for massive copper mine on Apache sacred land

More to come,
Michael Wilner

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — The big question in California politics is, “Will Kamala Harris run for governor?” But that’s the wrong question. Far more important is, “Should she?”

And that’s not a question to be answered based strictly on her prospects for winning.

Initially, at least, the former vice president would be the heavy favorite to succeed termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom — although, eventually, she could find herself in a tough election fight next year.

Rather, the answer should be determined based on what strengths, goals and ideas she would bring to the table — her specific plans for fixing California’s enormous problems, her eagerness to fight even political allies to achieve her objectives and her own desire to lead the state’s comeback.

She shouldn’t view the job as a consolation prize after losing the presidential election to Donald Trump. Voters would smell that and, anyway, Harris would be miserably bored in the state Capitol dealing with budget minutiae and relatively inexperienced legislative leaders.

So far, since returning from Washington to her native state, Harris, 60, has displayed none of the above criteria that California needs in its next governor.

But neither did she previously in any noteworthy way as a U.S. senator or — particularly — state attorney general. As attorney general, Harris refused to take positions on important ballot measures, including those dealing with her role as California’s so-called top cop — propositions to stiffen criminal sentences and both abolish and expedite the death penalty.

Harris has a record of being overly cautious about taking positions that could alienate interests she deems important to her political career.

Sure, Harris isn’t running for anything right now. So, she deserves a pass on issuing 10-point plans to patch up the state.

But, look, you don’t need to be a gubernatorial candidate to express concerns about your state. Any resident who’s conscious should be alarmed.

“Home prices have skyrocketed as supply slumped over the past three decades,” the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California noted in a report last week.

California’s median home price in March was $884,000 — very tough if not impossible for many middle-class families. The housing shortage is largely due to over-regulation, tangled red tape that slows issuance of building permits and abuse of California’s environmental protection laws.

There’s a strong move in the Legislature to ease regulations, but it’s highly controversial. Does Harris have a thought on this?

Homeowner insurance rates are rising fast in the aftermath of wildfires. And in many fire-prone regions, traditional policies are impossible to obtain. The next governor needs to fix this.

California’s poverty rate is the nation’s highest when the cost of living is considered, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Despite our spending many billions of dollars and regardless of ugly finger-pointing at each other by Newsom and local officials, 187,000 Californians are homeless — a 35% increase in 17 years. That’s the highest in the nation — only partly because we’ve got the largest population.

Gasoline prices are roughly $1.60 a gallon higher in California than the U.S. average. And two oil refineries are planning to shut down, invariably hiking pump prices even higher.

We’re a high-tax state, a fact Newsom is in denial about. We lean too heavily on the wealthy for tax revenue and that produces roller-coaster budget deficits and surpluses depending on the stock market. It’s ridiculous. State taxes should be modernized. But no politician has the guts to attempt that.

Then there’s California’s historic problem of not enough water for its thirst.

Does Harris have anything to say about any of this? She hasn’t so far.

Of course, the seven leading announced Democratic candidates have been practically mute themselves on matters that risk aggravating party interest groups.

One exception is former Los Angeles Mayor and state Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, who has been bolder than most of his rivals.

Harris has said she’ll decide by the end of summer whether to run for governor in 2026. Maybe she’ll seek the presidency again in 2028 or retire from politics and make a bundle in the private sector.

But Villaraigosa already is taking shots at her — including last week for allegedly helping to cover up former President Biden’s cognitive decline while in the Oval Office. Villaraigosa included in the attack another gubernatorial candidate: former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra.

Harris is a lot more vulnerable than Becerra on the issue.

But it’s a cheap shot. How many people would publicly accuse their boss of being mentally incompetent? And Harris would have instantly been blasted for being self-serving by plotting to push the president aside so she could grab the Democratic nomination.

Harris could help herself and California’s voters, however, by occasionally voicing some anxiety about her home state.

The little we’ve heard from her this year are attacks on Trump. She also has been lending her name to anti-Trump fundraising appeals by the Democratic National Committee.

But the last thing California Democrats need is another politician — especially a potential governor — telling them that Trump is an evil, ignorant con artist. They’re fully aware of that. They need someone who can tell them how their state can be fixed.

If she ran, Harris would be the initial favorite because of her broad name recognition, past election successes in California and fundraising ability. Some current candidates would probably drop out.

But there doesn’t seem to be a public clamoring for her to run.

Harris needs to start showing people why she should even consider seeking the job. Because, so far, she’s sounding more like a 2028 presidential retread.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Villaraigosa blasts Harris and Becerra for not speaking out about Biden’s decline
The TK: Trump’s housing cuts could push thousands onto SF streets
The L.A. Times Special: Antonio Villaraigosa is dying to run against Kamala Harris for governor. Here’s why

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON — How can Congress cut Medicaid without explicitly cutting Medicaid?

That has been a years-long dilemma facing fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party who have sought cuts to the country’s deficit-driving social safety net programs, including Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare, without generating political fallout from the tens of millions of Americans who will suffer the consequences.

Now, GOP lawmakers have settled on a strategy, outlined in legislation expected to pass the House in the coming days amid ongoing negotiations over the package that President Trump is calling his “Big Beautiful Bill.”

Rather than lowering the income eligibility limit for coverage — an old policy proposal that would cut off Americans at the higher end of the eligibility range — Trump’s bill will instead require applicants to provide proof of their work hours and apply for specific exceptions, creating new barriers for individuals to maintain insurance.

House passage of the bill is far from assured, and the Senate will still have its say. But if it does become law, the policy would affect more than 71 million of the poorest Americans, more of whom live in California than any other state.

Barriers to entry are the point

If everyone eligible under the new work requirements were to apply for and receive Medicaid coverage, the cost savings to the government would be minimal. But the barriers themselves are the point, making it more likely that people with a right to Medicaid won’t ultimately receive it, experts said.

“If you want to make a substantial cut to the program, how do you do that in a systematic way?” said Matt Bruenig, founder of People’s Policy Project and a former lawyer at the National Labor Relations Board.

“With the work requirements, the number of people who seem to be actually ineligible because of it is quite small — so if it actually is perfectly administrated, you’re not going to see a whole lot of savings,” Bruenig said. “But if it’s not well administrated and it creates all these problems, then you could see significant savings.”

Existing government programs, such as Social Security, unemployment and supplemental nutrition assistance for women, infants and children, determine eligibility for those benefits based on an individual’s income. But creating a new set of criteria for Medicaid based on hours worked will require a new reporting system that is not outlined in the bill.

“We have all these systems that are based around making sure people have the earnings that they can report to all these agencies, but you don’t really report hours in any context,” Bruenig added. “Monthly hours — that’s just not a thing. And it’s not clear how that’s going to work, at all.”

Who counts as ‘waste, fraud and abuse’?

Trump and members of the House Freedom Caucus, a group of Republican fiscal hawks, have argued for a strict hourly work requirement to eliminate “waste, fraud and abuse” in Medicaid by cutting off unproductive individuals from government benefits.

But exemptions suggested in the draft legislation — parents caring for young children or elderly parents, individuals dealing with health issues, those between jobs — reflect the range of reasons why Medicaid recipients may fall below the proposed hourly requirement. And each time an exception arises, individuals will have to refile, increasing the likelihood they will simply let their coverage lapse.

It also will force working individuals who would otherwise be eligible — such as Americans working gig jobs for DoorDash or Uber, for example — to account for hours worked transiting between jobs that don’t generate receipts.

“They just are not finding very much at all,” said John Schmitt, a senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, when asked whether ineligible individuals are routinely receiving Medicaid.

“The real problems are not with individuals taking advantage of Medicaid,” Schmitt added. “It is with healthcare providers taking advantage of Medicaid, in the sense of the way they bill and provide services to people. And that is not going to be changed in any way, whatsoever, by imposing a work requirement.”

The Congressional Budget Office said it is these Medicaid recipients who will either fall behind or grow fed up with the paperwork, resulting in 7.6 million losing coverage under the plan and saving the federal government roughly $800 billion.

California will be hit hardest

The effects of Medicaid cuts will be felt nationwide, but most pointedly in states that expanded Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act. On that score, Democratic states such as California lead the way.

A state assessment published Sunday found the GOP bill would “cause serious harm to California’s health care system,” possibly resulting in up to 3.4 million residents losing coverage.

No state has more workers on Medicaid than California, where 18% of its workforce receives benefits from the program, according to a study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

“Millions will lose coverage, hospitals will close, and safety nets could collapse under the weight,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “We must sound the alarm because the stakes couldn’t be higher.”

But the political stakes are high for Republicans as well.

Stephen K. Bannon, a former campaign aide and White House strategist to Trump, warned in recent days that the party has “gotta be careful” with Medicaid, given its widespread use among low-income GOP voters.

“A lot of MAGAs are on Medicaid, I’m telling you,” Bannon said on his podcast. “If you don’t think so, you are dead wrong.”

Trump, for his part, seems of two minds on the matter. Cuts to Medicaid, as well as to food stamp programs and green energy tax benefits, will be required to get the bill passed with support from the Freedom Caucus, which says the renewal of tax cuts initially passed in the first Trump administration must be offset with savings elsewhere.

“Here’s what I want on Medicaid: We’re not touching anything,” Trump said Tuesday, taking questions from reporters on Capitol Hill. “All I want is one thing. Three words. We don’t want any waste, fraud or abuse. Very simple — waste, fraud, abuse.”

But in a private meeting with GOP lawmakers, his guidance was sharper. “Don’t f— around with Medicaid,” the president reportedly said.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: White House pushes for quick approval of ‘big, beautiful bill,’ but key hurdles remain
The deep dive: Villaraigosa blasts Harris and Becerra for not speaking out about Biden’s decline
The L.A. Times Special: Congressional leaders call for streamlined visa process ahead of World Cup, L.A. Olympics

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — When the top Democratic candidates for governor took the stage at a labor forum last week, the digs at Gov. Gavin Newsom were subtle. The message, however, was clear. Newsom’s home stretch as California governor may be a bumpy ride.

Newsom hopes to end his time as governor in an air of accomplishment and acclaim, which would elevate his political legacy and prospects in a potential presidential run. But the Democrats running to replace him have a much different agenda.

“Lots of voters think things are not going well in California right now. So if you’re running for governor, you have to run as a change candidate. You have to run as ‘I’m going to shake things up,’ ” said political scientist Eric Schickler, co-director of the Institute of Governmental Studies (IGS) at UC Berkeley. “In doing that, you’re at least implicitly criticizing the current governor, right?”

Not only must Newsom swim against that tide until his final term as governor ends in less than two years, he’s being buffeted by the perception that he’s moving rightward to broaden his national appeal in preparation for the 2028 presidential race.

A new IGS poll, co-sponsored by the L.A. Times, earlier this month found that California registered voters by a more than two-to-one margin believe Newsom is more focused on boosting his presidential ambitions than on fixing the problems in his own state.

Newsom faced criticism for showcasing conservative activists on his podcast, “This is Gavin Newsom,” especially when he agreed with Trump loyalist Charlie Kirk that it was “unfair” for trans athletes to compete in women’s sports.

But he also pushed back against Kirk and others during the interviews. He said from the outset that he intended to engage with people on the opposite side of the political spectrum, but that did not blunt the criticism he received. Assemblymember Christopher M. Ward (D-San Diego), the chair of the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, said he was “profoundly sickened and frustrated” by Newsom’s remarks about trans athletes.

The Democratic governor took heat last week from progressives for his proposed budget cuts to close a $12-billion deficit, including cuts to free healthcare for eligible undocumented immigrants. Sociologist G. Cristina Mora, also co-director of Berkeley’s IGS, said it’s not surprising “knives are going to be out” during tough budget times, but there’s more to Newsom’s current predicament.

“The big problem for Newsom is that most people see him as focused outside of California at a dire time,” Mora said. “So all his moves that he’s making, whether this is truly him being more educated and coming to the middle, are seen through that lens.”

Not-so-friendly fire

Though Newsom’s name was not uttered when seven of the Democratic candidates for California governor took the stage last week in Sacramento, his presence was certainly felt.

The event was held by the California Federation of Labor Unions and the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, so there was ample praise for California workers and plenty of epithets hurled at President Trump.

And a healthy dose of dissatisfaction about the tough economic times facing many Californians. Notably, Newsom had just a couple of weeks before he celebrated California’s rank as the fourth-largest economy in the world; for years he has boasted of the state’s innovative and thriving economy.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa didn’t appear that impressed, saying California also has the highest cost of living in the nation.

“We love to say we’re the fourth-largest economy in the United States, what we don’t say is we have the highest effective poverty rate,” Villaraigosa said to a hotel ballroom packed with union leaders. “So let’s deal with the issues that are facing us here in California.”

Former Controller Betty Yee offered a similar assessment.

“In California, we are the fourth-largest economy in the world, but when you peel that back, how’s that working for everybody?” she asked.

Six of the seven Democratic candidates said they would support providing state unemployment benefits to striking workers. Villaraigosa was the sole candidate who expressed reservations. Newsom vetoed a bill in 2023 that would have provided such coverage, saying it would make the state’s unemployment trust fund “vulnerable to insolvency.”

Every candidate present vowed to support regulating how employers use artificial intelligence in the workplace, technology that labor leaders fear, if unchecked, would put people out of work. Newsom has signed legislation restricting aspects of AI, but he has also said he wants to preserve California’s role at the forefront of technology.

Afterward, Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Labor Federation, complained that labor leaders “can’t even get a conversation out of Gavin Newsom” about regulating AI.

Barbs from labor aren’t a new experience for Newsom. Union leaders have at times clashed with the ambitious governor over legislation he opposed that supported pro-union labor agreements with developers and regulating Big Tech.

Gubernatorial candidates taking direct or indirect shots at the incumbent, even those who belong to the same party, also is nothing new. During a candidate debate in 2018, Newsom took a subtle jab at then-Gov. Jerry Brown for the state’s response to the homelessness crisis.

“What lacks is leadership in this state,” Newsom said.

To this day, Newsom says he is the only California governor to launch a major state effort to address the crisis.

Knives out during tough budget times

Newsom also faces the difficult task of having to wrestle with an additional $12-billion state budget shortfall next year, a deficit caused mostly by state overspending Newsom says is being exacerbated by falling tax revenues due to Trump’s on-again-off-again federal tariff policies.

The governor’s proposed cuts drew criticism from some of his most progressive allies and again stirred up rumblings that he was trying to recast himself as a moderate.

To save money, Newsom proposed scaling back his policy to provide free healthcare coverage to all low-income undocumented immigrants. The governor’s budget also proposes to siphon off $1.3 billion in funding from Proposition 35, a measure voters approved in November that dedicated the revenue from a tax on managed care organizations to primarily pay for increases to Medi-Cal provider rates.

Jodi Hicks, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, called the governor’s proposed budget cuts “cruel.”

Sen. Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach), co-chair of the Latino Legislative Caucus, said members would oppose Newsom’s Medi-Cal cuts, and rallies against Newsom’s proposal are planned at the Capitol this week.

During his budget news conference on Wednesday, Newsom also took aim at California’s cities and counties, blasting them for not doing enough to address the state’s homelessness crisis. Newsom also renewed his call for cities and counties to ban homeless encampments.

“It is not the state of California that remains the biggest impediment,” Newsom said. “The obstacle remains at the local level.”

Carolyn Coleman, executive director of the League of California Cities, returned fire, saying Newsom’s proposed budget “failed to invest” adequately in efforts by cities to not only alleviate homelessness, but also improve public safety and address climate change.

The Onion, the satirical website that delights in needling politicians in faux news stories, didn’t miss the opportunity to send a zinger Newsom’s way at the end of last week.

Under the headline “Gavin Newsom Sits Down For Podcast With Serial Killer Who Targets Homeless,” the fake article mocks both the governor’s podcast and efforts to address homelessness and purports that Newsom asked the killer what Democrats could learn from his tactics.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: For Kamala Harris, it’s not just whether to run for California governor. It’s why
The deep dive: Europe’s free-speech problem
The L.A. Times Special: When the deportation of an illegal immigrant united L.A. to bring him back

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON — Markets rejoiced this week over news that the Trump administration, after six weeks of maximalist rhetoric, had struck a preliminary deal with China to lower tariff rates between the two countries. Tech stocks led the rally, with investors hopeful that President Trump had finally retreated from plans for a protracted trade war with a vital trading partner.

But the celebration may be premature, industry insiders, foreign diplomats and market experts said, telling The Times that Silicon Valley will face strong headwinds in the months ahead — the makings of a perfect storm of uncertainty that could still tip the U.S. economy into recession.

Investigation at Commerce

Wall Street reacted with similar exuberance last month on word that tech products, such as smartphones and computers, would be exempt from Trump’s 145% tariffs on China — a figure that was reduced in the deal struck on Monday to 30%, marking a significant reduction, but still far higher than tariffs have ever been on Chinese imports.

And yet the April 12 White House announcement outlining exemptions was widely misunderstood as a walk-back. In fact, those tech products, including the iPhone, are exempted from existing tariff rates only temporarily, because the Commerce Department is conducting an ongoing review of whether to impose separate import duties on the sector over specific national security concerns.

The investigation, under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, is progressing, with the Commerce Department recently ending its acceptance of public comments. The department, led by Secretary Howard Lutnick, could issue findings anytime in the coming months, alongside a tariff rate of unknown size that may severely affect Silicon Valley companies.

The review is causing uncertainty in its own right. But Lutnick has indicated that action is forthcoming. He has repeatedly advocated for the iPhone to be manufactured in the United States — a process that would require a large, skilled workforce in high-tech manufacturing produced by the very universities being targeted by the Trump administration, and would substantially increase the price of computing products for American households.

Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary who has earned greater confidence than Lutnick from the business community, is the one leading trade negotiations with China, where many of those products are made. That has Silicon Valley executives questioning which one of them is in charge, and whom they should be speaking with, according to one tech executive, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly.

“The core issue for Silicon Valley lies in the uncertainty and potential cost disruption these bring to critical technology components, especially semiconductors,” said Subhajyoti Bandyopadhyay, a professor of information systems and operations management at the University of Florida.

“While ostensibly about national security, the application of these investigations can introduce significant volatility into supply chain planning and investment decisions. Companies might hesitate to commit to certain sourcing strategies if there’s a persistent threat,” he added. “All of which is to say that there will be quite a bit of turbulence ahead for strategic planners of Silicon Valley firms.”

Looming battle with Europe

Announcing the reduction in trade tensions with China on Monday, Trump turned his attention to the European Union, another major trading partner, and levied a threat.

“The European Union is in many ways nastier than China,” the president said. “They’ll come down a lot. You watch. We have all the cards. They treat us very unfairly.”

But the Europeans believe they have some cards, as well.

Trump’s focus on trade with Europe has been on tangible goods, such as agricultural products, manufactured items, pharmaceuticals and cars — a grouping of products that on their own would show a significant U.S. trade deficit with the continent. But European officials use different math. They want to account for European use of U.S. digital services to level the playing field.

One European official, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said that the taxation of digital services — such as online advertising, social media platforms and streaming services — is expected to be a “significant” component of the upcoming negotiations.

“Silicon Valley should be very concerned,” said Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. “The U.S. really stands to lose if there are certain tariffs that are brought to services, and I think people in the U.S. understand that, and would try to prevent it from happening.”

Targeting the U.S. digital sector offers Europe potent leverage in negotiations with the Trump administration, not only because it represents such a large portion of the American economy, but also because it applies acute pressure on Trump’s political allies in Silicon Valley — a tactic that could ultimately persuade him to cave.

“Trump blinked on the China tariffs at least in part because China aggressively retaliated,” Strain said. “That will be interesting to watch if other trading partners modify their strategy: learning that punching the bully in the nose is the right thing to do.”

Rates remain high on China

One of Trump’s first calls on Monday morning after announcing his temporary truce with China was to Apple’s chief executive, Tim Cook. “He’s going to be building a lot of plants in the United States for Apple,” Trump said. “We look forward to that.”

Apple can’t build them fast enough. Although it committed $500 billion in investments over the next four years in U.S. production, including new plants and a manufacturing academy, uncertainty in the interim will force the company to make hard decisions on its product lines.

Despite some protection from the exemptions in place as the Commerce investigation proceeds, the California tech giant still faces hurdles from the tariffs that remain high across supply chains — not just in China, where rates remain at 30%, but also elsewhere in Asia, including India and Vietnam, which face 10% import duties. In the most recent earnings call, before the China deal was announced, Cook estimated that Apple could incur a $900-million hit from tariffs.

“For companies like Apple, and indeed much of Silicon Valley, this overall environment isn’t just about weathering a storm; it’s about fundamentally rethinking global operations,” Bandyopadhyay said. “We’re already witnessing the strategic pivots.”

To offset the costs of tariffs, Apple could increase the prices of iPhones in the fall. But the company also has to walk a fine line both politically and financially. The Trump administration has been critical of companies such as Amazon that have considered showing consumers the impact of tariffs.

“This is all sort of a game of poker, and also remember, Tim Cook is 10% politician, 90% CEO,” said Dan Ives, a Wedbush Securities analyst who covers the technology sector.

Ives said the upcoming iPhone 17 could cost $100 more than the current model, but his firm estimates that could reduce demand by 5%, delaying consumers’ purchases of new devices. Other analysts said it is tough to say if prices will increase, with the smartphone maker keeping prices relatively stable in recent years.

The debate over Apple’s fate has proved to be a sensitive point in U.S. negotiations with Beijing. Last month, the Chinese Foreign Ministry recirculated a video from a visit Cook made to China in 2017, in which he explained why Silicon Valley companies find themselves so reliant on the Chinese supply chain.

“The popular conception is that companies come to China because of low labor costs. I am not sure what part of China they go to, but the truth is China stopped being a low-labor-cost country many years ago,” Cook said at the time. “The reason is because of the skill, the quantity of skill in one location, and the type of skill it is.”

“The products we do require really advanced tooling and the precision that you have to have in tooling and working with materials that we do are state-of-the-art,” he added. “If you look at the U.S., you could have a meeting of tooling engineers and I’m not sure we could fill a room. In China, you could fill multiple football fields.”

Times staff writer Queenie Wong in San Francisco contributed to this report.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: California to ask federal judge for sweeping pause to Trump’s tariffs
The deep dive: Trade truce with China is hailed, but it may not be enough to stop shortages
The L.A. Times Special: Newsom claims Trump’s tariffs will reduce California revenues by $16 billion

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.