Newsom

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom criticized President Trump’s rejection of climate science as economic self-sabotage and “an abomination,” warning the country is “doubling down on stupid.”

The remarks came a day after Trump told world leaders at the United Nations that climate change is a “hoax” and “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world.”

“What an embarrassment,” Newsom told former President Clinton during a live-streamed fireside chat during Climate Week in New York City.

Newsom’s rebuttal came during a series of high-visibility appearances on the East Coast, including a spot on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” on Tuesday where he called Trump an authoritarian and raised the prospect of the president attempting to remain in office illegally after his term ends.

Newsom homed in on Trump’s climate change denials while speaking to New York Times reporter David Gelles at the paper’s Climate Forward forum on Wednesday, saying thermometers are not political.

“You don’t have to believe in science. Believe in your own damn eyes,” Newsom said.

Newsom accused Trump of trying to recreate the 19th century by dismantling clean-energy standards and incentives, adding that the rollbacks cede momentum to China in electric vehicles, renewable energy innovation and other technologies. Newsom said California has worked for decades to be a leader in environmental policies that reduced smog, cleaned up waterways and created the market that led to an influx of electric cars and green technologies.

“There’s no Elon Musk, there’s no Tesla, without California’s regulatory framework,” Newsom said. “It wouldn’t exist.”

On Wednesday, his office said the state now has more than 200,000 public and shared electric vehicle charging points throughout the state — with nearly 70% more ports than gasoline nozzles.

Newsom said California’s economy has thrived amid investments in green energy.

Critics, including U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, said Wednesday that California’s focus on green energy has come at another price — high electricity bills.

“If you’re blue-collar, you’re working class, that hurts your quality of life,” said Wright, who spoke onstage with Gelles after Newsom.

Last week, Newsom signed a sweeping package of climate and environmental bills that he said would push California toward a clean-energy future while making an effort to stabilize gasoline prices.

Among those bills was an extension of the state’s nation-leading cap-and-trade program through 2045. That program caps greenhouse gas emissions and raises billions for the California climate initiatives. The program also will provide $20 billion for the state’s controversial, much-delayed high-speed rail project, which U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy called a “boondoggle.”

With Trump pulling back electric car subsidies and attempting to override fuel efficiency standards, Newsom said California is “the only game in town right now as it relates to large scale environmental leadership.”

The governor’s series of appearances this week underscored how the fight over climate change — and Trump’s insistence that it’s a “green scam” invented by “stupid people” — has become another deeply political talking point. Newsom didn’t waste time pointing that out.

“It’s a disgrace what Donald Trump has done, and it is a disgrace what his administration is doing to the environment,” Newsom said.

In his appearance on Colbert’s show, Newsom reupped his view that Trump’s government is an authoritarian regime.

“People ask, well, is ‘authoritarianism’ you being hyperbolic?” Newsom said. “Bulls—, we’re being hyperbolic. If you’re a Black and brown community, it’s here in this country.”

Vice President JD Vance said Newsom’s allegations about the Trump administration are dangerous.

“Here’s what happens when Democrats like Gavin Newsom say that these people are part of an authoritarian government, when the left-wing media lies about what they’re doing, when they lie about who they’re arresting, when they lie about the actual job of law enforcement, what they’re doing is encouraging crazy people to go and commit violence,” Vance said, speaking about the gunman who opened fire onto a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement location in Dallas on Wednesday.

Vance added that anyone whose political rhetoric encourages violence against law enforcement can “go straight to hell.”

Newsom, on the social media site X, mocked Vance’s comment about going to hell.

“Though when I watch you speak I certainly feel like I’m already there,” Newsom wrote

Newsom on Tuesday also said he believes Trump will attempt to ensure he remains president after his term ends.

“I fear that we will not have an election in 2028, I really mean that in the core of my soul, unless we wake up to the Code Red — what’s happening in this country, and we wake soberly to how serious this moment is,” Newsom said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom answering the Republican redistricting power-grab in Texas with a plan of his own is a powerful example of how Golden State Democrats are standing up to President Trump and firing up their base. But while the partisan fireworks draw attention, California Democrats are also quietly offering a different kind of model for the national party that may prove more meaningful in the long run. They’re not just resisting Trump; they’re actually governing.

Forget what you think you know about California and its lefty Democrats. They’re inching to the center, meeting voters where they are, and it’s improving people’s lives.

Just look at San Francisco, long seen as a dysfunctional emblem of failed progressive governance.

The city’s new mayor, Daniel Lurie, a nonprofit leader and philanthropist, has shaken off left-wing taboos and focused on delivering results. Instead of defunding the police, he’s hiring more officers and cracking down on shoplifting and drug crimes. Instead of demonizing the business community, he’s partnering with them. He’s also reforming zoning laws to make it easier to build more housing, which should ease the city’s affordability crunch and the homelessness crisis. Lurie has been in office less than a year, but already crime is plummeting and his approval rate has reached 73%.

National Democrats can find a lesson here: Voters care about results, not just empathy and ideology.

In Sacramento, Newsom and legislative Democrats are taking a similar tack, with a stubborn focus on affordability and the courage to stare down opposition, even in their own coalition. For example, the Legislature recently reformed the California Environmental Quality Act, a well-intentioned 50-year-old law that had been twisted to obstruct construction projects, clean energy development and public transportation. This angered some powerful environmental activists, but it will ultimately help bring down costs for housing and energy.

CEQA reform is emblematic of California’s new, more balanced approach on some thorny issues, like energy and climate. The state recently announced that two-thirds of its power now comes from clean energy sources — a major achievement. At the same time, Newsom and the Legislature agreed to a package of bills that will increase oil drilling while extending the state’s cap-and-trade program. Together, the package can reduce energy costs for Californians and strengthen our state’s chances of reaching carbon neutrality by 2045. Some environmental justice advocates and climate purists oppose the deal, but it’s an example of how to make progress in the long term while addressing affordability in the short term.

Immigration is another example: Newsom and other leading California Democrats continue to stand up to the Trump administration’s inhumane immigration policies, including suing to stop the deployment of troops to Los Angeles. But they also recently passed a budget that pulls back on costly plans to provide health insurance to all low-income undocumented immigrants.

This reflects the new California model: principled resistance and pragmatic governance. The results speak for themselves. The Golden State recently surpassed Japan to become the fourth-largest economy in the world.

Democratic leaders are making these moves because they are listening to voters who consistently say that the high cost of living is their top concern.

In 2024, these concerns contributed to a surprising number of Californians abandoning Democrats, even with Kamala Harris, the state’s former U.S. senator and attorney general, on the ticket. Trump flipped 10 counties and boosted his support in 45. Since 2016, 72% of California counties have gotten redder, including many with heavy Latino populations.

Democrats are paying attention and are wisely changing course. Being responsive to voter concerns doesn’t have to mean sacrificing core values, but it does require new approaches when the old ways aren’t working.

Karen Skelton (whose father is a political columnist for the Los Angeles Times) is a political strategist, having worked in the White House under Presidents Clinton and Biden and at the United States Departments of Energy, Transportation and Justice.

Kamala Harris picked her way through several sticky subjects in a Tuesday night TV interview, including her account of being ghosted by Gov. Gavin Newsom when she called for his support during her brief, unsuccessful 2024 presidential campaign.

On the eve of the public release of her book detailing that campaign, Harris spoke with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on her relationship with Newsom as well as the redistricting ballot measure Californians will vote on in November — and she also hailed “the power of the people” in getting Jimmy Kimmel back on ABC.

Kimmel was indefinitely suspended last week by the Walt Disney Co. over remarks he made about the suspect in the shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. After fierce protests, consumers announcing subscription cancellations, and hundreds of celebrities speaking out against government censorship, Disney announced Monday that Kimmel would return on ABC the following day.

“Talk about the power being with the people and the people making that clear with their checkbooks,” Harris said of Kimmel’s return. “It spoke volumes, and it moved a decision in the right direction.”

Harris was speaking with Maddow about her new book, “107 Days,” which details her short sprint of a presidential campaign in 2024 after then-President Biden decided not to seek reelection.

The book discloses which Democrats immediately supported her to become the Democratic nominee, and which didn’t, notably Newsom. She wrote that, when she called, he texted her that he was hiking and would call her back but never did.

After Maddow raised the anecdote in the opening of the show, Harris said she had known Newsom “forever.”

“Gavin has a great sense of humor so, you know, he’s gonna be fine,” Harris said.

Newsom was icier when asked by a reporter about the interaction — or lack thereof — on Friday.

“You want to waste your time with this, we’ll do it,” Newsom said, adding that he was hiking when he received a call from an unknown number, even as he was trying to learn more about Biden’s decision not to run for reelection while also asking his team to craft a statement supporting Harris to be the Democratic nominee. “I assume that’s in the book as well — that, hours later, the endorsement came out.”

Harris brought up Newsom when asked about Proposition 50, the redistricting ballot measure championed by the governor and other California Democrats that voters will decide in November. If approved, the state’s congressional districts will be redrawn in an effort to boost Democratic seats in the house to counter efforts by President Trump to increase the number of Republicans elected in GOP-led states.

“Let me say about what [Newsom] is doing, redistricting, it is absolutely the right way to go. Part of what we’ve got to, I think, challenge ourselves to accept, is that we tend to play by the rules,” Harris said. “But I think this is a moment where you gotta fight fire with fire. And so what Gavin is doing, what the California Legislature is doing, what those who are supporting it are doing is to say, ‘You know what, you want to play, then let’s get in the field. Let’s get in the arena, and let’s do this.’ And I support that.”

But Harris was more cautious when asked about other electoral contests, notably the New York City mayoral race. Zohran Mamdani is the Democratic nominee and has large leads in the polls over other candidates in the race, including former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and incumbent Mayor Eric Adams.

Asked whether she backed Mamdani, a Democratic socialist, Harris was measured.

“Look, as far as I’m concerned, he’s the Democratic nominee, and he should be supported,” Harris said, prompting Maddow to ask whether she endorsed him.

“I support the Democrat in the race, sure,” she replied. “But let me just say this, he’s not the only star. … I hope that we don’t so over-index on New York City that we lose sight of the stars throughout our country.”

Harris, who announced this summer that she would not run for California governor next year, demurred when asked about whether she would run for president for a third time in 2028.

“That’s not my focus right now,” she said.

In response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration raids that have roiled Southern California, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday signed a package of bills aimed at protecting immigrants in schools, hospitals and other areas targeted by federal agents.

Speaking at Miguel Contreras Learning Complex in Los Angeles, Newsom said President Trump had turned the country into a “dystopian sci-fi movie” with scenes of masked agents hustling immigrants without legal status into unmarked cars.

“We’re not North Korea,” Newsom said.

Newsom framed the pieces of legislation as pushback against what he called the “secret police” of Trump and Stephen Miller, the White House advisor who has driven the second Trump administration’s surge of immigration enforcement in Democrat-led cities.

SB 98, authored by Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Alhambra), will require school administrators to notify families and students if federal agents conduct immigration operations on a K-12 or college campus.

Assembly Bill 49, drafted by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates), will bar immigration agents from nonpublic areas of a school without a judicial warrant or court order. It will also prohibit school districts from providing information about pupils, their families, teachers and school employees to immigration authorities without a warrant.

Sen. Jesse Arreguín’s (D-Berkeley) Senate Bill 81 will prohibit healthcare officials from disclosing a patient’s immigration status or birthplace — or giving access to nonpublic spaces in hospitals and clinics — to immigration authorities without a search warrant or court order.

Senate Bill 627 by Sens. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley) targets masked federal immigration officers who began detaining migrants at Home Depots and car washes in California earlier this year.

Wiener has said the presence of anonymous, masked officers marks a turn toward authoritarianism and erodes trust between law enforcement and citizens. The law would apply to local and federal officers, but for reasons that Weiner hasn’t publicly explained, it would exempt state police such as California Highway Patrol officers.

Trump’s immigration leaders argue that masks are necessary to protect the identities and safety of immigration officers. The Department of Homeland Security on Monday called on Newsom to veto Wiener’s legislation, which will almost certainly be challenged by the federal government.

“Sen. Scott Wiener’s legislation banning our federal law enforcement from wearing masks and his rhetoric comparing them to ‘secret police’ — likening them to the gestapo — is despicable,” said DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

The package of bills has already caused friction between state and federal officials. Hours before signing the bills, Newsom’s office wrote on X that “Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today. You’re welcome, America.”

Bill Essayli, the acting U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, fired back on X accusing the governor of threatening Noem.

“We have zero tolerance for direct or implicit threats against government officials,” Essayli wrote in response, adding he’d requested a “full threat assessment” by the U.S. Secret Service.

The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution dictates that federal law takes precedence over state law, leading some legal experts to question whether California could enforce legislation aimed at federal immigration officials.

Essayli noted in another statement on X that California has no jurisdiction over the federal government and he’s directed federal agencies not to change their operations.

“If Newsom wants to regulate our agents, he must go through Congress,” he wrote.

California has failed to block federal officers from arresting immigrants based on their appearance, language and location. An appellate court paused the raids, which California officials alleged were clear examples of racial profiling, but the U.S. Supreme Court overrode the decision and allowed the detentions to resume.

During the news conference on Saturday, Newsom pointed to an arrest made last month when immigration officers appeared in Little Tokyo while the governor was announcing a campaign for new congressional districts. Masked agents showed up to intimidate people who attended the event, Newsom said, but they also arrested an undocumented man who happened to be delivering strawberries nearby.

“That’s Trump’s America,” Newsom said.

Other states are also looking at similar measures to unmask federal agents. Connecticut on Tuesday banned law enforcement officers from wearing masks inside state courthouses unless medically necessary, according to news reports.

Newsom on Saturday also signed Senate Bill 805, a measure by Pérez that targets immigration officers who are in plainclothes but don’t identify themselves.

The law requires law enforcement officers in plainclothes to display their agency, as well as either a badge number or name, with some exemptions.

“Ensuring that officers are clearly identified, while providing sensible exceptions, helps protect both the public and law enforcement personnel,” said Jason P. Houser, a former DHS official who supported the bills signed by Newsom.

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday signed a sweeping package of climate and environment bills aimed at reducing the cost of electricity, stabilizing gasoline prices and propping up California’s struggling oil industry.

At a bill signing ceremony at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, Newsom told state lawmakers and representatives from labor, business, climate and energy groups that the package was a compromise, designed to push California toward a clean-energy future while still ensuring the state has enough affordable gasoline to meet drivers’ needs.

“Everybody recognized this moment and worked together across their differences, which were not insignificant,” Newsom said.

The bills signed into law include an extension of the state’s nation-leading cap-and-trade program through 2045. The program, rebranded as cap-and-invest, limits greenhouse gas emissions and raises billions for the state’s climate priorities by allowing large polluters to buy and sell their unused emission allowances at quarterly auctions.

The cap-and-invest program should funnel up to $60 billion through 2045 into lowering utility bill costs for California households and small businesses during months when prices spike, officials said. Another $20 billion will go toward the state’s trudging high-speed rail project, and $12 billion to public transit.

California’s greenhouse gas emissions have fallen 20% since 2000, while the state’s gross domestic product increased 78% over the same time period, Newsom’s office said.

The most controversial bill in the package was SB 237, which will allow oil and gas companies to drill up to 2,000 new wells per year through 2036 in Kern County, the heart of California oil country. The bill effectively circumvents a decade of legal challenges by environmental groups seeking to stymie drilling in the county that produces about three-fourths of the state’s crude oil.

Some environmentalists fumed over that trade-off, as well as over a provision that will allow the governor to suspend the state’s summer-blend gasoline fuel standards — which reduce emissions but drive up costs at the pump — if prices spike for more than 30 days or if it seems likely that they will.

That bill was introduced as part of an effort to stabilize volatile gas prices as Valero and Phillips 66 prepare to close refineries in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County’s South Bay that represented an estimated 20% of the state’s refining capac ity.

Environmental groups said the bills still represent progress, particularly as the Trump administration and the Republican-led Congress step away from clean energy policy.

“D.C. has not led,” said Katelyn Roedner Sutter, the California state director for the Environmental Defense Fund. “California will.”

Through AB 825, California is also laying the groundwork for an electricity market among Western states. The bill is designed to make it easier to share solar and wind power across state lines, meaning California can export excess solar energy while importing wind energy from gustier places like New Mexico and Wyoming.

“Today is a big win for the Golden State,” said state Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg). “If you pay utility bills and you want them lower, you win. If you drive a car and hate gas price spikes, you win. If you want clean drinking water, you win. If you want to breathe clean air, you win today. It’s a pretty big winner’s circle.”

Like many young men these days, Kamaldeep Dhanoa, a lanky 17-year-old, knew he wanted to do something with his life, be a part of something, but didn’t quite know what that meant.

Coming up with a career was important. But even more, it was finding the right friends — discovering what he wanted to be a part of.

He did both when he joined Improve Your Tomorrow, a mentorship organization for teenage boys and young men — that vulnerable, chronically online demographic from which Charlie Kirk drew many of his most ardent supporters, and where so much of our societal angst is focused in the wake of his death.

Now a senior at Florin High School in a suburb outside Sacramento, Dhanoa has a plan to become a paramedic, and more importantly, has those friendships that help him feel not just connected, but included and valued.

His something.

“I just know I have brothers around me,” he told me Tuesday. “We’re always with each other. It gives you, like, a sense of security. So if you’re feeling down, you could always, always rely on them.”

Dhanoa was hanging out in his school’s gym with Gov. Gavin Newsom, who dropped by to announce the California Men’s Service Challenge, an effort to recruit 10,000 Golden State males to serve as mentors to boys such as Dhanoa, so more boys can find their something.

It’s a worthy effort and before you jump to thinking it’s a reaction to Kirk, I’ll point out that 10 years ago, California’s first partner, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, made a documentary about the crisis of connection and identity facing young men, “The Mask You Live In.”

Recently, her husband caught up.

To be fair, a lot of us have been slow on the uptake when it comes to understanding why so many young men seem drawn to the obvious loneliness and disconnection of chronically online lives.

Kamaldeep Dhanoa, 17, and Michael Lynch helped Gov. Gavin Newsom announce his new statewide initiative to engage more men in volunteer and mentorship work.

(Anita Chabria/Los Angeles Times)

“Touch grass” has become a generation’s cultural shorthand to describe both the isolation and cure for people who seem so deep into a virtual world that the real one has lost meaning. It’s a dismissive way of looking at a problem that doesn’t begin and end with boys.

But, if we didn’t see it earlier, Kirk’s killing has made it clear that there are too many boys that need to be pulled back from the brink of a very bad something. One that is less about left or right and more about exactly who and what those boys stumble upon inside those ethereal spaces that most parents can’t even find, much less understand.

“We’ve got to get these kids back,” Newsom said. “They’re very susceptible young men. They’re very vulnerable online.”

Even more concerning, when the nihilism of the darkest corners of the internet catches up to their psyches, “young people weaponize those grievances,” Newsom said — whether that anger turns inward or outward.

Suicide among young men has increased. In 2023, the male suicide rate was about 23 deaths per 100,000 men, nearly four times higher than for women, a number that has been climbing for years (albeit with some slight dips). Sadly, women attempt suicide more often, but men have a higher rate of completion, often because they use more deadly means such as guns.

But lonely boys are also more prone to commit violence on others, maybe especially when they mix their anger with politics. Once recent study by social epidemiologist Julia Schleimer at the University of Washington School of Public Health found that individuals who reported having few social connections were, “more likely than others to support political violence or be personally willing to engage in it in one form or another.”

For reference, about 15% of men have no close friendships, according to a recent poll by the Survey Center on American Life. Newsom puts that figure even higher for young men, with “one in four men under 30 years old reporting that they have no close friends, a five-fold increase since 1990.”

Kirk stepped into that gap, providing meaning and belonging not just through his podcasts, where he was best known, but through the grassroots Turning Point USA organization that gave thousands of young people (of both sexes) both an ideology and, equally as important, real-world connections and events.

“Obviously Charlie Kirk was a master at not only the work he did online, but offline, and his capacity to organize and engage,” Newsom said.

Whether you agreed with Kirk’s views or not (and I did not agree on many points, including matters of race, sexual orientation, immigration or the meaning of patriotism), he created that something that is missing for so many young people. He created a vision of an America that needed to be saved, and could be saved, through a dedication to a certain kind of family and a certain kind of faith. As Newsom described it of his own effort, young people don’t just want a cause. They want to feel invested, they want to feel an “obligation to give back.”

If Newsom’s recent foray into Trump-esque social media proves anything, it’s that he’s willing to learn, even emulate, success — wherever he finds it. Newsom is trying to offer the belonging that Kirk supplied, seeped not in the exclusion and rigidity that Kirk embodied, but in California values.

“It’s about building an inclusive community of all different kinds of voices,” Michael Lynch told me of the California Challenge. He’s the co-founder and chief executive of Improve Your Tomorrow, the organization Dhanoa belongs to.

Lynch said kids get all kinds of benefits from mentors, but when he asks what those are, the sentence usually starts, “Now that I have friends…. “

The outcome of the effort to bring boys out of the virtual world is all about who those friends are, who pulls them out.

Our boys don’t just need to touch grass, they need to be around men who don’t seek to impose values, but teach them how to craft their own, how to believe in themselves before they believe in something someone is selling.

“What the world needs is your authenticity,” Newsom told a teenage journalist who covered the event for the school newspaper. “And so I just hope we take a deep breath and discover the most important, powerful thing in the world, and that’s who you are.”

If Newsom’s effort inspires just one good man to step up and help a kid figure that out — who they are, and how to believe in themselves first and forever — it will be something.

The multimillion-dollar jousting over redrawing California’s congressional districts to boost Democrats and counter President Trump was on full display in recent days, as both sides courted voters less than a month before ballots begin arriving in mailboxes.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, national Democratic leaders including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and a slew of political influencers held an hours-long virtual rally Tuesday afternoon, urging Californians to support Proposition 50 in the Nov. 4 special election. Speakers framed the stakes of the ballot measure as nothing short of existential — not just for Democratic interests, but also for democracy.

“It’s all at stake. This is a profound and consequential moment in American history. We can lose this republic if we do not assert ourselves and stand tall at this moment and stand guard to this republic and our democracy. I feel that in my bones,” Newsom said Tuesday afternoon.

If passed, Proposition 50 would gerrymander the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats, bolstering the fates of several Democrats in vulnerable swing districts and potentially cost Republicans up to five House seats.

California’s congressional districts are drawn by a voter-approved independent commission once a decade after the U.S. census. But Newsom and other state Democrats proposed a rare mid-decade redrawing of the districts to increase the number of Democrats in Congress in response to similar efforts in GOP-led states, notably Texas.

Tuesday’s virtual rally, which was emceed by progressive influencer Brian Tyler Cohen, was a cross between an old-school money-raising telethon and new media streaming session. Popular podcasters and YouTubers such as Crooked Media’s Jon Favreau and Tommy Vietor (alumni of former President Obama’s administration), Ben Meiselas of MeidasTouch and David Pakman shared the screen with political leaders, with an on-screen fundraising thermometer inching higher throughout.

Cohen argued that people like him had been “begging” Democrats to fight Trump. And now elected officials had done their part by getting Proposition 50 on the ballot, he said, urging viewers to donate to support the effort.

Warren argued that Trump was a “would-be king” — but if Democrats could retake control of either house of Congress, that would be stopped, she posited.

“And if we have both houses under Democratic control,” Warren continued, “now we are truly back in the game in terms of making our Constitution work again.”

The exhaustive list of speakers represented the spectrum of the modern left, with standard-bearers such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, alongside rising stars including Reps. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) and Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.). A number of California delegates, including Sen. Alex Padilla and Reps. Ted. Lieu, Robert Garcia, Pete Aguilar, Jimmy Gomez and Sydney Kamlager-Dove, also spoke.

The event had been scheduled to take place Sept. 10 but was postponed after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk earlier that day.

Jessica Millan Patterson, the former leader of the California Republican Party and chair of an anti-Proposition 50 committee, accused Newsom of “scrambling for out-of-touch messengers to sell his scheme.”

“For Gavin Newsom, it’s all distraction and deflection. Instead of addressing the $283 million price tag taxpayers are stuck with for his partisan power grab, he’s hosting a cringeworthy webinar packed with DC politicians, out-of-state influencers, and irrelevant podcasters, all lining up to applaud his gerrymandered maps,” Millan Patterson said in a statement Tuesday.

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who championed the creation of the independent redistricting commission while in office and has campaigned to stop gerrymandering across the nation after his term ended, forcefully denounced Proposition 50 on Monday.

“They are trying to fight for democracy by getting rid of the democratic principles of California,” Schwarzenegger told hundreds of students at an event celebrating democracy at the University of Southern California. “It is insane to let that happen.”

The former governor, a Trump foe who has prioritized good governance at his institute at USC, said the effort to dismantle the independent commission’s congressional districts to counter Trump are anti-democratic.

“They want to get rid of it under the auspices of we have to fight Trump,” Schwarzenegger said. “It doesn’t make any sense to me because we have to fight Trump, [yet] we become Trump.”

And on the morning of Sept. 10, opponents of the ballot measure rallied in Orange County, speaking about how redrawing congressional districts would dilute the voice of communities around the state.

“We’re here because Prop. 50 poses a serious threat to Orange County’s voice, to our communities and to our taxpayers. This measure is not about fairness. It’s about power grab,” said Orange County Supervisor Janet Nguyen during a rally at the Asian Garden Mall in Little Saigon, a Vietnamese hub in Westminster. “And it comes at the expense of our taxpayers, our small businesses and our minority communities.”

She noted that Little Saigon would be grouped with Norwalk in Los Angeles County if the ballot measure passes.

“Ask anybody in this area if they even know where Norwalk is,” Nguyen said.

We now have an estimated price tag for California’s special election and Gov. Gavin Newsom’s presidential rollout: $282.6 million.

The Nov. 4 vote involves Proposition 50, which would gerrymander the state to boost Democratic chances of winning as many as five added House seats in the 2026 midterm election. The intent is to partially compensate for Republican gerrymanders in Texas and other states.

The ballot measure has already done wonders to boost Newsom’s early standing in the 2028 presidential contest — emphasis on the word early. After alienating many in his party by playing footsie with the likes of Steve Bannon and the late Charlie Kirk, Newsom has set hearts aflutter among those yearning for Democrats to “fight back against Trump,” to cite what has become the party’s chief animating principle and cri de cœur.

One could ask whether the not-insignificant cost of the special election is the best use of taxpayer dollars, or if the sum would be better spent, as veteran GOP strategist Ken Khachigian suggested in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece, “on firefighters, police officers, schoolteachers and road repairs.”

Newsom, in full barricade-manning mode, has said protecting our precious democracy is “priceless.”

The chairman of California’s Democratic Party, Rusty Hicks, placed a more concrete price tag on the virtues of Proposition 50, suggesting to the Bay Area News Group that money spent on the special election would be offset — and then some — by the billions California would otherwise lose under President Trump’s hostile regime.

There is, however, an added, if intangible, cost to Proposition 50: Effectively disenfranchising millions of conservative and Republican-leaning Californians, who already feel as though they’re ignored and politically impotent.

Under the Democratic gerrymander, the already-meager Republican House contingent — nine of 52 California House members — could be cut practically in half. Starting in January 2027, the state’s entire Republican delegation could fit in a Jeep Wagoneer, with plenty of room to spare.

This in a state where Trump received over 6 million votes in 2024.

The cost of California’s special election is estimated at $282.6 million. The campaign is effectively a roll out for a Newsom presidential bid.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

The would-be autocrat issuing diktats from the Oval Office may be odious to many. But making people feel as though their vote is irrelevant, their voice is muzzled and they have no stake in our political system because elections are essentially meaningless — at least as far as which party prevails — is not a recipe for a contented and engaged citizenry, or a healthy democracy.

We already have a chief executive who has repeatedly demonstrated that he sees himself as the president of red America, of those who support him unequivocally, with everyone else regarded as evil or subversive. We’ve seen how well that’s worked out.

Is the solution electing a governor for blue California, who — if not openly scorning the state’s millions of Republicans — is willing to render them politically powerless?

Proponents of Proposition 50 say the measure is needed to offset Republican gerrymanders in Texas and other states.

(Hon Wing Chiu/For The Times)

All seven of the major Democrats running to succeed Newsom support Proposition 50. (The two leading Republican — and underdog — candidates, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton, are opposed, which is no surprise.)

Your friendly columnist put the question to those seven Democrats. What do they say to Republican voters who already feel disregarded and politically unrepresented? As governor, is there a place for them in your vision of California?

Most, as you’d expect, vowed to be a governor for all: Red, blue, independent, libertarian, vegetarian.

Former Rep. Katie Porter noted she served a purple Orange County district and won support from voters of all stripes “because they knew I wouldn’t hesitate to stand up for anyone — no matter to what party they belong — who makes life harder for California families.” She said in a text message she’d bring “that same tenacity, grit and courage” to Sacramento.

Toni Atkins, a former Assembly speaker and state Senate leader, texted that she’s “made it a priority to listen to every Californian — Democrat, Republican, and Independent.” Assailing Republicans in Congress, she described Proposition 50 as “a way to fight back now” while eventually reverting to the independent redistricting commission that drew up the current congressional lines.

Xavier Becerra, the state’s former attorney general and a member of Joe Biden’s cabinet, said he would work to see that all Californians, regardless of party, benefit from his leadership on healthcare, housing and making the state more affordable. Doing that, he texted, requires fighting Trump and “Republican extremists” seeking to rig the midterm elections.

Betty Yee, the former state controller, just finished a campaign swing through rural California, where, she said, voters asked similar questions along the lines of what about us? Those vast reaches beyond the state’s blue coastal enclaves have long been a hotbed of resentment toward California’s ruling Democratic establishment.

Yee said she urged voters there to “look at your representation now.” The Republican-run Congress, she noted, has approved budget cuts that threaten to shut down rural hospitals and gut badly needed social safety-net programs. “How is that representing your interest?” she asked.

Tony Thurmond, the state schools superintendent, said much the same.

“One of the reasons that I support this measure is because California Republicans in Congress who voted for the ‘big, beautiful bill’ voted for a bill that they knew was going to throw millions of people off of health insurance,” Thurmond said. “And that’s troubling, and I actually think that this is a way to counter that action and to make changes in Congress.”

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and businessman Stephen Cloobeck ignored the question about Republican sentiments and assailed Trump.

Villaraigosa called Proposition 50 “a temporary … direct response to MAGA’s election rigging efforts in Texas.” Cloobeck texted, “This is not the way it should be, but democracy and California are under attack, and there is no way in hell I’m not going to FIGHT.”

There’s a certain presumption and paternalism to the notion that California Democrats know what’s best for California Republicans.

But as Thurmond noted, “They have a right to vote it down. We’re putting it in front of the voters and giving them a chance to exercise their viewpoints, democratically.”

Every Californian who casts a ballot can decide what best suits them.

As they should.

From the outside looking in, Gov. Gavin Newsom unofficially announced he was running for president on Thursday, March 30, 2023, the day he transferred $10 million from his state campaign funds to launch his PAC, Campaign for Democracy, along with a nationwide tour. Newsom unofficially suspended his campaign a month later, on April 25, the day President Biden announced he was seeking reelection.

This timeline is important when it comes to talking about Kamala Harris. Newsom, like Harris, has been in the wings for years as part of the next generation of Democratic national leaders — and, like Harris, he was ready for the spotlight when Biden decided to stick around instead.

The title of Harris’ upcoming book, “107 Days,” is in reference to the amount of time she had to launch a campaign, write policy, secure the nomination and fundraise after Biden bowed out in the summer of 2024. An excerpt from the memoir titled “The Constant Battle” was published this week in the Atlantic. In it, Harris suggests some of the foes she was battling during her time in the White House were Biden loyalists who did not want to see her succeed as vice president.

It’s a rather scathing critique given the stakes of the 2024 election. The excerpt in its entirety is an uncomfortable glimpse into one of the most chaotic moments in American politics. Unsurprisingly there have already been reports of pushback from former Biden aides with one being quoted as saying: “No one wants to hear your pity party.”

Which is why it is important to remember the timeline.

In March 2020, while campaigning in Detroit, a 77-year-old Biden stood next to Harris, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and told his party that he viewed himself “as a bridge, not as anything else,” adding: “There’s an entire generation of leaders you saw stand behind me. They are the future of this country.” Recognizing his age was a concern for voters back then, the message Biden sent that day suggested he was running for only one term.

And then more than three years later, Biden changed his mind and his message. In doing so, he did not just go back on a campaign promise, he prevented the future of his party — like Newsom, Whitmer, Booker and Harris — from making a case for themselves in a normal primary.

That’s why the book is called “107 Days.” That’s how much time he gave his would-be successor to win the presidency.

Biden was a tremendous public servant whose leadership steered this nation out of a dark time. He also was conspicuously old when he ran for president and considered a short-timer. The first woman to be elected vice president didn’t decide to run for the top job at the last minute. But Biden went back on his word in 2023 and drained all the energy out of his party. It was only after the disastrous debate performance of June 2024 that the whispers inside the Beltway about his ability to win finally became screams.

“Joe was already polling badly on the age issue, with roughly 75 percent of voters saying he was too old to be an effective president,” Harris writes. “Then he started taking on water for his perceived blank check to Benjamin Netanyahu in Gaza.”

That’s not slander against Biden; that’s the timeline. It may not be what some progressives want to read, but that does not mean the message or messenger is wrong.

Legend has it James Carville, key strategist for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential run, once went to a white board at the campaign’s headquarters in Arkansas and wrote three key messaging points for staffers. The catchiness and humor of one, “the economy, stupid,” elevated it above the other two: “change vs. more of the same” and “don’t forget health care.” Clinton’s victory would later cement “the economy, stupid” as one of the Democratic Party’s most enduring political quips — which is really too bad.

Because the whole point of Carville going to the white board in the first place wasn’t to come up with a memorable zinger, it was to remind staffers to stay on the course. The Democrats’ 2024 chances were endangered the day Biden changed direction by running for reelection, not when he stepped aside and Harris stood in the gap.

That’s not to suggest her campaign did everything right or Biden staying in for as long as he did was totally wrong. But there’s a lot to learn right now. Democrats are extremely unpopular. Perhaps instead of dismissing the account of the party’s most recent nominee, former Biden aides and other progressives should take in as much information as they possibly can and consider it constructive feedback.

In 2020, Biden had one message. In 2023, it was the opposite. I’m sure there are things to blame Harris for. Losing the 2024 election isn’t one of them.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

SACRAMENTO — A popular perk for California drivers of electric and low-emission cars is coming to an end.

Beginning Oct. 1, motorists with a Clean Air Vehicle decal will no longer be able to drive solo in carpool lanes because the program was not extended by the federal government, according to the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

The carpool benefit was promoted as a cost-effective incentive to encourage Californians to buy clean and zero-emission vehicles. More than a million motorists have applied for the decal since it became available more than two decades ago. There are roughly a half million vehicles in California with active decals, allowing them to use the carpool lane alone. Last month, the DMV stopped issuing new decals and warned that the program could be ending.

Extending the program would have required approval from Congress and President Trump.

“A Trump traffic jam is on its way to California and other states – all because Republicans in Congress decided to let a wildly successful bipartisan program expire,” Newsom said in a statement. “That’s Trump’s America: more traffic, more smog and a government more committed to slashing proven programs than solving real problems.”

California is one of 13 states offering the benefit. Vehicles that qualified included fuel cell electric, natural gas or plug-in electric cars.

Last year, Newsom signed a bill that extended California’s decal program until 2027, but the state will no longer be able to continue it without federal authority, the governor’s office said. According to the California Energy Commission, 25% of new cars sold in the state are zero-emission vehicles.

Drivers in electric and low-emission cars will only be able to use carpool lanes after the program expires if they meet the multiple occupant requirements. The reduced toll rates available in some areas to drivers with a decal will also end on Oct. 1.

California law indicates that drivers will not be cited for driving in the carpool lane with an invalid decal within 60 days of the program ending.

“Californians are committed to lowering their carbon footprint and these decals helped drivers be good stewards of our highways and environment,” said Steve Gordon, director of the California DMV, in a statement. “By taking away this program, hundreds of thousands of California’s drivers will pay the price. It’s a lose-lose and we urge the federal government to retain this program.”

The program ends at the same time that a $7,500 federal tax credit for new electric vehicles expires.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom used his written State of the State address Tuesday to cast California as a bulwark against a menacing Trump administration he accused of dismantling public services, flouting the rule of law and using extortion to bully businesses and universities.

The remarks came as Newsom’s national profile has grown and given him a broader political stage, even as he skipped the literal one — opting to send his speech to lawmakers in writing rather than deliver it from the Assembly rostrum, which is customary. His address painted a portrait of a state under siege by the federal government even as it grapples with the aftermath of the devastating Los Angeles County fires, spiraling housing costs and an uneven economic recovery.

While he framed Trump and his allies as the chief obstacle to progress, he leaned on familiar themes of California’s resilience, pointing to disaster response, investments in schools and clean energy and the state’s economic staying power. He said as California celebrates the 175th anniversary of statehood, “the state of the state is strong, fully committed to defending democracy, and resolved to never bend.”

“It would be a mistake to think California is cowering in the face of this onslaught,” Newsom said in the 2,300-word address accompanied by a shortened video version.

The written address marks the fifth year in a row that Newsom has diverged from the decades-old tradition of the governor delivering the annual address in person to lawmakers at the state Capitol.

His unconventional approach has drawn some criticism, particularly by Republicans who characterized it as an example of Newsom lacking respect for the institution. California’s Constitution only requires that the State of the State be submitted as a written letter to the Legislature, which was how governors up until roughly the 1960s fulfilled their duty. Starting with the late Gov. Pat Brown, the addresses were delivered in person, typically in January as a way to set the agenda for the year.

Newsom, who dislikes reading from a teleprompter due to his dyslexia, has not delivered his State of the State in the Capitol since 2020, shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, Newsom’s address was streamed from an empty Dodgers Stadium and, two years later, he declined to give a speech in lieu of a statewide press tour, during which he unveiled new policies.

“His ambitions are more than his ability to govern this state,” Assembly Republican leader James Gallagher of Yuba City said in a video posted on X. “And here is another symbol of that, not showing up to talk about what is actually going on in the state and how we can actually come together to get things done.”

This year’s speech arrives unusually late in the year, as lawmakers race to approve hundreds of bills ahead of Friday’s legislative deadline. It also comes at a moment when Newsom, in the final stretch of his governorship, is drawing national attention not only for his confrontations with Trump but also for a shrewd social media assault that borrows the president’s own trolling style to energize supporters and burnish his public brand.

But Newsom’s record has also drawn sharp criticism.

After nearly two terms, California continues to wrestle with entrenched homelessness, soaring housing costs and one of the nation’s highest costs of living. A budget deficit has swelled in part because the governor expanded Medi-Cal healthcare coverage to include all income-eligible undocumented immigrants. And his move to undercut Texas lawmakers who redrew legislative maps to add additional Republican seats in Congress by asking California voters to do the same to add Democrats has fueled charges that he is accelerating a national wave of partisan gerrymandering and energizing state Republicans.

“My last letter to you warned about the poisonous populism of the right and the anxiety many people were feeling about the state of this country — some of it grounded in real fear about the national economy, but much of it stoked by misinformation and bigotry,” Newsom wrote to lawmakers. “We are now nine months into a battle to protect the values we hold most dear and to preserve the economic and social foundation we built for California. We are facing a federal administration built on incompetence and malicious ignorance, one that seeks the death of independent thinking.”

Newsom said California showed the country its resilient spirit in January during the deadly wind-driven wildfires that destroyed thousands of homes and forced mass evacuations in Los Angeles County. Newsom credited emergency responders who put their lives at risk saving trapped residents.

He glossed over criticisms that pre-deployed fire engines were inadequate, evacuation alerts were delayed and elderly and disabled residents were left stranded. Instead, he focused on the “historic speed and scale” for which federal, state and local officials responded. That commitment, he said, will be there until the last residents return and local businesses recover.

“Through executive orders waiving red tape, the state paved the way for debris-removal crews to move quickly through damaged areas and streamlined permits to speed rebuilding,” Newsom wrote. “Homes are now rising.”

While California looked to the Trump administration for help, Newsom said the state has found none.

“Even as fires still burned, the newly elected President began targeting our state — testing our resolve with his relentless, unhinged California obsession,” Newsom wrote.

From fires to immigration, Newsom said Trump’s approach has been the same: Abandon California when it is in crisis and attack its liberal values. The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for federal authorities to return to mass immigration arrests at workplaces, bus stops and other places in Los Angeles. Newsom said Trump’s decision in June to deploy the National Guard and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles to help with immigration enforcement was a “cowardly attempt to scare us into submission.”

“We are committed to protecting the men and women who make this state stronger through their hard work and entrepreneurial spirit,” Newsom wrote before pivoting to Trump’s ongoing attacks on university funding. “And when the President threatens to bankrupt UCLA — an engine of innovation and economic prosperity, a world leader in science and medicine — with his own bankrupt ideas, he will fail.”

California has led the way in building a green economy, Newsom said, pointing to more than2 million zero-emission vehicles sold in the state and 51 miles of Caltrain railroad tracks now electrified. The state’s grid has run for the equivalent of 60 full days using 100% clean electricity, he added.

“Our climate investments will create millions of new jobs and cut air pollution by more than 70%,” Newsom wrote. “In California, economic growth and environmental protection go hand in hand.”

Like past governors, he used the speech to underscore California’s outsized role in the national economy. With a gross domestic product topping $4.1 trillion, he said the state leads in startups, venture capital and space technology.

The governor closed on a note of defiance, promising to report next year — in what would be his final State of the State — that California is “brighter and more prosperous than ever before.”

Generally speaking, it’s a grand time to be a Republican in the nation’s capital.

President Trump is redecorating the White House in his gold-plated image. The GOP controls both houses of Congress. Two-thirds of the Supreme Court was appointed by Republican presidents.

In California, the outlook for the GOP is far bleaker. The party hasn’t elected a statewide candidate in almost two decades; Democrats hold a nearly 2-to-1 voter registration edge and have supermajorities in both houses of the Legislature.

That’s long been the story for a state party stuck in the shadows in a deep-blue coastal state.

Will O’Neill, chairman, Republican Party of Orange County, Mark Mueser, Dhillon Law Group, Shawn Steel, RNC National Committeeman, Garrett Fahy, chair, Republican National Lawyers Association, and California State Assembly member David Tangipa during the Redistricting Lawfare in 2025 session at the California GOP Convention in Garden Grove, CA on Saturday, September 6, 2025.

(Eric Thayer / For The Times)

However, amid a sea of “Trump 2028” T-shirts, red MAGA hats and sequined Americana-themed accessories, California Republicans had a brief reprieve from minority status this weekend at their fall convention in Orange County.

Members of the California GOP — often a fractious horde — were energized and united by their opposition to Proposition 50, the ballot measure crafted by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democratic leaders to redraw the state’s congressional districts to counter gerrymandering efforts in GOP-led states. Newsom accused Republicans of trying to “rig” the 2026 election at Trump’s behest to keep control of Congress.

Voters will decide its fate in a Nov. 4 special election and receive mail ballots roughly four weeks prior.

“Only one thing really matters. We’ve gotten people in the same room on this issue that hated each other for 20 years, probably for good reasons, based on ego,” said Shawn Steel, one of California’s three members of the Republican National Committee and the chairman of the party’s anti-Proposition 50 campaign, on Saturday. “But those days are over, at least for the next 58 days. … This is more than just unity. It’s survival.”

If approved, Proposition 50 could cost Republicans five seats in the closely divided U.S. House of Representatives and determine control of Congress during Trump’s final two years in office.

More than $40 million has already poured into campaigns supporting and opposing the effort, according to reports of large donations filed with the secretary of state’s office through Saturday.

Spending has been evident as glossy pamphlets opposing the effort landed in voters’ mailboxes even before lawmakers voted to put Proposition 50 on the ballot. This weekend, ads supporting the measure aired during the football game between the University of Michigan and the University of Oklahoma.

At the state GOP convention, which drew 1,143 registered delegates, alternates and guests to the Hyatt Regency in Garden Grove, this priority was evident.

Republican candidates running for governor next year would normally be focused on building support among donors and activists less than a year before the primary. But they foregrounded their opposition to Proposition 50 during the convention.

“I’m supposed to say every time I start talking, the No. 1 most important thing that we can talk about right now is ‘No on 50,’” Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a GOP gubernatorial candidate, said Saturday as he addressed the Log Cabin Republicans meeting. “So every conversation that you have with people has to begin with ‘No on 50.’ So you say, ‘No on 50. Oh, how are you doing?’”

Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton are the two most prominent Republican candidates in the crowded race to succeed Newsom, who will be termed out in 2026.

The walls of the convention hotel were lined with posters opposing the redistricting ballot measure, alongside typical campaign fliers, rhinestone MAGA broaches and pro-Trump merchandise such as T-shirts bearing his visage that read “Daddy’s Back!” and calling for his election to an unconstitutional third term in 2028.

Though California Republicans last elected statewide candidates in 2006, they have had greater success on ballot measures. Since 2010, the party has been victorious in more than 60% of the propositions it took a position on, according to data compiled by the state GOP.

“We need you to be involved. This is a dire situation,” state Assemblyman David Tangipa (R-Fresno) told a packed ballroom of party activists.

The California GOP Convention in Garden Grove, CA on Saturday, September 6, 2025. (Eric Thayer / For The Times)

Attendees of the Redistricting Lawfare in 2025 session at the California GOP Convention in Garden Grove. (Eric Thayer / For The Times)

Tangipa urged the crowd to reach out to their friends and neighbors with a simple message that is not centered on redistricting, the esoteric process of redrawing congressional districts that typically occurs once every decade following the U.S. census to account for population shifts.

“It’s too hard to talk about redistricting. You know, most people want to get a beer, hang out with their family, go to work, spend time,” he said. “You need to talk to the Republicans [and ask] one question: Does Gov. Newsom and the legislative body in Sacramento deserve more power?”

“No!” the crowd roared.

Should the measure pass, lawyers would challenge the new lines in federal court the next day, attorney and former GOP candidate Mark Meuser said during a separate redistricting panel.

But rather than rely on the courts, panelists hoped to defeat the measure at the ballot box, outlining various messaging strategies for attendees to adopt. Voter outreach trainings took place during the convention, and similar virtual classes were scheduled to begin Monday.

Even with the heavy focus on the redistricting ballot measure, gubernatorial candidates were also skittering around the convention, speaking to various caucuses, greeting delegates in the hallways and holding private meetings.

More than 80 people have signaled their intent to run for governor next year, according to the secretary of state’s office, though some have since dropped out.

Despite being rivals who both hope to win one of the top two spots in the June primary and move on to the November 2026 general election, Bianco and Hilton amicably chatted, a two-man show throughout some of the convention.

Hilton, after posing alongside Bianco at the California MAGA gathering on Friday, argued that the number of Californians who supported Trump in the 2024 election shows that there is a pathway for a Republican to be elected governor next year.

Pointing to glittery gold block letters that spelled MAGA, he said he wanted to swap the first A for a U, so that the acronym stood for “the most useless governor in America, Gavin Newsom.”

“The worst record of any state, the highest unemployment, the highest poverty, the highest taxes, the highest gas prices,” Hilton said. “If we can’t rip these people apart, then we don’t deserve to be here. They’re going to be asking for another four years. They don’t deserve another four minutes.”

California gubernatorial candidate Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco speaks at the California GOP Convention in Garden Grove.

(Eric Thayer / For The Times)

At a Saturday gathering of roughly 60 delegates from the conservative northern swath of California, Bianco said he would never say a bad word about his Republican opponents. But, he argued, he was the only candidate who could win the election because of his ability to siphon off Democratic votes because of his law enforcement bona fides.

“Democrats want their kids safe. They want their businesses safe. They want their neighborhoods safe. And they can say, ‘I’ll vote for public safety.’ They’re not even going to say I’m voting for a Republican,” Bianco promised.

As he raised his hands to the crowd with a grin, Bianco’s closely cropped high-and-tight haircut and handlebar mustache instantly telegraphed his law enforcement background, even though his badge and holstered pistol were hidden beneath a gray blazer.

Later, after Bianco addressed a crowd of Central Coast delegates sporting more cowboy hats and fewer button-down shirts, Hilton walked to the front of the room and spoke in his clipped British accent about how another attendee had promised to take him pig hunting.

California gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton speaks at the California GOP Convention in Garden Grove.

(Eric Thayer / For The Times)

“We weren’t talking about police officers, I want to make that clear!” a man yelled from the crowd.

“Exactly,” Hilton continued, explaining how his family had a salami business in Hungary and he had gotten his hands plenty dirty in the past, “doing every aspect of making sausage, including killing the pigs.”

HELLO AND HAPPY THURSDAY. IT’S ME, ANITA LYNNE CHABRIA, COMING TO YOU IN ALL CAPS — BECAUSE THAT’S NOW HOW POLITICS IS DONE.

No, I won’t really torment you with shift-lock psychosis. But we will be diving into Gov. Gavin Newsom’s wildly successful social media trolling of Donald Trump. Although much has been written about his parody of the president’s bombastic style, replete with weird syntax and tongue-in-cheek self-aggrandizement, it turns out it’s far more than just entertaining.

More than any other Democratic presidential hopeful out there, the social media offensive has raised both his profile and political fortunes — and highlighted some uncomfortable truths about American politics in this moment when the vast majority of voters are getting their information in 20-second snippets on TikTok, YouTube and X: Social media is not the sideshow, it’s the main event.

But it’s about more than GCN (Gavin Christopher Newsom, as he now signs his posts) making it to the Resolute desk.

Whether you love Newsom or hate him, California is the epicenter on the resistance to Trump’s push to expand presidential powers into authoritarianism. In courts, in the Legislature and on social media, this is the state that has fought back most effectively.

Newsom’s recent decision to throw caution and subservience to the wind is at the heart of that, a move from frenemy to fighter that is essential to shaping and protecting the future of our democracy. One cheeky post at a time.

The seed of inspiration

How did we wind up here? Although January may seem like eons ago, it was in reality only nine short months since Newsom showed up uninvited on the tarmac in L.A. to greet Trump, even embrace him, as the president came to view the fire damage in Pacific Palisades and Altadena.

Newsom was still in that frenemy phase, trying to reason with, flatter and cajole a president who demands praise, but who, like the fable of the scorpion and the frog, will always attack because it’s in his nature. California needs fire aid, and as Newsom said at the time, “I hope he comes with a spirit of cooperation and collaboration. That’s the spirit to which we welcome him.”

That, however, didn’t work out great. Trump not only dillydallied with fire money, threatening conditions, he also sent the National Guard into L.A. for a nonexistent emergency around immigration protests, then strong-armed Texas into redrawing voting maps to help ensure MAGA keeps control of Congress in the 2026 midterm elections.

So now California has Proposition 50, the effort to redraw our own maps to find more Democratic seats, and a hoppin’-mad governor (get that frog reference?) who knows a scorpion when he sees one.

What does this have to do with social media, you ask? In mid-August GCN wrote to DJT with one last peace offering: California would stop its push for redistricting if other states stopped as well. No luck, big surprise.

But staffers at Newsom’s office were in a mood, and thought it would be funny to tweet out the last paragraph of that letter in all caps, Trump-style. The only change? Switching the last line from the statesman-like “And America will be better for it” to the Trump-favored “Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

And there, in a moment of frustration and gallows humor — no grand strategy intended — the seed of inspiration was planted.

The Result

That post has received 5 million views so far, and emboldened Newsom to go further. Since then, his trolling has been both prolific, pointed, and extremely popular.

The X account where Newsom does most of his smack-posting, @GovPressOffice, gained more than 500,000 followers in recent weeks, and racked up more than 480 million impressions. That’s up 450%, according to CNN’s Harry Enten.

He’s been in demand on traditional media as well (and seems to be living rent-free in the brains of right-wing Fox commentators), and has made himself available to digital content creators — who have helped him reach more than 30 million views across various platforms.

Newsom’s speech about the National Guard coming into L.A. — at nine minutes long, an eternity these days — was viewed more 40 million times in a week.

And, as Enten also pointed out, 75% of California Democrats now say they want Newsom to run for president, and betting markets give Newsom a 24% chance of being the Democratic nominee, rating him with the highest potential in the pack.

Love-bombed with all that success, Newsom has pushed further into the rage-baiting. The “GCN” sign-off? That came from Newsom himself. But there’s a team behind the effort, and they’re running 24/7 to keep the big, beautiful bludgeoning going.

But what about democracy?

Great for Newsom, you say, but how does a meme of him with bulging biceps save democracy? Here’s the thing I learned covering the rise not just of Trump, but of the extremist and fringe ideologies such as QAnon that fueled his base: It would not happen without social media.

Social media is the sauce that has seasoned this change in our politics, which sounds obvious but is much deeper than most realize. Social media created communities, communities largely without physical or ethical boundaries. Anything goes, and the more intense and crazy, the deeper it tends to go. The more people believe, the more involved they become.

Short take: Social media spreads extremism.

But can social media also spread resistance?

The hardest parts of an autocracy are division and fear. It feels lonely and scary to speak out. Newsom has done two crucial things with his social media barrage.

First, he showed us that the Republicans were right all along. For years, the far-right has found Trump’s social media hilarious, and all the funnier because Democrats were outraged by its crassness, vulgarity and childishness. Many Democrats found no humor in a president behaving in ways that would get their own teenagers grounded.

But as soon as Newsom did it, Democrats were the ones who found it funny, especially the irony-free Republican outrage. And empowering. And awesome. Suddenly, they got the joke.

In copying, Newsom was subverting — not just holding up a mirror to the bad behavior, but revealing that Democrats have in fact had a stick somewhere unnecessary and need to admit that low humor tickles the American fancy. He has given Democrats something light and amusing to rally around, creating community that has been sadly lacking.

And community is where resistance thrives, same as with extremism. When people feel not alone, they feel stronger.

That’s the second thing Newsom has brought with his trolling. Democrats, Republicans, democracy-backers of any stripe are relieved to laugh at Trump together — because nothing undermines his power more than a collective chuckle at his expense.

Like this:

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: The AI Doomsday Machine Is Closer to Reality Than You Think
The what happened: Trump can’t use Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan gang members, court rules
The L.A. Times special: California pushes back on Trump’s CDC with West Coast Health Alliance

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

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom said Thursday that President Trump’s decision to deploy National Guard troops to Los Angeles amounted to costly political theater, saddling taxpayers with a nearly $120-million bill.

Newsom’s office said the newly revealed price tag was tallied from estimates provided by the California National Guard about costs incurred since June, when Trump sent more than 4,200 National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines to Los Angeles. That included $71 million for food and other basic necessities, $37 million in payroll, $4 million in logistic supplies, $3.5 million in travel and $1.5 million in demobilization costs, Newsom’s office said.

Most of the soldiers were sent home in August, although 300 remain in Los Angeles.

On Tuesday, a federal judge in San Francisco barred soldiers from aiding immigration arrests in a scathing opinion that amounted to a major win for California and other states critical of the Trump administration’s deployments. Newsom filed a preliminary injunction after the ruling asking that the court block a new order from the U.S. Secretary of Defense that extended the deployment of 300 National Guard members in Los Angeles until after the election in November.

“Let us not forget what this political theater is costing us all — millions of taxpayer dollars down the drain and an atrophy to the readiness of guardsmembers across the nation and unnecessary hardships to the families supporting those troops,” Newsom said in a statement. “Talk about waste, fraud, and abuse. We ask other states to do the math themselves.”

In Washington, D.C., where Trump has deployed the National Guard to the nation’s capital, city leaders filed a lawsuit earlier this week. That lawsuit said more than 2,200 National Guard troops are in Washington D.C., where they are seen dressed in military fatigues and carrying rifles around national monuments. Soldiers are seen picking up trash, laying down mulch and chatting aimlessly as they patrol.

Trump has warned that he intends to expand his use of military forces in other cities.

WASHINGTON — The Democratic Party’s standing in public opinion polls has sunk to its lowest point in more than 30 years. Many of the party’s own voters think their leaders aren’t fighting hard enough against President Trump. In one survey, the words they used most often were “weak” and “tepid.”

“The party is in shambles,” said James Carville, the political strategist who helped Bill Clinton win the White House after a similar bout of disarray a generation ago.

And yet, in recent weeks, the beleaguered party has begun to exhibit signs of life.

Its brand is still unpopular, but its chances of winning next year’s congressional elections appear to be growing; in recent polls, the share of voters saying they plan to vote Democratic has reached a roughly 5% lead over the GOP. Potential presidential candidates, led by California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, are competing noisily for the title of fiercest Trump-fighter. And they have an ace in the hole: As unloved as the Democratic Party is, Trump is increasingly unpopular, too, with an approval rating sagging to 40% or below in some polls.

“There’s no requirement that people love the Democratic Party in order to vote for it,” Republican pollster Patrick Ruffini said last week. “In an era of negative partisanship, people are motivated to vote more by dislike of the other party than by love for their own.”

So Carville, despite his diagnosis of “shambles,” thinks things are looking up in the long run.

“The Democratic Party’s present looks pretty bad, but I think its future looks pretty good,” he said. “I think we’re going to be fine.”

He cited several straws in the wind: the Democrats’ new energy as they campaign against Trump; the encouraging poll numbers on next year’s congressional elections; and an impressive bench of up-and-coming leaders.

“The talent level in the current Democratic Party is the highest I’ve ever seen,” he said. “Whoever comes out on top of that competition is going to be a pretty strong candidate.”

But that nomination is three years away — and meanwhile, Democrats face daunting hurdles. For one, Trump has pressed Texas and other Republican-led states to redraw congressional maps to cement GOP control of the House of Representatives — an effort that could succeed despite Newsom’s attempt to counter it in California.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is pushing a measure to redraw California’s congressional map to aid Democrats.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

The Democrats, by comparison, remain leaderless and divided — arguing over the lessons of their 2024 defeat and debating how to regain their lost support among working-class and minority voters.

In a historical sense, the party is going through a familiar ordeal: the struggle a party normally faces after losing an election.

So Carville and other strategists have sketched out variations of what you might call a three-step recovery plan: First, get out of Washington and rally public opposition to Trump. Second, focus their message on “kitchen table issues,” mainly voters’ concerns over rising prices and a seemingly sluggish economy. Third, organize to win House and Senate elections next year.

“We have to do well in 2026 to demonstrate we’re not so toxic that people won’t vote for us anymore,” said Doug Sosnik, another former Clinton aide.

They’re arguing over the lessons of defeat and debating how to regain lost support among working-class and minority voters.

In battling Trump, they say they’ve found a starting point.

“We’ve found our footing. We’ve gone on the offensive,” argued Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), who spent most of the summer campaigning across the country. “Trump’s cuts to Medicaid and tax breaks for billionaires have given us a message we can unite around.”

They still have plenty of differences over specific policies — but a spirited debate, some say, is exactly what the party needs.

“The most important task of the Democratic Party is to organize … the most robust debate Democrats have had in a generation,” said William A. Galston of the Brookings Institution, a former Clinton aide who argues that the party needs to move to the center.

Here’s what most Democratic leaders agree on: They’ve heard their voters’ demands for a more vigorous fight against Trump. They agree that they need to reconnect with working-class voters who don’t believe the party really cares about them. They need to cast themselves as a party of change, not the status quo. And they need to begin by regaining control of the House of Representatives next year.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) says the Democrats have “found our footing.”

(Sue Ogrocki / Associated Press)

Most Democrats also agree that they need to focus on a positive message on economic issues such as the cost of living — to use this year’s buzzword, “affordability.”

But they differ on the specifics.

Progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have focused on “fighting oligarchy,” including higher taxes on the wealthy and government-run health insurance.

Khanna, a Silicon Valley progressive, is campaigning for a program he calls “economic patriotism” — essentially, industrial policies to spur investments in strategic sectors.

Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona, a blunt-spoken populist, wants to make capitalism do more for ordinary workers. “Every Latino man wants a big-ass truck,” he said in an interview with the New York Times. “We’re afraid of saying, like, ‘Hey, let’s help you get a job so you can become rich.’”

And from the party’s centrist wing, former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel describes his program as “build, baby, build,” arguing that Democrats should focus on making housing affordable and expanding technical and vocational education.

A sharper debate has opened over social and cultural issues: Should Democrats break with the identity politics — the stuff Republicans deride as “woke” — that animates much of their progressive wing? Moderate Democrats argue that “wokeness” has alienated voters in the center and made it impossible to win presidential elections.

“I think there’s a perception that Democrats became so focused on identity that we no longer had a message that could actually speak to people across the board,” former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told NPR last month.

The controversy over transgender women and girls in women’s sports has become an early test. Newsom, Buttigieg and Emanuel have broken with the left, arguing that there’s a case for barring transgender women from competition. “It is an issue of fairness,” Newsom said on his podcast in March.

Their statements prompted fierce backlash from LGBTQ+ rights advocates. “I’m now going to go into a witness protection plan,” Emanuel joked in an interview with conservative podcaster Megyn Kelly in July.

Other Democrats have tread more cautiously. “We need to make a compelling economic vision … our first, second and third priority,” Khanna said. Meanwhile, be said, “we can stay true to our values.”

Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin was blunter. “We have to stand up for every LGBTQ kid and their family who want to play sports like any other kid,” he said last week.

Those battles will play out over the long campaign, already in its first stirrings, for the next presidential nomination — the traditional way American political parties settle on a single message.

“It takes time for a party to get up off the mat,” acknowledged Sosnik, the former Clinton strategist. “We didn’t get here overnight. We’re not going to get out of it overnight.”

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California energy regulators Friday put the brakes on plans requiring oil companies to pay a penalty if their profits climb too high, a temporary win for the fossil fuel industry two years after the governor declared the state had “finally beat big oil.”

The postponement by the California Energy Commission until 2030 comes after two oil refineries accounting for roughly 18% of the state’s refining capacity announced their plans to close in the coming months. The commission has the power to implement a penalty but has not done so since it was given that authority in 2023.

The penalty was considered a landmark piece of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s government and the state’s ambitious goals to curb climate change. The state faces challenges in its efforts to take on the oil industry while ensuring a stable and affordable fuel supply. His administration is also proposing to temporarily streamline approvals of new oil wells in existing oil fields in an effort to maintain a stable fuel supply.

Siva Gunda, the commission’s vice chair, said the state is not “walking back” its efforts to wean itself off fossil fuels but must prioritize protecting consumers at the gas pump.

“I personally truly believe that this pause will be beneficial to ensure that this mid-transition is smooth,” he said.

The commission still plans to set rules that would require oil refineries to keep a minimum level of fuel on hand to avoid shortages when refineries go offline for maintenance.

Jamie Court, the president of Consumer Watchdog who supported the law, said the energy commission’s vote is “basically a giveaway to the industry.”

“I’m really disheartened and disgusted by Newsom,” he said. “I feel like this is just a total about-face. And in the end it’s going to result in greater price spikes.”

But the Western States Petroleum Association recommended that the state postpone a penalty for 20 years.

“While today’s action by the CEC stopped short of a full statutory repeal or a 20-year pause, it represents a needed step to provide some certainty for California’s fuels market,” CEO Catherine Reheis-Boyd said in a statement. “The vote demonstrates the CEC’s understanding that imposing this failed policy would have likely exacerbated investment concerns contributing to California’s recent refinery closures.”

In 2022, Newsom called the Legislature into a special session to pass a law aimed at holding oil companies accountable for making too much money after a summer of record-high gas prices in California. The governor signed a law the following year authorizing the energy commission to penalize oil companies for excessive profits.

The law also required oil companies to report more data on their operations to the state. It created an independent division at the commission to oversee the oil and gas industry and provide guidance to the state on its energy transition.

Newsom’s office thanked the energy commission for voting to postpone implementing a penalty, saying it was a “prudent step” toward stabilizing the oil market.

“When Governor Newsom signed this legislation two years ago, he promised that we would utilize the new transparency tools to look under the hood of our oil and gas market that had been a black box for decades,” spokesperson Daniel Villaseñor said in a statement. “We did exactly that.”

Julia Stein, deputy director of a climate institute at UCLA School of Law, said state officials are still intent on advancing their efforts to transition away from fossil fuels.

“But I think there is also a sense at the state level that we’re entering a different phase of the transition where some of these problems are going to be presented more acutely,” she said. “And folks are kind of now trying to understand how they’re going to approach that in real time.”

California has the highest gas prices in the nation, largely due to taxes and environmental regulations. Regular unleaded gas prices were $4.59 a gallon Friday, compared to a national average of $3.20, according to AAA.

The commission has not determined what would count as an excessive profit under the policy.

Setting a penalty could be risky for the state because it could unintentionally discourage production and drive prices up, said Severin Borenstein, an economist and public policy professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

“It’s pretty clear they are shifting towards more focus on affordability and recognition that the high prices in California may not be associated with the actual refinery operations,” he said of state officials.

Austin writes for the Associated Press.

Gov. Gavin Newsom commuted the sentences of five inmates serving life without parole for murder, saying Friday that they deserve a chance at freedom after transforming their lives.

In all, the governor pardoned 23 people and commuted the sentences of 10 others. Newsom’s office said that many of those offered clemency had experienced childhood trauma and mental health struggles that impacted the choices they made.

Since he took office in 2019, Newsom has granted 247 pardons, which restore some rights to former felons, such as the ability to serve on a jury or obtain a professional license. He has also approved 160 commutations, which reduce sentences so that an inmate can appear before a parole board and potentially be released.

In this round, Newsom pardoned people convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, burglary, attempted murder and drug crimes. His office highlighted that pardons were prompted by what individuals did in the years after those convictions and were at the recommendation of elected officials, law enforcement officers and community leaders.

Among those whose sentences were commuted was Randolph Hoag, who was 28 years old in 1990 when he was convicted in Los Angeles County of murdering his girlfriend’s ex-husband. The Times reported that Hoag, a truck driver, shot Charles Sweed six times in the back before running away.

Newsom said Hoag, now 63, has “demonstrated a commitment to his rehabilitation and self-improvement” and is considered “a high medical risk based on his chronic, serious medical conditions.” Hoag will now be eligible to appear before the Board of Parole hearings, which decides whether a person is a risk to the community after considering input from victims, their families and prosecutors.

“This act of clemency for Mr. Hoag does not minimize or forgive his conduct or the harm it caused,” Newsom wrote in his order. “It does recognize the work he has done since to transform himself.”

Sweed’s sister, Cremae Sweed, became emotional Friday after learning from The Times that Hoag’s sentence was reduced. She said a prosecutor assured her that Hoag would never be released. Her brother, who had a 5-year-old daughter, served in the Marines and owned a tow truck company. Her family was never the same after his death, she said.

“My brother has been dead longer than he was alive, and [Hoag] is still alive,” she said. “He deliberately killed another man, so no, I don’t want him out, and he shouldn’t come out.”

Many of those granted clemency Friday were young adults when they committed their crimes, including Christian Rodriguez, who was 19 when he killed one victim and injured another in 1996. Rodriguez, 47, will now be eligible to appear before the parole board.

“Mr. Rodriguez has worked as both a youth offender and peer literacy mentor, and correctional officers have commended him for his leadership and rehabilitative gains,” Newsom wrote.

Others whose lengthy sentences were reduced included:

• David Fitts, who was 23 when he shot and injured one victim, while his accomplice shot and killed a second victim in 1992. Fitts was sentenced to life without parole in Los Angeles County. Newsom said Fitts, 56, has “dedicated himself to his rehabilitation” and has received commendations from correctional officers for his work ethic and good conduct.
• Karina Poncio, who was 21 when her accomplice fatally shot one person and injured another during a gang-related confrontation in 2000. She was sentenced in Orange County to life without parole. Poncio, 47, earned three associate degrees while in prison and is training to become a certified alcohol and drug specialist.
• Cleveland Lindley, who was 25 when he was convicted of a 1995 armed robbery. He was sentenced in San Bernardino County to 75 years to life for three counts of robbery and another 30 years of sentence enhancements, Newsom’s office said. In prison, Lindley, 55, participated in a service dog training program and was commended by correctional staff for his compassion, maturity and work ethic.

Citing evidence of childhood trauma, Newsom reduced the sentence of Arthur Battle, who was 18 when he and an accomplice murdered a person in a contract killing in 2006. He was sentenced in Sacramento County to life without parole plus a 25-years-to-life sentence enhancement.

Newsom’s office said Battle had adverse childhood experiences, a term used to describe a range of traumatic events that can impact a person’s physical, mental and social health.

While in prison, Battle earned his GED, took college courses and works as an aide to inmates with disabilities. Battle, 37, had his sentence commuted to 21 years to life so he can appear before the Board of Parole hearings.

Just how unsafe are American streets?

To hear President Trump tell it, killers lurk in every shadow not already filled by rapists and thieves.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom isn’t nearly as dire, pointing out that crime numbers are down.

But “numbers mean little to people,” Newsom lamented during a press gaggle in his office Thursday, where he ruthlessly trolled Trump with a flags-and-all setup that appeared to mock the president’s marathon Cabinet meeting earlier in the week.

Yes, folks, midterm elections are coming and crime is high — in our consciousness if not in reality. Although violent crime and some property crimes have declined in most California cities (and in many major cities across the country), the perils of city living remain stubbornly stuck in our collective psyches.

This angst has augured in another get-tough era of crime suppression, culminating with the fulfillment of Trump’s authoritarian fantasy of National Guard troops patrolling in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and potentially more cities to come.

Newsom is now offering up what many have framed as a counterpunch to Trump’s military intervention: A surge of California Highway Patrol officers in strategic locations across the state, basically Newsom-controlled cop boots on the ground to mirror Trump’s troops.

But looking at Newsom’s deployment of more CHP officers as no more than a reaction to Trump misses a larger debate on what really makes our communities safer. Understanding what makes cops different from soldiers — and Newsom’s move different from Trump’s — is ultimately understanding the difference between repression and public safety, force and finesse.

Newsom has been using the CHP to supplement local police departments for years. In 2023, when the Tenderloin area of San Francisco was plagued by open drug use, making it the favorite right-wing example of a failed Democratic-run city, Newsom sent this state force in to help clean it up (though that work continues). The next year, he sent it into Oakland and Bakersfield, both places where auto theft, retail crime and side shows were rampant.

Now, he’s expanding the CHP’s role in local policing to include Los Angeles, San Diego, the Inland Empire and some Central Valley cities including Fresno and Sacramento.

In each of those places, mobile teams of around a dozen officers, all of whom will volunteer for the job, will target specific crimes, criminals or problem areas. These officers won’t just be patrolling or responding to calls like the local force, but hitting targets identified by data or intelligence, or making their presence known in high-crime neighborhoods.

Here’s where Trump’s military approach has an overlap with Newsom’s — and where the two men might agree: It is true that a visible show of armed authority deters crime. Whether it’s the National Guard or the Highway Patrol, criminals, both petty and violent, tend to avoid them.

“We go in and saturate an area with high visibility and view patrol,” said Sean Duryee, commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, standing at Newsom’s side. “The people that have a problem with that are the criminal community.”

The approach seems to be working. I can throw the numbers at you — 400 firearms seized in San Bernardino, Bakersfield, Oakland; 4,000 stolen vehicles recovered in Oakland; more than 9,000 arrests statewide.

But numbers really don’t matter. It genuinely is how a community feels about its safety. Across California, many if not the majority of small and mid-sized law enforcement departments are understaffed. Even big departments such as Los Angeles struggle to hire and retain officers. There are simply not enough cops — or resources such as helicopters or K9 teams — to do the work in too many places, and citizens feel it.

Using these small strike teams of CHP officers fills the gap of both manpower and expertise. And by aiming that usage precisely at troubled spots, it can make underserved communities feel safer, and crime-ridden communities actually be safer.

Tinisch Hollins is the head of Californians for Safety and Justice, an advocacy group that works to end over-incarceration and promote public safety beyond just making arrests. She is “obviously not a huge proponent of sending law enforcement into communities like that,” she said.

But she lived in San Francisco when homicides topped 100 per year, and now lives in the Bay Area city of Vallejo, where the local police have been so understaffed and plagued by scandal that local leaders declared a state of emergency.

She has seen how the CHP has “made an impact” in the Bay Area.

“There are some very effective things happening,” Hollins said.

That buy-in from community, especially skeptical community, is a massive departure from the militarization of Trump, and also hints at the deeper difference between troops and cops.

California has been on the cutting-edge of law enforcement reform for years, though it is a conversation that has fallen from favor and headlines in the Trump era.

In the wake of the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police, California outlawed controversial carotid restraints that can cut off breathing. The state put in place a method for decertifying officers found guilty of serious misconduct. It increased age and education standards for becoming a peace officer, increased transparency requirements and put more oversight on the use of military equipment by civilian forces, just to name a few reforms.

Most significantly, Newsom is championing a new vision of incarceration and rehabilitation modeled after successful efforts in Norway and other places that centers on the simple truth that arresting people does not end crime.

Most people who are convicted and incarcerated will return to our streets after a few years at most, and if the state does not change their outlook and opportunities, they will also likely return to crime — making us no safer than the day they were first put into cuffs.

But for a time, it seemed to some as if these reforms with their focus away from enforcement and toward alternatives to incarceration had gone too far. Images of marauding groups of retail thieves invading stores filled the news, and reasonably caused anxiety — leading to Californians passing the still-unfunded, tough-on-crime Proposition 36 that sought to create stiffer penalties for some drug and property crimes, along with mandated treatment for addiction, but which could also take money from rehabilitation programs.

As much as Trump, Newsom’s use of the CHP is the response to that pushback on reform, an acknowledgment that enforcement remains a key piece of the crime-stopping dilemma.

But Hollins points out that the rehabilitation aspect, the most innovative and arguably important aspect of California’s approach to crime, is getting lost in the current political climate.

“It’s not just arresting people that brings crime down,” she said. “The [penal] system isn’t going to deal with the drivers of the crime.”

This is where Newsom needs to do better, both on the ground and in his explanations. It may not be popular to talk about rehabilitation, and certainly Trump will seize on it as weak, but it is what works, and what makes the California method different from the MAGA view of crime.

For Trump, the be-all and end-all is the arrest, and the subsequent cruel glee of punishment. He has called for harsher and longer penalties for even minor crimes, and recently demanded the blanket use of the death penalty in all murder cases charged in Washington, D.C. His is the authoritarian view that fear and repression will make us safer.

“We lost grip with reality, the idea that the military can be out there in every street corner the United States of America,” Newsom said Thursday.

Or should be.

Soldiers on our streets just make even law-abiding citizens less free, and ultimately does little to fix the problems of poverty and opportunity that often start the cycles of crime.

This is the showdown happening right now on American streets, and ultimately the showdown between the Democratic view of crime prevention and Trump’s — soldiers or cops, the easy spectacle of compliance induced by the barrel of a gun or a complicated and imperfect system of community and law enforcement working together.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom and California lawmakers on Friday announced a landmark deal with Uber and Lyft to allow hundreds of thousands of rideshare drivers to unionize and bargain collectively while still being classified as independent contractors.

The compromise between labor unions and the Silicon Valley companies, backed by Newsom, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire, would advance a collective bargaining bill through the Legislature along with a bill backed by Uber and Lyft that would significantly reduce the companies’ insurance requirements.

The deal is a major development in the years-long tussle between organized labor and Silicon Valley over rights for independent contractors.

Labor leaders from Service Employees International Union California, a powerful union that has been working for years to organize app-based drivers, said the deal is the largest expansion of private sector collective bargaining rights in California history.

“Labor and industry sat down together, worked through their differences, and found common ground,” Newsom said in a statement. The agreement, he said, will “empower hundreds of thousands of drivers while making rideshare more affordable for millions of Californians.”

With support from Rivas and McGuire, both bills are expected to sail through the Legislature before the session ends in mid-September. The agreement does not apply to other types of gig workers, including those who deliver food through apps like DoorDash.

The two bills “represent a compromise that lowers costs for riders while creating stronger voices for drivers,” said Ramona Prieto, Uber’s head of public policy for California, in a prepared statement.

The deal marks a new chapter in nearly a decade of tension between technology companies and state lawmakers over the employment status of the tens of thousands of Californians who do gig work for app-based companies.

“This moment has been a long fight for over a decade in the making,” said Tia Orr, the executive director of SEIU California.

After the California Legislature in 2019 rewrote employment law in 2019, clarifying and limiting when businesses can classify workers as independent contractors, Uber and Lyft went to the ballot in California to exempt their drivers.

When California voters passed Proposition 22, the ballot measure funded by Uber and Lyft, in 2020, drivers were classified as independent contractors and, under federal law, do not have the right to organize. Prop. 22 also explicitly barred drivers from collectively bargaining over their compensation, benefits and working conditions.

But SEIU California argued that court decisions over Prop. 22 left an opening for the state Legislature to create a process for drivers to unionize.

Earlier this year, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) introduced the collective bargaining bill, AB 1340, which Uber and Lyft initially opposed.

The bill allows drivers to negotiate their pay and other terms of their agreements with the companies and exempts workers from the state and federal antitrust laws that normally prohibit collective action by independent contractors.

Under federal law, employees in the U.S. can unionize by holding an election or reaching a voluntary agreement with their employers for a specific union to represent them.

The process for California Uber and Lyft drivers would be somewhat different. The bill says drivers can select a bargaining representative by collecting signatures from at least 10% of active drivers, then petitioning the state’s Public Employment Relations Board for a certification.

That path to collective bargaining mirrors a ballot initiative approved by Massachusetts voters last fall that was also backed by SEIU, which allowed drivers to form a union after collecting signatures from at least 25% of active drivers in the state.

Veena Dubal, a law professor at UC Irvine who studies the effect of technology on workers, said the compromise reached by California lawmakers may not be strong enough to ensure that drivers can reach a fair contract.

The bill does not clarify whether drivers would be protected if they collectively protested or went on strike, she said, and doesn’t require that the companies provide data about wages.

“These are the crux of what makes a union strong and the very, very bottom line of what members need and want,” Dubal said. “That they couldn’t achieve those things — that’s a win for Uber.”

Uber driver Margarita Peñalosa, 45, of Los Angeles, said she realized she needed a union after being temporarily deactivated from the app, and losing three days of income, when a passenger who reeked of marijuana left behind a lingering smell in her car that other riders then complained about.

“That experience made me realize how powerless we can be,” she said. She said she hoped that a collective bargaining process would create a “clear, fair appeals process” for rider complaints.

A Southern California group that counts some 20,000 drivers as members said they had lobbied for provisions to strengthen the bill — including protections that would give drivers the right to strike and more enforcement resources for the state board tasked with overseeing the process — but had been largely shut out of negotiations.

“We were not invited into conversations about this, and we were banging on the door,” said Nicole Moore, president of Rideshare Drivers United.

Representatives from SEIU and Wicks’ office met multiple times with Rideshare Drivers United about their proposals and discussed why some weren’t included, said someone familiar with the negotiations who was not authorized to speak publicly. For example, that person said, strike protections could open up the bill to attack for potentially violating antitrust laws.

“While we always give fair consideration to suggested amendments, not all are ultimately viable,” Wicks said. She added that her office heard from dozens of constituents and advocates over months of public debate, and “any suggestion otherwise is disingenuous.”

Despite the weaknesses in the law, Moore said, she still hopes that it will help, since right now, she said, drivers “have no labor rights and our wages are in the dungeon.”

“We will do what we can with duct tape and a few paper clips and a little extra wax to actually wage a fight,” she said.

The insurance bill, backed by Uber and Lyft and introduced by state Sen. Christopher Cabaldon (D-Yolo), would reduce the amount of insurance that companies like Uber and Lyft are required to provide for rides.

Currently, the companies must carry $1 million in coverage per rideshare driver for accidents caused by other drivers who are uninsured or underinsured. The companies have argued that current insurance requirements are so high that they encourage litigation for insurance payouts and create higher costs for passengers.

The agreement instead calls for $60,000 in uninsured motorist coverage per rideshare driver and $300,000 per accident.

Cabaldon said that the changes would eliminate “outsized insurance requirements that don’t apply to any other forms of transportation, such as taxis, buses, or limos.”

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom said Wednesday that his social media posts mocking President Trump, his podcast interviews with right-wing influencers and his push to redraw California’s congressional districts are all in service of one goal: making the Democratic Party look anything other than weak.

“The essence of the challenge to the party is weakness,” Newsom said during an on-stage interview Wednesday at an event hosted by the news outlet Politico.

Newsom said some of his more combative messaging choices, including sitting for interviews with Fox News host Sean Hannity and debating Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, were efforts to break the cycle of Democrats responding to grievances ginned up by right-wing media, rather than setting their own agenda.

The same applies to his bombastic social media posts, posted by the governor’s media office, mocking Trump’s unhinged missives (complete with capital letters and exclamation points) and his new online store, called the Patriot Shop, that is peddling a tank top that says, “Trump is not hot,” among other not-to-subtle digs at the president. Newsom said he’s even toying with offering a “Trump corruption” crypto coin, a shot at the president’s own cryptocurrency, which the governor called a grift so great that it makes “dictators blush.”

Newsom said the problem with the Democrats, who are shut out of every branch of government in Washington, D.C., was best summed up by President Clinton after his party was shellacked in the 2002 midterm elections: American voters, given the choice, prefer “strong and wrong to weak and right.”

“Our party needs to wake up to that,” Newsom said. “We have to use every tool at our disposal to not only assert ourselves, but prove ourselves to the American people.”

Newsom’s comments come as he flirts with a 2028 presidential bid and the Democratic Party’s popularity hits record lows.

Proposition 50, the redistricting measure that California voters will see on their ballot Nov. 4, is in the same combative vein, Newsom said.

At Newsom’s urging, leaders at the Capitol shoved the measure through the state Legislature and onto the ballot in record time last week. If voters approve the measure, California would scrap its independently drawn congressional lines for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections in favor of partisan districts that could help California Democrats win as many as five more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, helping the party’s effort to win control and neutralize Trump’s far-right agenda.

Democrats have cast the effort as a way to counter the Texas GOP, which recently redrew the state’s congressional districts to help Republicans pick up five House seats.