Newsom

SACRAMENTO — The year opened with President Trump declaring that “the fraud investigation of California has begun,” a move that quickly set off a barrage of allegations from his administration and Republican allies questioning the integrity of state programs and the leadership of Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The accusations, amplified across social media and conservative outlets, have pushed California and its Democratic leadership to the center of a broader national political fight over waste, fraud and abuse.

Newsom has dismissed the claims as politically driven, arguing that the administration is singling out Democratic-led states while ignoring similar problems elsewhere. The governor also responded by highlighting fraud cases in Republican-led states and by criticizing Trump’s own record and business dealings.

Against that backdrop, it has become increasingly difficult to separate substantiated fraud from fabricated or recycled claims, to distinguish old findings from newly raised allegations and to determine who can credibly claim credit for uncovering wrongdoing — all amid a toxic and deeply polarized political climate.

Dan Schnur, who teaches political communications at USC and UC Berkeley, said allegations of malfeasance in California is a particularly ripe target for Republicans because Democrats have controlled the state Legislature and governor’s office for years.

Democrats hold a supermajority in both the Assembly and the Senate, meaning they hold at least two-thirds of seats in both houses, and not a single Republican has been elected to statewide office in California since 2006, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner were reelected.

“There is no shared responsibility here for Republicans,” Schnur said. “If you had a state in which Republicans were actually competitive, they would bear some responsibility for these problems.”

Audits and prosecutions show that California has experienced its share of fraud, particularly in complex programs involving emergency aid, healthcare and unemployment insurance. The state paid out billions of dollars in fraudulent unemployment claims during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the California State Auditor has issued repeated warnings about state agencies that are “at high risk for waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement.”

Along with recycling a barrage of years-old allegations of financial malfeasance in California and other Democratic states, the Trump administration elevated claims of child-care fraud in Minnesota last month, prompting Gov. Tim Walz to drop his reelection plans to focus on the growing political crisis in his state.

Fraud allegations are increasingly being deployed as a political weapon against Newsom, a leading Trump critic and a potential 2028 Democratic presidential contender. Politicians have always railed against government waste, fraud and abuse, but now those issues are being “weaponized into a partisan issue,” Schnur said.

For the public, it can be hard to discern the truth. Here is a look at three of the central fraud allegations — and what the evidence shows.

Child-care funding

President Trump used his social media platform, Truth Social, to accuse California of widespread fraud last month, drawing a link between his administration’s investigation into child-care spending in Minnesota and programs in the Golden State, and announcing a major federal “fraud investigation” into the state’s actions.

“California, under Governor Gavin Newscum, is more corrupt than Minnesota, if that’s possible???” wrote Trump, using a disparaging nickname for the governor.

The Trump administration then moved to freeze $10 billion in federal funding for child care in five Democrat-led states — California, New York, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota — over “serious concerns about widespread fraud and misuse of taxpayer dollars.”

In a trio of Jan. 6 letters addressed to Newsom, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it was concerned there had been “potential for extensive and systemic fraud” in child care and other social services programs that rely on federal funding, and had “reason to believe” that the state was “illicitly providing illegal aliens” with benefits.

The letters did not detail evidence to support the claims. The governor’s office dismissed the accusation as “deranged.”

A federal judge subsequently blocked the Trump administration temporarily from freezing those funds. In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Vernon Broderick said he didn’t understand why the government was making it harder for states to access child-care money before any wrongdoing had been discovered.

“It just seems like the cart before the horse,” he said.

Hospice funding

Days after Trump’s social media post about alleged corruption under Newsom’s watch, Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, held a joint news conference on public benefits fraud, but offered few details about the scope of their investigation.

The officials accused “foreign actors” of draining billions from public healthcare programs in California, referencing bogus hospice providers first exposed by The Times in 2020 and later investigated by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta.

Essayli placed the blame for bad actors squarely on Newsom, calling him “the fraud king.”

Weeks later, Oz released a video of himself walking in the Los Angeles neighborhood of Van Nuys as he questioned why dozens of alleged hospices were operating along four blocks. He blamed the “Russian Armenian Mafia” and made his remarks while pointing to an Armenian bakery, prompting accusations of racism from the Armenian community.

Newsom’s office last week hit back by highlighting state efforts to fight fraud, while pointing to a 2025 Axios story on the Trump administration’s decision to pause a federal program to crack down on bad hospice operators.

Bonta’s office said it has filed criminal charges against 109 individuals over hospice fraud-related offenses and launched dozens of civil investigations.

Newsom, speaking at a Bloomberg event Thursday in San Francisco, said the allegations have been recycled and misrepresented. Later that day, he filed a civil rights complaint against “baseless and racist allegations against Armenian Americans in California” made by Oz.

“Hospice, we’ve been after that for years and years before Oz was even on the scene,” Newsom said. “In 2021, we did a moratorium on new hospice programs, 280 we shuttered.”

The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services said earlier this year that — in addition to California — Arizona, Nevada, Texas, Ohio and Georgia are being monitored following allegations of fraud and waste.

EDD fraud

The state’s Employment Development Department, known as EDD, reported in 2021 that approximately $20 billion was lost due to fraud, largely in the federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program.

While unemployment fraud was rampant across country during the pandemic as governments rushed to provide support, California’s problems stood out.

The state itself admitted in 2021 that it failed to take precautions that had been implemented in other states, including using software to identify suspicious applications and cross-checking benefit claims against personal data on state prison inmates.

Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) said department mismanagement and fraud often overlap and cited EDD as a prime example.

“When there is a lack of internal controls, a lack of diligence of how funds are used, that makes it easier for those who want to take advantage of the system to profit,” Kiley said.

EDD’s own tracker said the state has recovered more than $6 billion in stolen funds and opened more than 2,300 unemployment fraud investigations since the pandemic began, leading to nearly 1,000 arrests and more than 670 convictions.

The department said it has expanded fraud enforcement through partnerships with law enforcement, new identity-verification technology and a dedicated fraud task force.

But, reports of mismanagement at EDD have continued. A recent audit also found EDD wasted $4.6 million by paying monthly service fees for more than 6,200 cellphones that went unused for at least four consecutive months between November 2020 and April 2025 — including some devices that were inactive for more than four years.

At the same time, “EDD continues to have high rates of improper [unemployed insured] payments, including fraudulent payments, and it needs to improve the customer service it provides to UI claimants,” another report found.

What’s next?

Newsom said there is a reason the Trump administration is not pointing to fraud in Republican-led states.

“This is about polarization, politicalization, weaponization,” Newsom said Thursday.

Asked what the Trump administration will discover in probing California for fraud, Newsom said investigators will find a state “taking that issue very, very seriously.”

“We absolutely are here to be a partner, to go after waste, fraud and abuse,” Newsom said.

State audits show vulnerabilities persist. The California State Auditor has repeatedly flagged Medi-Cal eligibility discrepancies that have exposed the state to billions of dollars in questionable payments, while also warning that weaknesses in information security across state agencies remain a high-risk issue.

Curtailing waste could be particularly important during the upcoming year as California and its state-funded programs head into a period of volatile fiscal uncertainty, driven largely by events in Washington and on Wall Street. Newsom’s own optimistic budget proposal projects a $3-billion state deficit for the next fiscal year despite no major new spending initiatives.

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office warned in November that California faces a nearly $18-billion budget shortfall.

It will also be a key issue in upcoming elections. A group of Republicans running for statewide offices, including California gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, pegged that the state’s annual estimate of fraud, waste and abuse across state programs at $250 billion, an estimate that includes unverified public tips submitted to a campaign-run website.

The group cited the estimate as justification for creating their own “California Department of Government Efficiency,” or CAL DOGE, a nod to a similarly named federal initiative promoted by Elon Musk that generated headlines but has not produced documented savings or formal audit findings. CAL DOGE is not currently a state department, despite its name.

Who deserves credit when fraud is prosecuted has also become a point of contention. After a man was arrested last month for fleecing L.A.’s homeless services program for $23 million, critics of Newsom were quick to blame the governor. Newsom responded by saying the case was uncovered by local investigators working with law enforcement, which he added is “exactly the kind of accountability and oversight the state has pushed for.” (The Los Angeles district attorney’s office ran a parallel, independent investigation.)

Essayli responded on social media by saying no one made an arrest until Trump and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi “appointed me to investigate and charge fraud offenses in California.”

Kiley, the California Republican congressman, said despite the partisan fighting over fraud, the issue should rally both parties.

The “easiest” way to solve the state’s budget problems and improve government services for taxpayers is to “minimize and eventually eliminate fraud,” said Kiley.

SACRAMENTO — Matt Mahan, the mayor of San José and latest entrant into the jam-packed race for California governor, has in recent years raised his profile outside his Silicon Valley-area city by doing something most other elected Democrats would never: publicly criticize Gov. Gavin Newsom.

With the primary election almost four months away, candidates have already been busy trying to convince Californians that they can lead the state through its biggest challenges, including what they might do differently than Newsom on homelessness, crime and the high cost of living.

Democratic hopefuls have so far done so subtly, without taking direct shots at Newsom.

Until Mahan entered the race.

The 43-year-old-mayor began carving a moderate path in 2024, when he broke with Newsom and other Democrats to back Proposition 36, which increased penalties for theft and crimes involving fentanyl. Despite opposition from Newsom and legislative leaders, voters overwhelmingly approved it.

Mahan has also given mixed reviews to the Newsom administration’s approach to homelessness; he has praised efforts to make it easier for cities to clear homeless encampments but criticized inconsistent funding from the state to help local governments build interim housing.

Although most Democrats running to replace Newsom have praised his fiery opposition to President Trump and the Republican-led Congress, including the governor’s outlandish online trolling of Trump and his allies, Mahan was not impressed.

“Instead of spending so much energy attacking his opponents, the governor and his team should be addressing the high cost of energy, helping hard-pressed families make ends meet and keeping them and their employers from fleeing our state,” Mahan wrote last summer in a piece for the San Francisco Standard.

Mahan told reporters last week that his disagreements with Newsom are “rooted in substance” and praised the governor for muscling through major reforms to the California Environmental Quality Act and behavioral health treatment.

“I see the job of the next governor” as “building on many of the initiatives [Newsom] has championed,” he said, adding he would use those new reforms to build more housing and treatment facilities for people struggling with addiction and mental illness.

Newsom has routinely won approval from the state’s Democratic base, as well as respect and deference from its elected leaders, and his notoriety as a top foe of Trump continues to rise. Because the perch of California governor provides Democrats with an effective cudgel against the Republican administration, attacking Newsom could easily backfire in this left-leaning state.

“It’s a very delicate balancing act” to campaign to replace a leader of one’s own party, said Democratic strategist Garry South, who has worked on four California gubernatorial campaigns.

“The traditional way to do it is to try to project that you will build on things that the incumbent has done: programs they started, successes they’ve had,” he said.

South, who ran Newsom’s first, short-lived, campaign for governor in 2009, took issue with Mahan’s criticisms of the governor.

“To stick it to the incumbent of your own party might be OK if that person is viewed as a failure. … The fact is, Newsom is not unpopular. This guy’s had four massive victories in California,” he said, listing Newsom’s two elections in 2018 and 2022, defeating a recall in 2021 and overwhelmingly passing Proposition 50 last year.

Like Mahan, billionaire venture-capitalist-turned-environmentalist Tom Steyer has cast himself as an outsider of California’s Democratic establishment. Though he has so far avoided disparaging anyone directly, Steyer dinged “Sacramento politicians [who] are afraid to change this system” when he launched his campaign in November.

Early on in his campaign, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa indicated he would backtrack on Newsom’s strict oil drilling limits and what he calls heavy-handed regulations, which the industry has blamed for the state’s high gas prices.

A Phillips 66 refinery shut down last fall and a Valero refinery in Northern California plans to idle by the end of April, raising concerns that prices in the state’s isolated fuels market could climb even higher.

Villaraigosa previously told The Times he is “not fighting for refineries” but “for the people who pay for gas in this state.”

The former mayor took a more aggressive approach in the California’s governor’s race in 2018, when Villaraigosa accused Newsom of selling “snake oil” with his support for single-payer healthcare in order to win over the nurses union and progressives. Villaraigosa, who ran on a moderate platform, finished in a distant third place in the primary, and Newsom went on to win two terms as governor.

Former Rep. Katie Porter has gone in a more progressive direction on oil. When asked in October to name a policy arena in which she would act differently than Newsom, Porter said she would not have signed recent legislation to allow 2,000 new oil wells in Kern County.

“Drilling new wells is locking us into 100-plus years of energy of the past,” she said. “I absolutely know that we need our refineries to stay open. … But I’m concerned about the environmental consequences, the environmental justice consequences, the shortened lifespan and pollution that we see in some of our fossil fuel-producing places.”

While Newsom and most other candidates for governor have raised concerns about a proposed statewide ballot measure to tax the assets of billionaires, primarily to raise billions of dollars in revenue to blunt the impact of federal healthcare cuts, Tony Thurmond, the state superintendent of public instruction, has embraced the idea.

Even before the potential ballot measure drove some billionaires into leaving the state, Thurmond said that if elected, he would introduce a tax “solely on megamillionaires and billionaires to hire more teachers, healthcare workers, firefighters, construction workers and social workers,” who would earn “decent middle-class wages” to bolster the state’s economy.

Thurmond has also repeatedly said he would pursue single-payer healthcare in California, a promise Newsom also campaigned on before his first term but did not fully deliver.

Betty Yee, a former state controller and budget director, has pitched herself as the most qualified candidate to fix California’s ongoing budget deficits, and took swipes at accounting tricks Newsom and other governors have used in the past.

Newsom and state lawmakers have faced criticism for using short-term tactics like deferred spending and internal borrowing to fill budget shortfalls while ignoring the larger issue: The state regularly spends more money than it brings in.

“No more gimmicks. We can’t kick the can down the road anymore,” Yee said during a recent interview with KTLA. She said she would implement “spending cuts — not like DOGE” and explore “corporations and upper-income earners” potentially paying more tax revenue.

Newsom, aware that he’s entering lame-duck status, has jokingly called himself “a milk carton with a sell-by date” and admitted “these questions about who’s next and all that are uncomfortable.”

Asked specifically about Mahan’s criticisms, Newsom on Thursday declined to fuel any supposed rivalry with the San José mayor.

“I don’t know enough about him,” the governor said. “I wish him good luck.”

Times staff writer Taryn Luna contributed to this report.

FRANKFORT, Ky. — Gavin Newsom was in his element, moving and shaking amid the rich and powerful in Davos.

He scolded European leaders for supposedly cowering before President Trump.

He drew disparaging notice during a presidential rant and captured headlines after being blocked from delivering a high-profile speech, allegedly at the behest of the White House.

All the while, another governor and Democratic presidential prospect was mixing and mingling in the rarefied Swiss air — though you probably wouldn’t know it.

Flying far below the heat-seeking radar, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear leaned into the role of economic ambassador, focusing on job creation and other nutsy, boltsy stuff that doesn’t grab much notice in today’s performative political environment.

Like Newsom, Beshear is running-but-not-exactly-running for president. He didn’t set out to offer a stark contrast to California’s governor, the putative 2028 Democratic front-runner. But he’s doing so just the same.

Want someone who’ll match Trump insult for insult, over-the-top meme for over-the-top meme and howl whenever the president commits some new outrage? Look to Sacramento, not Frankfort.

“I think by the time we reach 2028, our Democratic voters are gonna be worn out,” Beshear said during a conversation in his state’s snowy capital. “They’re gonna be worn out by Trump, and they’re gonna be worn out by Democrats who respond to Trump like Trump. And they’re gonna want some stability in their lives.”

Every candidate enters a contest with a backstory and a record, which is condensed to a summary that serves as calling card, strategic foundation and a rationale for their run.

Here’s Andy Beshear’s: He’s the popular two-term governor of a red state that three times voted overwhelmingly for Trump.

He is fluent in the language of faith, well-liked by the kind of rural voters who have abandoned Democrats in droves and, at age 48, offers a fresh face and relative youth in a party that many voters have come to see as old and ossified.

The fact he’s from the South, where Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton emerged the last time Democrats experienced this kind of existential freak-out, also doesn’t hurt.

Beshear’s not-yet-candidacy, still in the fledgling phase, offers a mix of aspiration and admonition.

Democrats, he said, need to talk more like regular people. Addiction, not substance use disorder. Hunger, not food assistance.

And, he suggested, they need to focus more on things regular people care about: jobs, healthcare, public safety, public education. Things that aren’t theoretical or abstract but materially affect their daily lives, like the costs of electricity, car insurance and groceries.

“I think the most important thing we should have learned from 2024 is [Democratic voters are] gonna be looking for somebody that can help them pay that next bill,” Beshear said.

He was seated in the Old Governor’s Mansion, now a historic site and Beshear’s temporary office while the nearby Capitol undergoes a years-long renovation.

The red-brick residence, built in the Federal style and completed in 1798, was Beshear’s home from age 6 to 10 when his father, Steve, lived there while serving as lieutenant governor. (Steve Beshear went on to serve two terms as the state’s chief executive, building a brand and a brand name that helped Andy win his first public office, attorney general, in 2015.)

It was 9 degrees outside. Icicles hung from the eaves and snowplows navigated Frankfort’s narrow, winding streets after an unusually cold winter blast.

Inside, Beshear was seated before an unlit fireplace, legs crossed, shirt collar unbuttoned, looking like the pleasantly unassuming Dad in a store-bought picture frame.

He bragged a bit, touting Kentucky’s economic success under his watch. He spoke of his religiosity — his grandfather and great-grandfather were Baptist preachers — and talked at length about the optimism, a political rarity these days, that undergirds his vision for the country.

“I think the American people feel like the pendulum swung too far in the Biden administration. Now they feel it’s swung way too far during the Trump administration,” Beshear said. “What they want is for it to stop swinging.”

He went on. “Most people when they wake up aren’t thinking about politics. They’re thinking about their job, their next doctor’s appointment, the roads and bridges they drive, the school they drop their kids off at, and whether they feel safe in their community.

“And I think they desperately want someone that can move the country, not right or left ideologically, but actually forward in those areas. And that’s how I think we heal.”

Beshear doesn’t shy from his Democratic pedigree, or stray from much of the party’s orthodoxy.

Seeking reelection in 2023, he seized on the abortion issue and the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe vs. Wade to batter and best his Republican opponent.

He’s walked the picket line with striking auto workers, signed an executive order making Juneteenth a state holiday and routinely vetoed anti-gay legislation, becoming the first Kentucky governor to attend an LGBTQ+ celebration in the Capitol Rotunda.

“Discrimination against our LGBTQ+ community is unacceptable,” he told an audience. “It holds us back and, in my Kentucky accent, it ain’t right.”

For all of that, Beshear doesn’t shrink from taking on Trump, which, essentially, has become a job requirement for any Democratic officeholder wishing to remain a Democratic officeholder.

After the president’s rambling Davos address, Beshear called Trump’s remarks “dangerous, disrespectful and unhinged.”

“From insulting our allies to telling struggling Americans that he’s fixed inflation and the economy is amazing, the President is hurting both our families’ financial security and our national security,” Beshear posted on social media. “Oh, and Greenland is so important he’s calling it Iceland.”

But Beshear hasn’t turned Trump-bashing into a 24/7 vocation, or a weight-lifting contest where the winner is the critic wielding the heaviest bludgeon.

“I stand up to him in the way that I think a Democratic governor of Kentucky should. When he’s doing things that hurt my state, I speak out,” Beshear said. “I filed 20 lawsuits, I think, and we’ve won almost all of them, bringing dollars they were trying to stop from flowing into Kentucky.

“But,” he added, “when he does something positive for Kentucky, I also say that too, because that’s what our people expect.”

Asked about the towel-snapping Newsom and his dedicated staff of Trump trollers, Beshear defended California’s governor — or, at least, passed on the chance to get in a dig.

“Gavin’s in a very different situation than I’m in. I mean, he has the president attacking him and his state just about every day,” Beshear said. “So I don’t want to be critical of an approach from somebody that’s in a very different spot.

“But the approach also has to be unique to you. For me, I bring people together. We’ve been able to do that in this state. That’s my approach. And in the end, I’ve gotta stay true to who I am.”

And when — or make that if — both Newsom and Beshear launch a formal bid for president, they’ll present Democratic voters a clear choice.

Not just between two differing personalities. Also two considerably different approaches to politics and winning back the White House.

WASHINGTON — It took Democrats nearly a year to respond with a unified message to President Trump’s signature policy initiative, harnessing national outrage over the administration’s immigration enforcement tactics in Minnesota this week to leverage government funding and demand change.

Yet divisions persist as the party barrels toward midterm elections and, a year from now, the start of primary season. And Gavin Newsom stands right in the middle of them.

Staking the middle ground

A calibrated position by the California governor has placed him to the right of the party’s progressive base that has opposed the very existence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for years — well before Republican lawmakers passed legislation doubling the agency’s budget, increasing its presence and visibility in American life.

Newsom has rejected calls for ICE to be abolished since the 2024 campaign, when Democrats saw clear alarms in public polling that showed President Biden and his vice president, Kamala Harris, on the back foot against Trump on immigration. To the contrary, Newsom has highlighted California’s cooperation with the agency, and his efforts to protect that relationship from progressive local lawmakers.

While Trump’s federalization of the California National Guard last summer was prompted, in part, by protests in Los Angeles against ICE raids across the city, the governor’s reaction focused more on the president’s alleged abuses of power than on the ICE raids themselves. To the extent he did comment on them, Newsom characterized their deployment as unnecessary and gratuitous, a political tool used to intimidate the population.

After the killing of U.S. citizen Renee Good, 37, by ICE officers earlier this month, and days before the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, also 37 and a U.S. citizen, by Border Patrol agents last weekend, Newsom told conservative podcaster Ben Shapiro that his position against abolishing the agency had not changed. And he disassociated himself from a social media post by his office that characterized ICE’s conduct in Minneapolis as “state-sponsored terrorism.”

“California has cooperated with more ICE transfers probably than any other state in the country, and I have vetoed multiple pieces of legislation that have come from my Legislature to stop the ability for the state of California to do that,” Newsom told Shapiro.

The immigration enforcement agency received a massive influx of cash for detention facilities and recruitment last year with the passage of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Republicans now hope to build on that law with even greater appropriations this year, providing ICE with more funding than most foreign militaries, including the armies of Iran, Turkey, Canada and Mexico.

“I disagreed when I think a candidate for president by the name of Harris said that in the last campaign,” Newsom added, of calls to abolish the agency. “I remember being on [MS NOW’s Chris Hayes’ show] hours later saying, ‘I think that’s a mistake.’ So, absolutely.”

A progressive rallying cry

It’s a position in stark contrast with potential 2028 Democratic hopefuls that could pose a challenge to Newsom’s presidential ambitions.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democratic lawmaker from New York said to be considering a bid, has referred to ICE as “a rogue agency that should not exist.” The agency “doesn’t deserve a dime” of federal dollars, she has said, “until they can prove they are honoring human rights.”

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), also rumored to be considering a run for the nomination, has advocated explicitly for ICE to be replaced with a new entity, built from scratch, without the baggage of the Sept. 11–era agency.

“Frankly, we need to tear down the ICE agency and have a new federal agency to enforce immigration law under the Justice Department,” Khanna said this week.

After Pretti’s death, Newsom also called for a pause to any “new funding” for ICE. He did not call for a review of its existing, historic levels of funding.

“Suspend the LAWLESS mass deportation raids nationwide NOW — ICE is no longer just deporting dangerous criminals,” the governor wrote on X. “Send the border patrol back to the border. End the militarization of ICE.”

Showdown on Capitol Hill

Pretti’s death is already complicating efforts to avert another government shutdown in Washington, as Democrats — joined by some Republicans — view the episode as a tipping point in the debate over the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies.

Senate Democrats pledged this week to block funding for the Department of Homeland Security unless changes are made to ICE operations in Minnesota. And Democrats in the House are calling for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s departure as a condition in shutdown negotiations with the White House. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) threatened to pursue her impeachment if Trump doesn’t fire her first.

Both demands track with Newsom’s latest position. The California governor was harshly critical of Senate Democrats when, during the shutdown late last year, a core bloc voted with Republicans to reopen the government without achieving any meaningful concessions in their weeks-long fight over healthcare tax breaks.

The latest Democratic uproar over ICE tactics threatens a similarly broad spending package that also includes funding for the rest of the government, including the departments of Defense, Education, Health, Labor and Transportation.

“Senate Democrats have made clear we are ready to quickly advance the five appropriations bills separately from the DHS funding bill before the Jan. 30 deadline,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said this week.

“The responsibility to prevent a partial government shutdown,” he added, “is on [Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.)] and Senate Republicans.”

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Spencer Pratt knows you love to hate him. Now he wants to lead Los Angeles
The deep dive: Housing costs are crippling many Americans. Here’s how the two parties propose to fix that
The L.A. Times Special: How once-exiled filmmaker Brett Ratner staged a Hollywood comeback with ‘Melania’

A note to readers: I will be out on parental leave until April, but fear not, California Politics will be in capable hands. You’ll keep getting the latest each week from my distinguished colleagues.

I’ll see you all soon,
Michael Wilner

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

President Donald Trump has announced an executive order to allow victims of the Los Angeles wildfires to rebuild without dealing with “unnecessary, dupicative, or obstructive” permitting requirements.

The order, which is likely to be challenged by the city and state, claimed that local governments have failed to adequately process permits and were slowing down residents who are desperate to rebuild in the Palisades and Altadena.

“American families and small businesses affected by the wildfires have been forced to continue living in a nightmare of delay, uncertainty, and bureaucratic malaise as they remain displaced from their homes, often without a source of income, while state and local governments delay or prevent reconstruction by approving only a fraction of the permits needed to rebuild,” Trump wrote in the executive order, which he signed Friday.

The order called on the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to “preempt” state and local permitting authorities.

Instead of going through the usual approval process, residents using federal emergency funds to rebuild would need to self-certify to federal authorities that they have complied with local health and safety standards.

The order comes as the city and county approach 3,000 permits issued for rebuilding. A December review by The Times found that the permitting process in Altadena and Pacific Palisades was moving at a moderate rate compared to other major fires in California. As of Dec. 14, the county had issued rebuilding permits for about 16% of the homes destroyed in the Eaton fire and the city had issued just under 14% for those destroyed in the Palisades fire.

While Mayor Karen Bass did not immediately provide comment, the executive order drew intense pushback from Gov. Gavin Newsom.

A spokesperson for Newsom, Tara Gallegos, called Trump a “clueless idiot” for believing the federal government could issue local rebuilding permits.

“With 1625+ home permits issued, hundreds of homes under construction, and permitting timelines at least 2x faster than before the fires, an executive order to rebuild Mars would do just as useful,” Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote in a post on X, citing the number of permits issued solely by the city of Los Angeles.

Newsom said that the federal government needed to release funding, not take over control of the permitting process. The governor said that what communities really lack is money, not permits.

“Please actually help us. We are begging you,” Newsom wrote.

Instead of descending into the permitting process, Newsom called on the president to send a recovery package to congress to help families rebuild, citing a letter from a bipartisan delegation of California legislators that called for federal funding.

“As the recovery process continues, additional federal support is needed, and our entire delegation looks forward to working cooperatively with your administration to ensure the communities of Southern California receive their fair share of federal disaster assistance,” wrote the California legislators on Jan 7.

Some in the Palisades agreed that money was a bigger issue than permitting.

“When I talk to people it seems to have more to do with their insurance payout or whether they have enough money to complete construction,” said Maryam Zar, a Palisades resident who runs the Palisades Recovery Coalition.

Zar called the executive order “interesting” and said that it was fair of the president to call the recovery pace slow and unacceptable.

SACRAMENTO — When a California governor goes to Europe and lectures world leaders that they must “grow a spine” and “stand tall” against the American president, I wince.

Not that they shouldn’t, nor that President Trump doesn’t deserve almost any nasty thing said about him. It just seems a tad arrogant.

A world stage in the Swiss Alps is not the proper place for a state governor to be scolding leaders of foreign nations about how they should deal with the U.S. president, no matter how despicably Trump behaves.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is merely the top elected official of one state, even if he can boast that it’s the fourth- or fifth-largest economy in the world. It still doesn’t have a seat at the United Nations or an awesome military that is the heart of NATO and the Western alliance.

Contrary to hackneyed bragging points, California is not a “nation state.” We’re a state — highly populated, but one of 50.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week, Newsom was like the lightweight boxer trying to punch far above his class.

He was attempting to score points in the early rounds of his fight for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, repeating what has been working well for him: swinging from the heels at Trump and attracting the attention of party activists across the country.

And that’s fine for here in the U.S. This is the arena where it belongs.

One can argue that Newsom overdoes it, reaching for all the national exposure he can grab and not focusing enough on the job Californians hired him for at the state Capitol. But there’s no disputing his political success nationally. He’s leading the early polls of potential contenders for the presidential nomination.

But that was probably of little concern for the foreign leaders and other global elites attending the prestigious annual World Economic Forum.

Newsom was given two speaking slots, presumably to inform international movers and shakers about California’s golden investment opportunities. But after arriving, he began blathering about the evil American president, Trump’s threats to hike tariffs and seize Greenland and how European leaders are allegedly cowering before him.

The governor soon after was disinvited to speak at one event, a series of interviews hosted by Fortune magazine at USA House, the Trump administration headquarters.

Newsom blamed Trump for blocking his participation, accusing White House staffers of pressuring the event sponsors.

Well, duh! You can’t shoot spit wads like a little kid at a big meanie and not expect some to be shot back.

“No one in Davos knows who third-rate governor Newscum is or why he is frolicking around Switzerland instead of fixing the problems he created in California,” asserted White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly, using the classless president’s oft-repeated derogatory name for the governor.

Whatever. Snatching Newsom’s mic was probably the right decision. Davos delegates didn’t need to hear a political stump speech attacking the American president or be berated by a governor for also not beating up on him.

This was some of the fiery, expletive-laced stuff the governor had been telling reporters, referring to European leaders:

“Wake up! Where the hell has everybody been? Stop this bullshit diplomacy of sort of niceties. … Have some spine, some goddamn balls ….

“The Europeans should decide for themselves what to do, but one thing they can’t do is what they’ve been doing. … And it’s embarrassing. Just, I can’t take this complicity, people rolling over. I should have brought a bunch of knee pads for all the world leaders. … I mean, it’s just pathetic.

“And I hope people understand how pathetic they look on the world stage.”

The leaders of Canada and France demonstrated how to make the same point — but with dignity — about standing firm against bullying.

“There is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along. To accommodate. To avoid trouble. To hope that compliance will buy safety. It won’t,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told the forum attendees.

French President Emanuel Macron said, “We do prefer respect to bullies. And we do prefer rule of law to brutality.”

Newsom was allowed to keep one speaking slot: an interview on the forum’s main stage with Ben Smith, editor in chief of the news outfit Semafor.

“Is it surprising the Trump administration didn’t like my commentary and wanted to make sure that I was not allowed to speak? No,” Newsom said. “It’s consistent with … their authoritarian tendencies.”

There’s something distasteful — perhaps even unpatriotic — about an elected American official, regardless of party, vilifying a U.S. president when among allied leaders abroad. Even if it is the dreadful Trump.

But American politics has changed greatly for the worse in recent years, as evidenced by the Newsom-Trump spitball flinging.

California Gov. George Deukmejian spoke at the 1989 Davos forum and was a model of civil diplomacy, promoting the state’s trade and investment opportunities and laying off demagoguery.

Of course, Deukmejian and President Bush were both Republicans. So the Duke didn’t assail the president, not that he would have anyway. He had too much respect for the presidential institution when traveling abroad.

But unlike today’s top elected Republicans, Deukmejian didn’t shy away from giving the president advice. At Davos, the governor urged Bush not to renege on his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge that got him elected. To reduce the federal deficit, cut spending, the governor cautioned.

Bush ignored such advice and raised taxes — and lost his 1992 reelection bid to Democrat Bill Clinton.

Clinton’s campaign motto is still a classic: “It’s the economy, stupid!”

Newsom needs to pick up on that. Or at least work it into his anti-Trump rant.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: GOP rails against Newsom’s late date for special election to fill Rep. Doug LaMalfa’s seat
The TK: Trump lawyers urge Supreme Court to block California’s new election map while upholding Texas’
The L.A. Times Special: California is suffering truth decay. Sacramento should do something about it

Until next week,
George Skelton

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