Newsoms

Frame it as a call to action or a presidential campaign announcement, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s address to America on Tuesday has tapped into our zeitgeist (German words feel oddly appropriate at the moment) in a way few others have.

“Democracy is under assault right before our eyes,” Newsom said during a live broadcast with a California flag and the U.S. flag in the background. “The moment we’ve feared has arrived.”

What moment exactly is he referring to?

President Trump has put Marines and National Guardsmen on the streets of Los Angeles, and granted himself the power to put them anywhere. Wednesday, a top military leader said those forces could “detain” protesters, but not outright arrest them, though — despite what you see on right wing media — most protesters have been peaceful.

But every would-be authoritarian ultimately faces a decisive moment, when the fear they have generated must be enforced with action to solidify power.

The danger of that moment for the would-be king is that it is also the time when rebellion is most likely, and most likely to be effective. People wake up. In using force against his own citizens, the leader risks alienating supporters and activating resistance.

What happens next in Los Angeles between the military and protesters — which group is perceived as the aggressors — may likely determine what happens next in our democracy. If the military is the aggressor and protesters remain largely peaceful, Trump risks losing support.

If the protesters are violent, public perception could further empower Trump.

The president’s immigration czar Tom Homan, said on CNN that what happens next, “It all depends on the activities of these protesters — I mean, they make the decisions.”

Welcome to that fraught moment, America.

Who would have thought Newsom would lead on it so effectively?

“Everybody who’s not a Trumpist in this society has been taken by surprise, and is still groggy from the authoritarian offensive of the last five months,” said Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at the embattled Harvard University, and author of “How Democracies Die.”

Levitsky told me that it helps shake off that shock to have national leaders, people who others can look to and rally behind. Especially as fear nudges some into silence.

“You never know who that leader sometimes is going to be, and it may be Newsom,” Levitsky said. “Maybe his political ambitions end up converging with the small d, democratic opposition.”

Maybe. Since his address, and a coinciding and A-game funny online offensive, Newsom’s reach has skyrocketed. Millions of people watched his address, and hundreds of thousands have followed him on TikTok and other social media platforms. Searches about him on Google were up 9,700%, according to CNN. Love his message or find it laughable, it had reach — partly because it was unapologetically clear and also unexpected.

“Trump and his loyalist thrive on division because it allow them to take more power and exert even more control,” Newsom said.

I was on the ground with the protesters this week, and I can say from firsthand experience that there are a small number of agitators and a large number of peaceful protesters. But Trump has done an excellent job of creating crisis and fear by portraying events as out of the control of local and state authorities, and therefore in need of his intervention.

Republicans “need that violence to corroborate their talking points,” Mia Bloom told me. She’s an expert on extremism and a professor at Georgia State University.

Violence “like in the aftermath of George Floyd, when there was the rioting, that actually was helpful for Republicans,” she said.

Levitsky said authoritarians look for crises.

“You need an emergency, both rhetorically and legally, to engage in authoritarian behavior,” he said.

So Trump has laid a trap with his immigration sweeps in a city of immigrants to create opportunity, and Newsom has called it out.

And it calling it out — pointing out the danger of protesters turning violent and yet still calling for peaceful protest — Newsom has put Trump in a precarious position that the president may not have been expecting.

“Repressing protest is a very risky venture,” said Levitsky. “It often, not always, but often, does trigger push back.”

Levitsky points out that already, there is some evidence that Trump may have overreached, and is losing support.

A new poll by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 76% of Americans oppose the military birthday parade Trump plans on throwing for himself in Washington, D.C. this weekend. That includes disapproval from more than half of Trump supporters.

A separate poll by Quinnipiac University found that 54% of those polled disapprove of how he’s handling immigration issues, and 56% disapprove of his deportations.

Bloom warns that there’s a danger in raising too many alarms about authoritarianism right now, because we still have some functioning guardrails. She said that stoking too much fear could backfire, for Newsom and for democracy.

“We’re at a moment in which the country is very polarized and that these things are being told through two very different types of narratives, and the moment we give the other side, which was a very apocalyptic, nihilistic narrative, we give them fodder, we justify the worst policies” she said.

She pointed to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, when some protesters placed flowers in the barrels of soldiers’ guns, and act of peaceful protest she said changed public perception. That, she said, is what’s needed now.

Newsom was clear in his call for peaceful protest. But also clear that it was a call to action in a historic inflection point. We can’t know in the moment who or what history will remember, said Levitsky.

“It’s really important that the most privileged among us stand up and fight,” he said. “If they don’t, citizens are going to look around and say, ‘Well, why should I?”

Having leaders willing to be the target, when so many feel the danger of speaking out, has value, he said.

Because fear may spread like a virus, but courage is contagious, too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What else you should be reading

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

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

A group of California legislators representing the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta area said Tuesday that they will fight Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to build a $20-billion water tunnel, contending the project is a threat to their region and would leave millions of Californians paying much higher water bills.

Newsom has said the tunnel project is vital to improving the reliability of water deliveries as climate change shrinks California’s snowpack and alters the timing of runoff. But the Democratic lawmakers criticized Newsom’s latest proposal to accelerate steps toward construction of the 45-mile tunnel by short-cutting permitting for the project and limiting avenues for legal challenges.

“Fast-tracking the Delta Conveyance Project is a direct attack on our region’s environmental integrity, economic stability and public trust,” said Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City). “We are united in our opposition to this project, not just because of what it threatens to destroy, but because of what it represents — a broken process that silences local voices.”

Wilson and other members of the Delta caucus spoke at a news conference in the Capitol. They said the project would harm the Delta’s farmlands, communities and ecosystem, and would place a large financial burden on ratepayers in Southern California.

They said the cost, most recently estimated at $20.1 billion, is likely to be much higher.

“The project would have to be paid for by ratepayers who are already overburdened with soaring utility costs and aren’t even aware of how the cost of this is going to impact them in their pocketbooks,” said state Sen. Jerry McNerney (D-Stockton). “This project will set a precedent for bypassing well-established environmental laws.”

The tunnel would transport water from the Sacramento River to the state’s pumping facilities on the south side of the delta, where supplies enter the aqueducts of the State Water Project and are delivered to 27 million people and 750,000 acres of farmland, including parts of the Central Valley.

Supporters of the plan, including water agencies in Southern California and Silicon Valley, say the state needs to build new infrastructure in the delta to protect the water supply in the face of climate change and earthquake risks.

Opponents, including agencies in the delta and environmental advocates, say the project is an expensive boondoggle that would harm the environment and communities, and that the state should pursue other alternatives.

The legislators called for different types of water solutions, including investing in projects to recycle wastewater, boost water storage, and rebuild aging levees in the delta to protect freshwater supplies and reduce earthquake risks.

Newsom, who is set to serve through 2026 and then leave office, has said the tunnel project is critical for the state’s future.

The governor said his latest proposal would simplify permitting by eliminating certain deadlines from water rights permits; narrow legal review to avoid delays from legal challenges; confirm that the state has authority to issue bonds to pay for the project, which would be repaid by water agencies; and accelerate state efforts to acquire land for construction.

The governor’s approach, part of his latest budget proposal, was praised by supporters of the project and managers of water agencies, who said it would reduce regulatory and legal uncertainty.

Charley Wilson, executive director of the nonprofit Southern California Water Coalition, said the ability of the State Water Project to reliably deliver water is declining, while demand continues to rise.

“Southern California stands to lose up to 10% of our water supply from the State Water Project if we don’t act,” Wilson said, calling the project the best path to offsetting those losses.

Graham Bradner, executive director of the Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority, said the governor’s proposal would “save years of delay and potentially billions in costs by removing unnecessary hurdles.”

The legislators, however, said they will fight Newsom’s attempt to short-cut the established process.

“The governor is asking for a blank check, without cost caps, without meaningful oversight, without even committee hearings,” said state Sen. Christopher Cabaldon (D-West Sacramento). “What we have before us is a proposal to advance this under the dead of night with no public oversight or input.”

Cabaldon stressed that the public ultimately would pay for the project.

“The real threat here is to the pocketbooks, the monthly water bills, of residents throughout Southern California,” Cabaldon said.

McNerny said he expects the group of legislators will “do pretty well in gathering Senate opposition.”

“There is going to be significant opposition. It’s going to be vocal. It’s going to be harsh,” he said.

The project has been supported by leaders of water agencies in Southern California who are considering investing in it.

In December, the board of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California voted to spend $141.6 million for a large share of the preliminary planning work. The district, which delivers water for 19 million people, isn’t expected to decide whether to invest in building the tunnel until 2027.

The legislators spoke beside leaders of environmental, fishing and tribal groups who oppose the project. Malissa Tayaba, vice chair of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, said the project would harm the region and her tribe.

“It seems that to Gov. Newsom, our culture, our ancestors and the environment that sustains us is worth less than the ability to over-divert water from our rivers to send more water and money to commercial water interests,” Tayaba said.

SACRAMENTO — Latino legislators criticized Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed budget cuts to Medi-Cal Monday afternoon, saying the plan to freeze enrollment and charge premiums for those adult immigrants without documentation already enrolled was a betrayal of California’s promise to protect the vulnerable.

Legislative pushback for the May budget revision, released by Newsom last week, comes after the governor announced an additional $12-billion budget shortfall for the upcoming fiscal year.

State Senator María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) said the plan to charge adult undocumented immigrants $100 per month for Medi-Cal was a form of redlining, and Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Alameda) said she doubted the two-tiered system was constitutional.

“The governor is proposing a troubling precedent — raising prices on one group of Californians based solely on their immigration status. It is illegal for Kaiser to do this. It is illegal for United Healthcare to do this. It is illegal for any doctor, hospital or clinic to charge higher prices to undocumented customers,” Durazo said at a California Latino Legislative Caucus rally outside the state Capitol on Monday.

The influential Latino Legislative Caucus has staunchly opposed cuts to Medi-Cal, the state’s expanded version of the federal Medicaid program. The objections come despite California expecting decreased revenue in part due to President Trump’s tariff policies and increases in state spending, including the recent expansion of Medi-Cal coverage to cover all eligible Californians, including immigrants lacking documentation.

State Senator Caroline Menjivar (D-Panorama City), chair of a budget subcommittee on health, said Newsom’s proposal scapegoats immigrants for California’s economic woes. Immigrants, she said, are essential to California’s robust economy, recently ranked as the fourth largest in the world.

“If you were to remove the name from this document — if you were to remove the state, and people would just read this off to you and you closed your eyes — you would think, ‘Oh, that’s a budget proposed by a Republican in, perhaps, Alabama,’” she said.

During his news conference on Wednesday, Newsom encouraged state lawmakers and specially members of the Latino caucus to offer alternatives to balance the state budget if they disagreed with his proposal.

“Good people have different ideas, and I look forward to their ideas,” Newsom said.

On Monday, members of the Latino caucus did not mention any specific measures they would take instead of cutting Medi-Cal access, but pledged to offer budget balancing proposals in the days and weeks to come.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not-so-friendly fire

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

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

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

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

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

Former Controller Betty Yee offered a similar assessment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knives out during tough budget times

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What else you should be reading

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

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