Even while many Americans struggle with the cost of living, a proposed tax on California’s wealthiest people is loaded with controversy. The proposal would see a one-time 5% tax levied on California residents whose net worth exceeds $1.1 billion. But the proposal, which could potentially be on the state’s ballot during the November midterms, has led to infighting within both political parties and included California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D).

‘It will reduce investments’

Opponents of the proposed billionaire tax argue that it would cause the ultrawealthy to flee the state, thereby eliminating economic growth in California. Billionaires and their allies are “blowing rhetorical gaskets,” claiming that the tax would “lead to the financial ruin of California, the obliteration of Silicon Valley and possibly even the end of capitalism as we know it,” said Mariel Garza at The Boston Globe. Many also feel the “deep concern over this potential ballot measure is about more than the ultrawealthy having to hand over some of their stash.”

There is a “real question about how states that expanded Medicaid, America’s health-insurance scheme for the not-so-well-off, will cope with cuts” implemented by President Donald Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill legislation, said The Economist. But in a state with as many billionaires as California, attempting to “solve the problem with a one-time wealth tax could imperil the state’s general fund in the long term.”

While nearly all Republicans are against the tax, Newsom, a potential 2028 Democratic presidential contender, is also opposed. The billionaire tax will “reduce investments in education,” Newsom told Bloomberg Businessweek. “It will reduce investments in teachers and librarians, child care. It will reduce investments in firefighting and police.” Despite acknowledging that many people want to see billionaires pay more in taxes, the proposal would have an “impact as it relates to the flow of capital, the impacts on the market, which are not inconsequential.”

‘Billionaires aren’t going to flee California’

Some say that the billionaire tax is a good idea that wouldn’t incentivize most of the ultrawealthy to leave the state. People like Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page have been “warning that a possible wealth tax would scare off more tech moguls like them,” but they “represent the exception to the rule of a largely settled corner of economics,” said Yousef Baig at CalMatters. Business leaders like the Google co-founders “amass vast fortunes without paying taxes to begin with,” so “good riddance. It’s not like Google is leaving Mountain View.”

Others reject the “argument that wealth taxes are doomed to fail because they have been repealed in many countries such as France, pointing instead to successful, sustained models in Switzerland and Spain,” said Nick Lichtenberg at Fortune. There needs to be a change because capitalism “doesn’t seem to be working well,” said Brian Galle, a tax law expert and the man behind the billionaire tax proposal, to Fortune. Capitalism is a “great system that probably has, you know, enriched the lives of billions of people, but I’m not sure that our system is a functioning capitalist system right now.”

Even some who would be affected by the tax have no problem with it. “We chose to live in Silicon Valley, and whatever taxes I guess they would like to apply, so be it. I’m perfectly fine with it,” Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, the world’s ninth-richest person, told Bloomberg. “I’ve got to tell you, I have not even thought about it once.”

California’s governor has been an outspoken critic of the Trump administration, and he has found his latest target: Gavin Newsom (D) has filed a civil rights complaint against Dr. Mehmet Oz, the head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, over the latter’s allegations of health care fraud in the Golden State. While Newsom has claimed the allegations are racially motivated, Oz is pushing back.

Video origins

The feud began after Oz posted a video on X claiming to document health care fraud being perpetrated by Armenian immigrants throughout Los Angeles County. The county has become an “epicenter for health care fraud in America,” Oz said in the video, alleging $3.5 billion of fraud in Los Angeles and that the schemes are “run, quite a bit of it, by the Russian Armenian mafia.”

Oz’s allegations are largely against hospice centers and home health care businesses. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which Oz runs, “certifies hospice providers to accept patients on government-subsidized health insurance,” said The Associated Press.

The fraud “isn’t isolated to California, though as far as our team can tell, it’s the worst,” said Oz. But while he claims to be focusing on medical fraud, the video showed him standing not in front of a health care center but an Armenian-owned bakery.

In response to the video, Newsom filed a civil rights complaint against Oz. The video includes “racially charged and false public statements,” and Oz’s words “reveal a discriminatory motive that could infect how allegations of alleged fraud are conducted,” Newsom said in the filing.

The filing represents the peak of a “dayslong public quarrel” between Newsom and Oz, said The Guardian. The Armenian National Committee of America also filed a similar civil rights complaint.

‘No Armenian mafia going on here’

Newsom is not the only one disputing Oz’s allegations. California, and specifically the greater Los Angeles area, has the largest Armenian American population in the U.S., according to the World Population Review, and many are speaking out. The video has “generated intense local backlash” among this Armenian diaspora, said The New York Times. Fraud allegations in Los Angeles have also been investigated before, and “hospice fraud investigations and prosecutions have been ongoing for at least five years in California.”

“I am really disappointed,” said Movses Bislamyan, the owner of the bakery seen in Oz’s video, to KABC-TV Los Angeles. Oz was “recording my signs and location and talking about some kind of fraud going on here. We have nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do whatsoever with the grocery store.” There’s “no Armenian mafia going on here. We are just hard-working businessmen. I don't understand why he’s mentioning" just Armenians, "especially Russian Armenians.” Newsom’s civil rights complaint claimed the bakery experienced a 30% drop in business after the video’s release.

But Oz maintains that he’s identifying fraud and says he will continue to do so. “If there were a real defense for California’s fraud crisis, we would hear it," Oz said on X in response to Newsom’s civil rights complaint. "CMS and law enforcement will keep doing the actual work: going after fraudsters, period."

“Nothing brings tech titans together like taxes,” said Margaux MacColl in The San Francisco Standard. And right now, the moguls are united in rage about a mooted wealth tax in California, which, they warn, could destroy Silicon Valley’s startup ecosystem and lead to the next great tech company being built in China.

The ballot initiative, proposed by a healthcare workers’ union, will be put to a vote in November, provided it secures the requisite number of signatures. If passed into law, it would impose a one-time, 5% levy on the assets of California residents with a net worth above $1bn: about 200 people. The tax would raise an estimated $100bn, which would be placed in a special fund, with the proceeds going towards healthcare and education. Venture capitalist Peter Thiel and Google co-founder Larry Page are among the billionaires preparing to change their official state residency in response to the proposal, said The New York Times.

‘The money could make a real difference’

Spare me the oligarchs’ whiny protests, said Paul Waldman on Substack. Larry Page stands to lose some $13bn under this measure. That’s “a lot of money”, but it’s almost nothing to him: he regularly loses or gains that much over a matter of days as a result of the movements of the stock market. And remember, he and other tech moguls are “exponentially richer than they would otherwise have been because of California” and its unique position as a hub for innovators, entrepreneurs and investors. The money could make a real difference. And I confidently predict that the moguls will survive being left with just “95% of more money than anyone could spend in a hundred lifetimes”.

‘Progressives will come back for more’

Like it or not, wealth is mobile these days, said The Washington Post, and California’s taxes are “already sky high”. In 2012, the state increased the marginal tax rate on high-income households by 3%, as a “temporary measure”. It later extended it to 2030. If the new wealth tax is adopted, it won’t be a one-off. Progressives will come back for more.

“California’s real fiscal problem is that revenue can’t keep pace with Democratic spending,” said The Wall Street Journal. The wealth tax will only make its deficit bigger, by driving out the top 1% who pay half of the state’s income tax. The Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, seems to be aware of this: he opposes the wealth tax. But if the vote goes ahead, he’ll have a difficult choice between economic good sense and “the California Left”.

There are more than 200 billionaires in California. Now, Golden State labor leaders are pushing for tax on that wealth to help pay for education and Medicaid funding shortfalls.

California lawmakers have “never successfully passed a wealth tax,” said CalMatters. Instead, the state taxes its richest citizens on their income. That would change under a new union-led proposal to create a “one-time 5% tax” on “everything from investments to property value,” as well as “other assets, like jewelry and paintings.” This alarms critics.

The wealth tax could eventually “come all the way down to the middle class,” said Susan Shelley, a spokesperson for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, to CalMatters. But California is facing a “collapse of our health care system” thanks to federal budget cuts, said Dave Regan, the president of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, to CalMatters. A tax on billionaires is the “only solution anyone can see.”

Opening the door?

The California proposal is the “first politically viable wealth tax,” Harold Meyerson said at The American Prospect. The purpose is to address a “crisis for many Medicaid recipients.” It has “greater significance” at a moment when the “fortunes of the very wealthy are reaching stratospheric levels,” while middle-class Americans see their incomes stagnate. The tax would be imposed just one time, but it “opens the door” to other efforts to rein in the runaway accumulation of power and wealth by the “very, sometimes obscenely, rich.”

A wealth tax is a “portent of what’s to come” if Democrats return to power in Washington, Allysia Finley said at The Wall Street Journal. The party sought such a tax to finance Joe Biden’s “Build Back Better” bill in 2021 and might have succeeded “if not for opposition from Democrats Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin.” Those two are no longer in the Senate.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is likely running for president, and he has opposed a wealth tax in his own state. “Would he oppose a national one if he wins” at a national level? Probably not. “Who doubts that Democrats will seek to sock Americans with higher tax bills to pay for their entitlements?”

The real problem is the “Trump administration’s massive planned reduction in Medicaid funding,” Mark Kreidler said at Capital & Main. Addressing that issue is more important than worrying whether California billionaires can handle a “one-time tax on a fraction of their collective wealth.” The proposal will get “plenty of pushback,” including from Newsom, but the bigger question is addressing an “existential threat to the collective well-being of the Golden State.”

Gathering signatures

The tax would apply only to the 2025 net worth of California billionaires who have a “combined wealth of nearly $2 trillion,” said Axios. Because it would apply to their total wealth, “billionaires wouldn’t be able to avoid the tax by moving assets outside California.” Advocates must gather more than a half-million signatures to place the measure on the state’s 2026 ballot. If approved, billionaires will have five years to pay their bill.

What happened

The Justice Department Thursday joined a federal lawsuit seeking to block California’s new congressional map, drawn by state Democrats to flip as many as five Republican-held House seats to counteract a gerrymander in Texas.

The lawsuit “sets the stage for a high-stakes legal and political fight” between President Donald Trump, who sparked the unusual redistricting battle, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), a “likely 2028 presidential contender,” said The Associated Press.

Who said what

Federal courts are “prohibited from policing partisan gerrymandering following a sweeping 2019 Supreme Court ruling,” Politico said, so DOJ officials argued that California’s map “violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause and the Voting Rights Act by factoring in racial demographics,” specifically Latino voters. No GOP-led state has yet “faced federal legal action after revamping district lines following Trump’s call for new maps to expand GOP numbers in the House,” the AP said. A Democratic takeover of the chamber next year would “imperil Trump’s agenda.”

California’s new congressional map was approved by nearly 65% of state voters last week. Newsom’s “redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “These losers lost at the ballot box,” countered Newsom spokesperson Brandon Richards, “and soon they will also lose in court.”

What next?

A DOJ victory in the suit would “scramble Democrats’ plan to push back” against the GOP’s “rare, mid-decade redistricting ploys,” CNN said. Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio have already followed Texas in drawing new GOP-friendly maps, and another handful of red, blue and purple states are considering joining the gerrymander race.

What happened

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) Tuesday cast himself as a “stable and reliable” American partner on climate change at the United Nations COP30 conference in Belém, Brazil. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly called climate change a “hoax,” declined to send any officials to this week’s summit, making the U.S. one of just four countries not represented, alongside Afghanistan, Myanmar and San Marino.

Who said what

Newsom was “swarmed by conference attendees and cheered for representing the U.S.” amid Trump’s boycott, Reuters said. Although California is just one state, “its economy is the world’s fourth-largest” and it has “among the world’s most ambitious climate change policies.” Trump and his “acolytes” are “doubling down on stupid as it relates to climate policy,” Newsom said, but while the administration is “dumb” on green energy, “California is not.”

Newsom used his “many packed sessions” to paint Trump as a “threat to American competitiveness by letting China dominate electric vehicles, solar panels and other clean energy technologies of the future,” The New York Times said. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said it was “embarrassing” that “Newscum flew all the way to Brazil to tout the Green New Scam.”

What next?

The U.N. on Monday “released updated calculations” showing “projected 2035 global greenhouse gas emissions 12% below 2019 levels,” from 10% before new national pledges “rolled in” last month, The Associated Press said. But the latest figures “depend on a U.S. pledge that came from the Biden administration in December — before Trump returned to the White House and began working to boost fossil fuels and block clean energy like wind and solar.” Trump “is temporary,” Newsom told COP30 attendees. “California’s commitment is strong, and we’re in this for the long haul.”

‘How can Newsom stay relevant? Become the new FDR.’

Anita Chabria at the Los Angeles Times

There is a “warm spotlight of never-ending press coverage that aspiring presidential contender Gavin Newsom has enjoyed,” says Anita Chabria. Newsom should “take inspiration from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who not only pulled America through the Depression, but rebuilt trust in democracy with a truly big-tent government.” It’s “time to once again embrace the values — inclusiveness, equity, dignity for all — that too many Democrats have expeditiously dropped to appease MAGA.”

Read more

‘Tom Brady cloned his dog instead of rescuing one. Now I like him even less.’

Rex Huppke at USA Today

Tom Brady had his “dog cloned via a company he has invested in, Colossal Biosciences,” which “makes the new pup seem a bit like a four-legged branding opportunity,” says Rex Huppke. There are “far better ways to get a different dog, ways that don’t involve dropping $50,000, an extravagant sum that few dog lovers could ever afford.” Cloning is a “charade, an expensive one that comes at the expense of animals in desperate need of safe, loving homes.”

Read more

‘Trump must look beyond Gaza to the West Bank’

Hagai El-Ad at The American Conservative

President Donald Trump is “ushering in the possibility of de facto international protection for Palestinians in Gaza — an idea so loathed by Israel, it would be unimaginable if not for Trump,” says Hagai El-Ad. But the “reality on the ground remains dire and unstable.” If the “Trump administration is serious about regional stability, it cannot continue to ignore the quite literal fires Israel is lighting all across the West Bank.”

Read more

‘The “Predator” franchise has gone “woke,” and it’s not going broke’

Rebecca Onion at Slate

“Predator: Badlands” is “about a less-powerful warrior overcoming inherent disadvantage to prevail over enemies,” but is “also the movie that proves it: Dan Trachtenberg is turning the ‘Predator’ franchise feminist,” says Rebecca Onion. Audiences don’t “go to ‘Predator’ movies for their politics, and I don’t think this one is any exception, but I do think that, decades in, every franchise needs to find a way to mix things up, and Trachtenberg has done it.”

Read more

California once led the national campaign against gerrymandering. The Golden State’s once-a-decade congressional redistricting process was designed to prevent Democrats and Republicans from rigging the map in their own favor. Now voters will decide if those reform-minded days are over.

If approved, Proposition 50 will likely lead to “more Democrats being elected to Congress,” said The New York Times. The ballot measure would let the state temporarily dump its current map, drawn by an independent commission, for the “next three election cycles” in order to tilt its playing field to the left.

Democrats could “flip as many as five of the Republican-held seats in the state” under Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) proposal, an effort to counter Texas’ recent GOP-driven redistricting effort, said the Times. But some observers are skeptical that Proposition 50 will prove temporary. “How do you go back to restoring norms from here?” analyst Rob Stutzman said at a panel convened by the Public Policy Institute of California.

The will of the people?

Politicians who can “rig the vote in their favor” can also “safely ignore the will of the people,” said George Boardman at The Union. He voted for the 2010 measure that created California’s independent redistricting commission, to “stop the gerrymandering that has created life-long sinecures for many congressmen.” That makes it difficult to vote for the new measure. It's the “lesser of the two evils” to vote for Proposition 50 as long as the GOP is grabbing seats in Texas and other Republican-led states. “But I won’t like it one bit.”

President Donald Trump urged Texas to redraw its maps to favor Republicans. “Copying Trump’s bullying to gain power normalizes it,” said The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board. And the California proposal is even “more extreme.” Proposition 50 leaves just four of the state’s 52 House seats in GOP hands. That's a level of “disenfranchisement” parallel to what “Deep South states used to do to Black voters for much of the 20th century.”

The ballot measure "doesn’t guarantee Democrats five seats,” Jim Newton said at CalMatters. Californians are “rightly proud of their independent commission” and its efforts against gerrymandering. Even with a redrawn map, however, Democratic candidates would still have to do the work of “collecting voters’ support and securing the office.” No one should make assumptions about outcomes. “District line-drawing alone is not enough for political victory.”

Independents sitting out

Former President Barack Obama is campaigning to pass Proposition 50, said The Associated Press. California voters “can stop Republicans in their tracks” by supporting it, he said in a 30-second TV ad. The measure is opposed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who oversaw the creation of the independent commission in 2010.

More than 2.4 million voters have cast early ballots in the election, said The Sacramento Bee. Just 7% of independent voters have weighed in. If you are not a partisan voter, this election is "tailor-made for you to sit out,” said Republican political strategist Mike Madrid. The final day for voting is Nov. 4.

In a rare bit of bipartisan agreement in polarized times, ultraprocessed foods are under attack from both Democrats and “Make America Healthy Again” Republicans. This could change the way you eat.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom last week signed the country’s first law to “define and ultimately ban unhealthy ultraprocessed foods” from school lunches, said CNN. American kids get as much as two-thirds of their calories from foods “packed full of additives” and filled with “high-calorie sugars, salt and fat.” (The ban includes most “fast food, candy and premade meals” said CalMatters.) All but one member of the California State Assembly voted for the bill, said CNN. It is a sign that Americans “are waking up to the fact that we have chemicals in everything” and want to do something about it, said the Environmental Working Group’s Bernadette Del Chiaro.

The law arrives at the same moment Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is leading a revamp of federal dietary guidelines that put “ultraprocessed food in the spotlight,” said NPR. Kennedy has blamed such foods for the chronic-disease epidemic, but there is one challenge: There are “varied ways to define” ultraprocessed foods, making it difficult to “draw firm conclusions” about their actual health effects. The new dietary guidelines will focus on “whole foods, healthy foods and local foods,” Kennedy said.

What did the commentators say?

Focusing on ultraprocessed foods “repeats America’s missteps on nutrition,” Harvard Medical School’s David S. Ludwig said at The Washington Post. The federal government once “launched a massive public health experiment” to promote low-fat diets it said would “prevent obesity, diabetes, heart disease” and some cancers. The result? “Processed carbs flooded the food supply,” obesity rates soared and now those processed foods are the “new dietary villain.” More “high-quality, long-term clinical trials” are needed to understand how such foods affect health. Otherwise, new measures “could cause more harm than good.”

“For decades liberals championed whole foods,” Nutrition Coalition founder Nina Teicholz said at The Wall Street Journal. Now they have “lost the Whole Foods vote” because they “championed ultraprocessed plant-based foods” as a replacement for meat, envisioning a world where “lab-grown meats replace real meat from real cows.” American voters increasingly favor foods that are “whole and ancestral, including meat.” It is a vision that can unite “Berkeley hippies and MAHA moms.”

What next?

The question of what foods will be banned from California schools is “complicated,” said the Los Angeles Times. “Minimally processed prepared foods” like canned vegetables will not count. The picture should become more clear over time: The law requires the state’s Department of Public Health to create a list of off-limits foods by 2028.

Kennedy’s MAHA movement crusade against ultraprocessed foods coincides with the Trump administration’s defunding of programs that helped “food banks, schools and child-care centers procure fresh food from local farmers,” said The New Yorker. The defunding will challenge cooks faced with making “hundreds or even thousands of servings per day” of school lunches required to be both cheap and healthy.

What happened

A federal judge in Illinois Monday declined to immediately block President Donald Trump from sending Texas National Guard troops to Chicago over the objections of Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) and local officials. Trump is “using our service members as political props and as pawns in his illegal effort to militarize our nation’s cities,” Pritzker said at a news conference.

Trump told Newsmax Monday evening he was considering invoking the 1792 Insurrection Act “as a way to get around” court rulings stifling his deployments, as a federal judge in Oregon did over the weekend.

Who said what

Trump’s “unconstitutional invasion” of Chicago is aimed at provoking “chaos” he can use as a “flimsy pretext” to invoke the Insurrection Act, Pritzker said. The American people “should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly not simply because their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor,” Illinois said in its lawsuit before U.S. District Judge April Perry.

Pritzker and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), whose state was the first target of Trump’s military deployments, said in separate letters to the National Governors Association Monday that they would withdraw their states from the 117-year-old organization if its leadership doesn’t condemn what Newsom called Trump’s “unprecedented assault” on the “sovereignty of states as protected by the 10th Amendment.”

Trump’s vision of a “country where armed soldiers patrol U.S. streets” will be weighed in court against the Posse Comitatus Act and “America’s long-standing belief that law enforcement should remain in civilian hands,” The Associated Press said. At stake are “significant questions of constitutional law, federalism and the separation of powers.” Trump’s increasingly “blatant” attempts to “politicize the military” are also testing “one of America’s oldest and most sacred democratic traditions, devised by the founding fathers,” The New York Times said.

What next?

Perry set a Thursday hearing to consider Illinois’ request to block Trump’s Chicago deployment. Texas National Guard troops were en route to the state Monday night and would begin operating in Chicago later in the week, military officials said.

What happened

The Supreme Court Monday paused a federal judge's order barring federal agents from detaining suspected undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles based on factors like their race, language and type of job. The 6-3 decision, delivered in a brief, unsigned emergency docket order, arrived as the Trump administration launched immigration operations in Chicago, Boston and other Democratic-run cities. The court's three liberal justices dissented, while conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion.

Who said what

Attorney General Pam Bondi called the ruling a "massive victory" that allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to "continue carrying out roving patrols in California without judicial micromanagement." California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said President Donald Trump's "hand-picked Supreme Court majority" had approved a "parade of racial terror in Los Angeles," with ICE agents "targeting Latinos and anyone who doesn't look or sound like Stephen Miller's idea of an American, including U.S. citizens and children."

"Apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion," Kavanaugh wrote, but "it can be a 'relevant factor' when considered along with other salient factors" like speaking Spanish or working certain jobs. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure "may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little." The "entirely unexplained" majority opinion is "unconscionably irreconcilable with our nation’s constitutional guarantees," she wrote.

What next?

Monday's ruling was "not the final word in the case, which is pending before a federal appeals court and may again reach the justices," The New York Times said. The "majority's failure to provide an explanation for the ruling" made it difficult to discern "whether its reasoning applies nationwide or is limited to the Los Angeles area," but "there is little doubt" it will have the "practical effect of further emboldening" Trump's "uncompromising" mass deportation campaign.

At this point, it feels unfathomable for a politician to campaign or legislate without some form of social media presence. It's a perhaps inevitable technological advance cemented in place by President Donald Trump's bombastic use of the medium. But if Trump set the template for modern social media politicking, it's California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) who has emerged most recently as the Democrats' leading online gladiator, in large part by conspicuously mocking the president's digital cadence and mannerisms.

Newsom's ongoing salvo of Trumpian barbs has thrilled many Democrats who've hungered for leaders to take a more aggressive stance toward the administration. At the same time, Newsom's embrace of the president's coarse messaging has agitated conservatives and some liberals alike — even as the governor takes their opprobrium as proof positive that his social media tactics are working.

'Entering the fray is both messy and worth it'

Newsom's Trumpified social media feed has earned attention "from all ends of the media," and succeeded at "energizing Democrats eager to see members of their party fight back at the president," The Hill said. Within the party, Newsom "in particular" is demonstrating that he will "go as low as he needs to to take on Trump," said Democratic strategist and former Kamala Harris Communications Director Jamal Simmons to the outlet. He "isn't just trolling MAGA," said digital strategist and former Pete Buttigieg Online Engagement Director Stefan Smith to Politico. Instead, he's "proving" to his party that "stepping off your digital high horse and entering the fray is both messy and worth it."

Newsom "looks like the only person" among Democrats "organizing a fight that they feel they can win," said longtime Trump adviser Steve Bannon to Politico. "He's no Trump, but if you look at the Democratic Party, he's at least getting up there."

According to Newsom's team, there are metrics to back up the foray into Trump-style posts. The governor's office claims there has been an "influx" of "more than 325,000 followers" to his @GovPressOffice account since Newsom began his new social media strategy, said SFGate. The response to Newsom's first Trump-inflected post this month (initially intended as a "one-time joke") was "overwhelming compared with previous posts," said The New York Times.

By creating an "edgy resistance" through his online appropriation of Trump's social media style, Newsom is "essentially acknowledging that many of Trump's tactics are effective," Axios said. Despite "valid reasons to despise what Newsom is doing," said Nick Catoggio at The Dispatch, "for now, against my better judgment, I'm enjoying it" thanks in large part to the fact that Newsom's posts "are legitimately funny." In an America that's "rapidly declining," Catoggio said, a "troll who's good at trolling" can absolutely "get elected president. And has."

'He has to be a little bit more serious'

"I don't know" what Newsom is "trying to do," said Fox News host Trace Gallagher, "but it comes across as childish." Newsom is a "vile piece of shit," said White House Communications Director Steven Cheung after one of Newsom's posts warned the president of "THE WORST DAY OF YOUR LIFE AS YOUR PRESIDENCY ENDS (DEMS RETAKE CONGRESS!)" Given the longstanding rumors of Newsom's 2028 presidential ambitions, if he "wants an even bigger job, he has to be a little bit more serious," said Fox News host and former George W. Bush Press Secretary Dana Perino. Instead, Newsom should remember that "copying isn't a good look and it isn't working," Perino said on X when pressed about Trump's social media presence.

That Newsom has "pretty much stolen podcasts, memes and trolling tactics" from the "MAGA playbook" is not "coincidence," said former Trump White House Director of Digital Content Billy McLaughlin at Fox News. "That is proof of impact."

Still, even among some Democrats, Newsom's Trumpian turn is raising questions about the governor's priorities and plans for the future. While it's good that Newsom "abandoned the 'sit down with our mortal enemies for podcasts' phase of his political career," said a "top Democratic strategist" to CNN, his pivot speaks to a "fundamental problem" he has with the party base: "He says and does what he thinks is right for him in the moment as opposed to what is right for the country."

What happened

The Texas House Wednesday approved a new congressional map aimed at flipping up to five Democratic-held seats to Republican control. The 88-52 party-line vote followed a Democratic walkout that delayed passage of the contentious changes by two weeks. After the Democratic lawmakers returned to Austin on Monday, their GOP colleagues allowed them to leave the House only if they agreed to around-the-clock police escorts; some Democrats refused and slept in the chamber.

Who said what

Texas Republicans are "pursuing the unusual mid-decade redistricting" push "amid pressure" from President Donald Trump "to protect the GOP's slim majority in Congress" in the 2026 midterms, The Texas Tribune said. The new "aggressively partisan" map gives Trump the "gerrymander he requested," The New York Times said, but it also "set off a redistricting fever" that spread first to California but could infect another half-dozen states.

The California Supreme Court Wednesday denied an emergency petition from Republicans to halt Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) countervailing push to temporarily redraw his map's state to flip five GOP-held seats. Former President Barack Obama, a critic of gerrymandering, said Tuesday he approved of Newsom's "smart, measured" and "responsible" response to the GOP's attempt to "rig the game."

What next?

California lawmakers are expected to approve their new map today, sending it to a public referendum in November. The path is "far simpler" for Texas Republicans, "despite sustained Democratic opposition," the Times said. The state Senate will likely clear the Texas map today and "send it by the end of the week to Gov. Greg Abbott for his promised signature."

What happened

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and state Democratic and union leaders gathered in Los Angeles Thursday to announce plans to redraw congressional lines in response to a Republican mid-cycle redistricting effort pushed by President Donald Trump.

Newsom said the state will hold a Nov. 4 special election on a new congressional map expected to shift five seats from Republican to Democratic control, counterbalancing an imminent GOP gerrymander in Texas. Before Newsom spoke, scores of armed, masked federal Border Patrol agents amassed outside the venue.

Who said what

"Donald Trump, you have poked the bear and we will punch back," Newsom said. "“We can't stand back and watch this democracy disappear, district by district, all across this country." He said he expected the Democratic-led state legislature to approve the new district map, set to be unveiled today. But it needs voter sign-off because it would sideline the voter-approved independent redistricting commission until 2030.

Border Patrol leaders claimed their presence outside the rally was coincidental but Democrats portrayed the federal "show of force" as an "intimidation tactic," The Washington Post said, and another reason Democrats needed to win the House in 2026 and "put a check on" Trump. The appearance of Border Patrol agents was "pretty sick and pathetic," Newsom told reporters, and emblematic of "Donald Trump's America."

California is the first state "beyond Texas" to have "officially waded into the mid-decade redistricting fight," The Associated Press said, but the "partisan turf war" for control of the House could "spiral into other states," from "red Florida to blue New York," and the courts. "We need to stand up," Newsom said. "Other states need to stand up."

What next?

The Texas Democrats who fled the state to prevent a vote on the GOP redistricting map said Thursday they would return home "under the right conditions," after California unveiled its countervailing map and the special Texas legislative session ends today. Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said he will immediately call a new session to secure the new map.

As President Donald Trump pushes Texas Republicans to adopt a controversial new redistricting plan to pad their congressional majority by up to five seats, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has begun to float a similar scheme of his own. He's considering redrawing his state's legislative districts to further benefit Democrats; as Newsom said on X, "two can play that game."

Newsom, who has spent much of the second Trump administration pitching himself as a party leader for Democrats, justified his California redistricting plan as necessary to reporters on Wednesday. The "existential threat of what Donald Trump and some of these Republican states are trying to do" necessitates equally drastic measures from liberals, Newsom said, framing himself and his plan as at the forefront of the Democrats' growing opposition to this White House.

While Newsom's blue gerrymandering plan has excited some in the party looking for a more aggressive response to the Trump administration, not all Democrats are eager to delve into the messy business of redistricting. As befits a plan as audacious and disruptive as the one Newsom has proposed, opinions vary.

'Not going to fight with one hand tied behind my back'

Democratic supporters of blue-state gerrymandering deem it an "essential offensive posture" that could "make the difference in reclaiming the House" next year, The Texas Tribune said. The party needs to "fight fire with fire," said one Democrat to the outlet. "I'm not going to fight with one hand tied behind my back," said another, adding that "we shouldn't be so nice" if Texas' redistricting moves forward. Voters are "looking for a fight from the Democratic Party," said former Biden administration official Neera Tanden to Politico. Newsom's "response to Texas is the kind of thing I think they are looking for."

For some Texas Democrats, there is even a hope that efforts to counter their state's potential redistricting with similar measures in blue states might "dissuade Republicans from going ahead with the plan" altogether, said the Tribune. The notion of "lowering themselves to Trump's level" has "some Democrats feeling uneasy," said Ja'han Jones at MSNBC. The "counterpoint" to that, though, is that no matter how "concerned about the civil rights implications of California's responsive gerrymander" one may be, the "implications of sitting idly as Texas implements its own are arguably worse."

Redrawing California's electoral maps to "squeeze between five and seven more Democratic seats" for the party is a "brazen political gamble," said Punchbowl News. It's also "exactly the kind of ploy that the Democratic Party base has been demanding," even though it will be "extremely hard to pull off."

'Legitimizing the race to the bottom'

Newsom's plan is "all hat and no cattle," said the Los Angeles Times, using a Texas expression. To successfully redraw California's congressional districts, Newsom would have to break the state's 2010 law that left redistricting to a bipartisan commission, leading to an "inevitable lawsuit" in which he'd "prevail with a sympathetic ruling from the California Supreme Court." Alternately, Newsom could put the redistricting question back to voters "through a new constitutional amendment, in a hurried-up special election ahead of the 2026 midterms."

Ultimately, there is "no downside" for Newsom to try either method, said redistricting expert Paul Mitchell to the Sacramento Bee. Even if both fail, "maps that are really pretty good for Dems are still in place." But by "legitimizing the race to the bottom of gerrymandering, Democrats will ultimately lose," said California Assemblymember Alex Lee (D) at Politico. The "optics" of politicians retaking power formerly delegated to a non-partisan panel are "horrendous and indefensible," said an unnamed Democratic consultant to the outlet. "That's a crazy hill to die on."

As an "ambitious governor" who is ostensibly arguing that the state's constitutionally enshrined redistricting commission "ought to be ignored," Newsom risks "violating his oath," said the National Review. Doing so offers "ample justification for impeachment and removal from office."

Newsom's "inclination to want to retaliate" is understandable in the "national context," said Pomona College Politics Professor Sara Sadhwani to the San Francisco Chronicle. But the people of California have "made it clear at the ballot that the governor does not have that power."

'Who will pay for climate change? You will, until we break the fossil fuel addiction.'

William Becker at The Hill

We "cannot afford to ignore the current battle over who will pay the rapidly rising costs of climate-intensified weather disasters," says William Becker. The "rising costs of weather disasters will come out of every American's pocket," which will be "inevitable if the U.S. remains addicted to fossil fuels." So "long as the nation's fossil fuel addiction persists, every outcome leads to their pocketbooks." The "only way to stop the economic bleeding is to shift to 100% clean energy."

Read more

'Online sexual abuse of kids is getting worse. But vigilantes aren't the answer.'

Teresa Huizar at USA Today

Predators "no longer need to be physically close to harm a child," and a "growing community of self-styled 'pedophile hunters' is emerging online," says Teresa Huizar. Vigilantes "may believe they're administering justice," but "in reality, they're interfering with investigations, putting bystanders in danger and — if turning to violence — committing crimes themselves." This "does nothing to help children who are abused online." Kids "don't need mob justice, but rather a stronger legal approach and more resources for law enforcement."

Read more

'It sure looks like anti-Trump protest fatigue has vanished'

Zeeshan Aleem at MSNBC

It's "satisfying that such a vast number of Americans came out" to "reject Trump's autocratic agenda," says Zeeshan Aleem. It's "even more satisfying to notice that taking to the streets is emerging as a habit of the body politic: Mass protests are becoming more common, and fatigue from resisting Trump seems to have ebbed in a definitive way." The "momentum is building, and when public protest movements become big and loud enough, they can be a source of energy."

Read more

'Gavin's last gasp'

John Gerardi at the National Review

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has "stacked failures on top of failures," says John Gerardi. He is "angering both liberals and conservatives," and his "prospects for the presidency — and, thereby, any continuing political relevance — are fading away." The "only way Gavin Newsom can credibly forge any kind of political future is if he can turn himself into the country's leading anti-Trump, 'No Kings' hero." All of "Newsom's failures have this nonpartisan character."

Read more

What happened

The 700 Marines and 4,100 National Guard members President Donald Trump has deployed to Los Angeles, over the objection of state and local officials, have been authorized to detain but not arrest anyone who interferes with immigration raids or harasses federal agents during protests, military officials said Wednesday. The Marines are undergoing mission-specific training and will join National Guard members — some of whom are already accompanying ICE on the workplace raids that triggered the protests — within two days.

Who said what

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, testifying at a Senate budget hearing Wednesday, "insisted the Pentagon's deployment of troops to Los Angeles was lawful," Politico said. "He just couldn't cite the law he was following."

Trump has not "initiated the Insurrection Act, so active-duty military would not be allowed to conduct any kind of law enforcement activity," and "detaining somebody could be considered an act of law enforcement," retired Marine Lt. Col. Gary Barthel, a former judge advocate general, told Military.com. And "The only justification for doing it is if you're trying to suppress people's right to protest the government's policies. And that's something that's done in China, Russia and North Korea, but it shouldn't be done in the United States."

Since returning to office, Trump has, "step by step, expanded domestic use of the military," testing "legal and political limits," The New York Times said. Some former military officials and other experts believe the "goal" may be to "get Americans used to seeing troops in the streets of major cities," allowing Trump to use the military to "quell unrest and dissent." Trump "promised to carry out the largest mass deportation campaign in American history and left-wing riots will not deter him in that effort," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday.

What next?

A federal court in San Francisco will hold a hearing Wednesday on California's request for a restraining order against Marines and Guard members participating in law enforcement. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has sued to void Trump's deployment. As protests against ICE raids spread across the U.S., Hegseth told senators he could send troops to more cities "if there are other riots in places where law enforcement officers are threatened."

What happened

President Donald Trump's administration said Monday it was sending 700 Marines and 2,000 more National Guard troops to Los Angeles, escalating the federal response to protests over ICE raids in the area. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who opposes the deployments alongside local officials, filed a lawsuit Monday seeking to overturn Trump's National Guard activation, and the governor said he would also sue over the Marines deployment, calling both actions inflammatory abuses of power.

Demonstrators clashed with state and local police in pockets of Los Angeles again Monday as the protests spread to cities across the U.S.

Who said what

Monday's L.A. protests were, "for the most part, calmer than Sunday's melees, which left a wake of foam bullets around the city's center and many protesters injured from the munitions," the Los Angeles Times said. But the battle of words between Trump and Newsom escalated.

Arresting the governor "would be a great thing," Trump told reporters, and "I would do it if I were Tom" Homan, the White House border czar. Newsom said Trump was taking an "unmistakable step toward authoritarianism" and his Marines deployment was "un-American." Marines are "heroes," Newsom said on X, not "political pawns" to be "illegally" deployed on American streets to "fulfill the deranged fantasy of a dictatorial president" and give him "a talking point at his parade this weekend."

Newsom said he was calling in about 800 additional police from nearby counties and the California Highway Patrol to "pick up the pieces" of Trump's "chaos." L.A. Police Department Chief Jim McDonnell said having "federal military forces in Los Angeles — absent clear coordination — presents a significant logistical and operational challenge for those of us charged with safeguarding this city."

What next?

The Pentagon is "scrambling" to "establish rules to guide U.S. Marines who could be faced with the rare and difficult prospect of using force against citizens on American soil," The Associated Press said. Because Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, the 700 Marines and 4,100 National Guard troops in LA aren't allowed to arrest people or engage in other law enforcement.

For more than a century, the word "Hollywood" has been synonymous with "movies." That reality is changing. Television and film productions are moving to other states and countries, leaving America's glamour capital to ponder its place in the pop culture firmament.

The steep drop in Hollywood-based productions has begun to "spark panic and anger within the industry," said The Guardian. The number of shows and films being made in California has dropped more than 30% over five years, a wound inflicted by Covid-19, writer and actor strikes and even the wildfires that devastated Los Angeles over the winter. Just 20% of shows made for North American audiences are filmed in the Golden State. Those numbers are an "emergency" for Hollywood, said Alexandra Pechman, a Los Angeles-based writer and director.

What did the commentators say?

Finances come into play. Rob Lowe's Fox TV game show "The Floor" was shot in Ireland because it "makes more financial sense than filming in California," said The New York Times. International studios have "lower labor costs and more expansive tax incentives" than Hollywood can offer. The risk now is that California will "become to the entertainment industry what Detroit has become to the auto industry," said Michael F. Miller Jr., a vice president at the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees.

The "bright lights of Los Angeles have dimmed" because other countries and U.S. states "offered better tax incentives to lure the industry away," said Ed Lammi, a former executive vice president of production for Sony Pictures Television, at CalMatters. California must increase the size of its tax incentives and expand the kinds of productions that qualify for them. Otherwise, shows like "Cobra Kai" will continue to be shot in places like Atlanta instead of Hollywood. "No one should have to leave California in pursuit of the Hollywood dream."

Hollywood "doesn't need a tax subsidy," said The Wall Street Journal editorial board. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) is urging President Donald Trump to get "on board" with a proposed $7.5 billion tax credit to expand film and TV production in California. The high cost of production in the state is the "result in large part of the state government's policies." Fixing those policies would mean getting crosswise with "progressive interests." Republicans who control Congress should not "fall for the Tinseltown tax gambit."

What next?

In early May, Trump announced tariffs on foreign productions, a move that "scrambled all bets" on Hollywood's immediate future, said The Hollywood Reporter. Movie executives pooh-poohed the idea, but "at least he's trying something," said one unnamed indie filmmaker.

There are opportunities in Hollywood "working for YouTubers, starring in mini-dramas and building side hustles," said Business Insider. The pay for actors and production crew is not as good as it was for big old-school movie productions, but the work can be consistent. And such projects may be where the audience of the future is at, said Marisa Levy, who once made shows for Discovery TLC but now makes "branded content" for Rebel Girls, a digital media company. "You can still shape the culture."

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) positions himself as a national figure for Democrats searching for party leadership following President Donald Trump's return to office. But his administration has just pulled back on the promise of health care for all in its latest budget proposal.

For years, Newsom made expanding California's public health care program toward a single-payer system one of the tentpole issues of his political career. Instead, his spending plan for the coming year would see undocumented migrants paying a hefty monthly premium to participate in the state's Medi-Cal Medicaid program. The shift would also block new enrollees starting in the coming year.

'Significant retreat' on a 'linchpin' issue

Newsom's budget proposal comes as the costs of his health care plan have "exceeded expectations" amid broader anticipation of "challenging economic times ahead," said the Los Angeles Times. Requiring Medi-Cal participants with "unsatisfactory immigration status" to pay a $100 monthly premium would "reduce the financial burden on the state" and could ultimately "lower the total number of people enrolled" in the program "if some immigrants cannot afford the new premiums."

The proposed changes represent a "significant retreat on an issue" that Newsom has held as a "linchpin" of his broader goal of universal health care coverage in California, Politico said. The backtracking will be a "political gift to conservatives" and is "certain to encounter resistance" from California's Democratic lawmakers and health care advocates alike.

While Newsom has blamed the state budget shortfalls "partly on a projected $16 billion drop in tax revenues resulting from Trump's turbulent trade wars," it's been "clear for months" that the state's Medi-Cal program for low-income residents of all immigration statuses has cost "billions more than expected," said The New York Times. The "conundrum" facing Newsom is whether to cut Medi-Cal benefits for all participants, including citizens, focus solely on immigrant participants or "pursue some combination of both."

Another thing "complicating" Newsom's "political tightrope" is polling that shows programs which provide health care to undocumented migrants have "tepid support," CBS News said. Moreover, any serious budget trouble in California could "harm" Newsom's "political legacy" ahead of a potential 2028 presidential run.

Rightward tack in recent months

Costs associated with medical coverage for undocumented immigrants have become a "sensitive issue" for California's Democrats given both President Trump's "focus on deportations" and the "electorate's interest in scaling back illegal immigration" as a whole, The New York Times said. While the coverage for undocumented immigrants is "funded by state revenue," the San Francisco Chronicle said, "most of the program is funded through federal Medicaid dollars" now being targeted by congressional Republicans who have "singled out California for scrutiny."

In this broader political context, Newsom has begun "embracing policy positions Republicans have begged him to adopt," said California Globe. His attempt at a "reputation facelift" will "likely end up as a facelift gone wrong." The Medi-Cal budget battle comes as Newsom, with an eye toward 2028, has "tacked to the right on a series of notable policy issues in recent months," NBC News said, including a podcast interview with right wing operative Charlie Kirk and a push for California cities to remove all unhoused encampments "without delay."

'FEMA prepares for disasters worse than hurricanes'

Eric S. Edelman and Franklin C. Miller at The Wall Street Journal

FEMA "does more than write checks after hurricanes hit," say Eric S. Edelman and Franklin C. Miller. It "plays a vital role in coordinating the continuity of the federal government and its operations in the event of a nationwide emergency." The White House "should consider the consequences for national security before rushing ahead with a plan to close FEMA." Terrorism "remains a real threat, as does a catastrophic cyberattack." In "many ways today's challenges are more daunting."

Read more

'Gavin Newsom can't afford to ignore California's oil gap'

Erika D. Smith and Liam Denning at Bloomberg

California has "long had a love-hate relationship with Big Oil," say Erika D. Smith and Liam Denning. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) shows "evidence of rising tension between the state's net-zero objectives and the economic woes of working-class Californians." The "question is whether the state is at a tipping point where opposition to climate policies erodes Democrats' electoral prospects." The "unpalatable concessions, such as capacity payments to keep refiners open or even changes to EV targets, may ultimately enter the discourse."

Read more

'India's "new normal" of perpetual war will damage its democracy'

Apoorvanand Jha at Al Jazeera

Criticism of "government requires parliamentary deliberation," says Apoorvanand Jha. But India's "government has been ignoring calls by opposition parties to convene the parliament, which means stalling democratic dialogue." Total "loyalty from the Indian people will be demanded." The government "will happily blame a dire economic situation that is of its doing on the war." Democracy in "India thus remains in suspended animation as the country now faces a permanent enemy and a permanent war."

Read more

'An AI Agatha Christie? The bestselling novelist of all time deserves better than that.'

Mary McNamara at the Los Angeles Times

When the BBC announced that it was "launching a digital class in which an AI-resurrected Christie would offer lessons in writing, it was difficult not to be outraged," says Mary McNamara. Here was a "woman who was on record" about "how much she loathed having to talk." There is "no getting away from the fact that this is a two-and-a-half-hour lecture, delivered by a woman" who, with the "exception of a very few hand gestures, never moves."

Read more

Since the post-1968 reforms that opened presidential nominations to binding primaries and caucuses, there have only been four cycles that didn't feature an incumbent or former president. But assuming that President Donald Trump doesn't seek an unconstitutional third term, 2028 will be one of them. These are some of the names being bandied about by political insiders looking ahead to the next election.

The Democrats already jockeying for position

Pete Buttigieg

Buttigieg served as Secretary of Transportation from 2021 to 2025, and his frequent appearances on right-wing outlets like Fox News "have been master classes in poise and articulation," said Advocate. He recently decided not to seek a Senate seat in Michigan, a "decision framed by several allies and people in his inner circle as putting him in the strongest possible position to seek the presidency," said Politico.

Gavin Newsom

Newsom has been governor of California since 2019. He "built his national profile opposing the Republican president during his first term," said Los Angeles Times. But in March Newsom caused a stir by inviting far-right operative Charlie Kirk onto his podcast, "angering many of the liberal activists whom Newsom would need to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028," said The Washington Post.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

The New York Democrat has taken on a leading role opposing the Trump administration's policies, including barnstorming the country with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-N.Y.). Ocasio-Cortez is "positioning herself well for a run," and the 35-year-old "would bring much-needed youthful vigour to a decaying party," said UnHerd.

JB Pritzker

The governor of Illinois since 2019, Pritzker has chosen a very different lane from Newsom, standing up for communities under fire from the Trump administration. He has distinguished himself by "pitching his potent combination of working-class issues, sharp business sense and reputation as a good-natured brawler," said Bloomberg. But Pritzker, who is not subject to term limits, "has yet to say whether he will seek a rare but not unprecedented third term as governor," said the Chicago Tribune.

Josh Shapiro

Shortlisted as Kamala Harris' running mate in 2024, Pennsylvania's governor is still in his first term. Shapiro has been "performing a balancing act in approaching the Trump administration," said NBC News. He has "cemented his image as a moderate willing to work across the aisle," said The Philadelphia Inquirer but remains "largely untested on the national stage."

Tim Walz

The 2024 Democratic vice presidential nominee remains Minnesota's governor until 2027 and said he would "rather fight Trump from his position as governor" than seek the state's open U.S. Senate seat next year, said The New Yorker. That decision means that Walz may throw his hat in for the 2028 nomination. Walz "launched a national tour of town halls in Republican House districts, traveling the country," said Axios, further fueling speculation about 2028.

Gretchen Whitmer

The two-term Michigan governor was one of the many names discussed to replace former President Joe Biden during the summer of 2024. Her double-digit reelection in a down year for Democrats in 2022 combined with her popularity in the purple state of Michigan turned her into a national figure. In terms of 2028 contenders, "there are few politicians talked about more than" Whitmer, said The New York Times.

Other names

Former vice president and 2024 Democratic nominee Kamala Harris is "expected to make a decision by the end of the summer" about running for governor of California, said the Los Angeles Times, and could still run for president again. Popular Democratic governors like Jared Polis of Colorado could join the fray, as could prominent Trump critics in the Senate like Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), whose day-long filibuster in April means that he is "most likely going to run again," said The Conversation. Celebrities like businessman Mark Cuban and ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith are also in the mix.

A shorter list of Republicans in the shadow of J.D. Vance

Nikki Haley

In the past, the runner-up in the GOP primary often had the inside track on the next open nomination. It is not clear whether this rule will apply to former UN Ambassador and 2024 GOP runner-up Nikki Haley, who at this point represents a defeated faction in the party. It is also "not likely she would have" President Trump's backing "if she runs in 2028," said Fox News, which could cripple her chances.

Ron DeSantis

Like Haley, the Florida governor's biggest challenge as he prepares a 2028 presidential bid is to "win back supporters of the Republican leader whom he dared to challenge in the last election," said The Associated Press. DeSantis, who ended his 2024 campaign after a disappointing showing in the Iowa GOP caucus, remains popular in Florida and was reelected by nearly 20 points in 2022 in what was once a swing state.

Kristi Noem

Noem, now the Secretary of Homeland Security, was "floated as a potential running mate for Trump last year" before he picked J.D. Vance and "has since become a loyal and vocal supporter of the president, said The Hill. She seems to have survived the scandal from her memoir, in which she found herself "under fire for killing her family's 14-month-old dog and boasting about it," said The New York Times.

Marco Rubio

Rubio ran unsuccessfully for president in 2016, losing the nomination to Trump. Now, the former Florida senator is the Secretary of State in the second Trump administration and "needs to decide how much he wants to go along with things that clearly run counter to his previous principles," such as siding with Russia in the Ukraine conflict, said The Washington Post.

J.D. Vance

The sitting vice president is just 40 years old and will benefit from having a "group of younger, more populist Republicans who are vocally advocating" for him as Trump's successor, said Semafor. No incumbent vice president in the modern period who has sought his or her party's nomination has failed to get it. Even better, "Trump's longtime aides and allies have begun throwing their support behind Vance," said The Independent.

Glenn Youngkin

Rumored as a more mainstream alternative to President Trump for the 2024 GOP nomination, Youngkin never ended up throwing his hat in the ring. Virginia's popular GOP governor is subject to the state's unusual one-term-at-a-time limit and cannot seek re-election in 2025. He is "seen as staunchly conservative but has a broad appeal, stretching outside of the MAGA movement," said The Hill.

Other names

Vance's presumed dominance of the field makes the GOP's long-list considerably shorter than those of the Democrats. But those who received support in a recent Yougov poll include the president's son Donald Trump, Jr., Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, businessman Vivek Ramaswamy, CIA Director Tulsi Gabbard, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

'Gavin Newsom is the de facto president of the United States right now'

Joe Mathews at the San Francisco Chronicle

Gavin Newsom is the "chief executive of America's richest and most populous state," and in "this peculiar moment, that makes him the real president, by default," says Joe Mathews. There's a "guy living in the White House who some people call president. But real presidents swear an oath to execute the laws and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." Newsom is "acting like the president, not a governor, because the country needs someone to act like a president."

Read more

'When lawyers apply a law aimed at VHS rentals to the streaming world of today'

Chicago Tribune editorial board

In the 1980s, Congress "lost its collective mind over the idea that its members' rental histories could undergo public scrutiny," but now the "same law is being invoked to attack Weigel Broadcasting," says the Chicago Tribune editorial board. Americans "should be aware that practically every keystroke on every website could potentially be tracked." But "most Americans are still surprised to learn how much of their personal information is being collected. And once it's given away, there's no getting it back."

Read more

'The grace of Wayne Gretzky'

Spencer Neale at The American Conservative

Alex Ovechkin scored his "895th goal, a new record in the NHL," and Wayne Gretzky "provided a fitting bridge from past to present," says Spencer Neale. It's "not easy to watch your greatest successes pass by, but Gretzky has done so with great honor and respect." Gretzky's "goal record has long stood as one of the most insurmountable achievements," but "instead of dismay, Gretzky displayed humility, honor, and dignity as his lofty achievement was torn from the record books."

Read more

'A Trump-Congo minerals deal may not be worth the risk'

Liam Karr at The Hill

The Democratic Republic of the Congo has "presented U.S. officials and the American people with a proposal: help bring security to the embattled central African country and, in return, receive access to valuable mineral deposits," says Liam Karr. But "American leaders should ask if it is worth the risk it poses to U.S. service members." The U.S. "should develop a comprehensive critical minerals strategy and seek out partnerships that best suit this strategy, not build a strategy around external offers."

Read more

The reviews are in, said Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling in The New Republic, and the “so-called resistance” to President Trump’s second term is officially a flop. A new poll from Blueprint, a liberal research firm, found that 40 percent of registered voters think the Democratic Party “doesn’t have any strategy at all” for opposing Trump, while another 24 percent believe Democrats do have a strategy “but it’s not working.” Only 10 percent think the party has “a good strategy.” What’s even more depressing is that this poll was taken before Trump’s speech to Congress last week. While Trump boasted and lied, Democrats expressed their opposition with a “confused” series of gestures. Texas Rep. Al Green, 77, shouted “No mandate!” and waved his cane—which got him escorted from the House chamber and, this week, censured by his colleagues—while other lawmakers held up small signs bearing slogans such as “Musk Steals” and “Save Medicaid.” Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) tried to sound “modest and patriotic” delivering the Democratic response, said Matthew Continetti in National Review. She calmly denounced Elon Musk and called for fixing the “broken immigration system.” But the stark contrast with Green’s “hysterical display” only served to showcase Democrats’ existential “identity crisis.” The party has no power, no leader, no coherent plan to take on Trump, and “no path out of the wilderness.”

The smartest thing Democrats can do now is “roll over and play dead,” said James Carville in The New York Times. They lack the votes to block Trump’s agenda, and last week’s pathetic displays only made the party look weak. Far better to sit back, stay quiet, and let Trump, Musk, and “the most incompetent Cabinet in modern history” remind voters of Democrats’ relative sanity, moderation, and competence. “It won’t take long.” Grocery prices are up, the stock market’s down, and Trump’s approval rating is “underwater” in new polls, with about 53 percent of voters disapproving of his performance. Democrats should commit to a “tactical pause” until that number hits the high 50s, then rouse themselves and “go for the jugular.”

“This is horrible advice,” said Norman J. Ornstein in The New Republic. We’re in a “headlong rush to autocracy” that requires Democrats to use the Senate filibuster and every other “tool in the rule book” to obstruct and delay Trump. Democrats in Washington may be powerless, said Perry Bacon Jr. in The Washington Post. But there are 23 Democratic governors and 15 states under full Democratic control that could mount a “better resistance” by opposing Trump’s agenda at a local level. They should treat Texas Gov. Greg Abbott as a model, and study how the Republican whipped up popular opposition to President Biden’s immigration policies by sending the National Guard to the border and busing undocumented migrants to blue cities.

“Attention is everything,” said Peter Hamby in Puck News. November’s “drubbing” taught Democrats two key lessons: First, that they have to drop the alienating progressive pieties; second, that MAGA is beating them, badly, in the new-media battle for “eyeballs” and engagement. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, at least, has heeded both lessons. In the debut episode of his podcast last week, the “perfectly coiffed governor” agreed with his guest, the ultra-MAGA activist Charlie Kirk, that it’s “deeply unfair” to let transgender girls compete in high school sports. Newsom himself has “cringe” tendencies that probably rule him out as his party’s savior, said Lauren Egan in The Bulwark, but he has the right idea. Until Democrats “find their footing” in modern media, they have no realistic hope of resisting Trump’s agenda—an agenda so destructive that “not trying isn’t an option.”

For the debut episode of his "This is Gavin Newsom" podcast, which premiered March 6, California Governor Gavin Newsom sat down with Turning Point USA co-founder and far-right conspiracy theorist Charlie Kirk for what the show's official description called a "debate without demeaning or dehumanizing one other." But the convivial conversation has nevertheless angered many on the left, who consider Newsom's support for Kirk's stance against transgender athletes — and his friendly embrace of the controversial culture warrior in general — a red flag for any future political ambitions.

For some time now, Newsom has been discussed among certain wings of the Democratic party as a potential and potentially potent national candidate in some future presidential race. Having worked his way up California's local and statewide political ladders, Newsom is financially well-connected, comparatively young and offers — at least on paper — a compelling profile to a party struggling to find its footing in the face of President Donald Trump's ongoing deconstruction of the federal government. Still, a compelling profile does not a successful candidate make. While Newsom may still have the attention, if not the outright support, of many in the party, his latest project has begun to garner enough scrutiny and criticism to call into question his prospects as a national figure.

An 'exceedingly' friendly conversation

The podcast episode presented Newsom in an "opposite light" compared to his "stumping as a surrogate" for Democrats in the last presidential election and "sparring with ideological foes" like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Sean Hannity, said Politico. Newsom's "stunning remarks" suggesting Democrats "were in the wrong" on the issue of transgender athletes were made during a conversation in which the governor also "distanced himself from the use of pronouns," lamented cancel culture and criticized leadership of the Black Lives Matter movement. Newsom ultimately veered into "exceedingly" friendly territory with Kirk, a "campus culture warrior" and "close ally" of the president and Donald Trump Jr. At one point during the "frank" and "wide-ranging" episode, Newsom even appealed to Kirk to "give us some advice," Fox News said.

By suggesting that the participation of transgender athletes in women's sports was "deeply unfair," Newsom — despite having "backed LGBTQ causes for decades" — showcased a "newly defensive position on transgender rights among many in his party," The New York Times said. While "hardly the first" Democrat to "lament" his party's stance on transgender athletes, Newsom has become "the most prominent official" to do so.

An effort to 'court the right'?

That Newsom would embrace Kirk's position on barring transgender athletes from participating in women's sports "seems to be part of his effort to court the right," said Orion Rummler, a reporter for the gender-focused publication The 19th, on Bluesky. Newsom's "chasing" what he thinks is "public opinion" only means that he "will have made a bunch of statements and taken a bunch of stances" he will eventually have to disavow should public sentiment move elsewhere, said the Times opinion columnist Jamelle Bouie on Bluesky. Newsom did not "debate" Kirk, or "challenge his far right views," journalist Kat Tenbarge added on Bluesky.

Given Kirk's documented anti-transgender rhetoric — including having once described trans people as a "throbbing middle finger to god" — Newsom's decision to platform him is not "fostering a 'discussion' on transgender people in sports," said journalist Erin Reed on Substack. Instead, the governor is "handing a known hate monger a microphone to denigrate an already vulnerable community" and "recalibrating his political stance to make targeting transgender people seem palatable" for his base.

What happened

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) declared a state of emergency Wednesday as a rash of H5N1 avian flu outbreaks at Central Valley dairies spread to Southern California. Hours earlier, federal health officials announced that a Louisiana resident was hospitalized with the nation's first severe bird flu infection.

Who said what

The emergency proclamation is a "targeted action to ensure government agencies have the resources and flexibility they need to respond quickly to this outbreak," Newsom said in a press release. California is home to 645 of America's 865 infected cattle herds, according to the USDA. The virus was also detected in raw milk in California stores, leading to a recall last month. Los Angeles County yesterday "confirmed the deaths of two cats from bird flu infections after drinking the recalled raw milk," The Associated Press said.

None of the 61 confirmed human H5N1 infections have been conclusively tied to raw milk consumption, but 37 were traced to interaction with infected cattle. The Louisiana patient was infected through a backyard bird flock, contracting a "version of the virus that has been found in birds, not the one that is spreading in cows," The New York Times said.

What next?

Newsom's declaration was a "stark acknowledgment of the increasing seriousness of bird flu's spread," the Times said, but H5N1 "cannot yet spread easily among people" and "still poses little danger to the average American."

California has passed a set of laws that aim to moderate the spread of misinformation and deceptive digital audio or visual content pertaining to the upcoming election. The introduction of advanced generative artificial intelligence has made that threat more pervasive, but California's new regulations will hold social media platforms accountable for what the platforms allow to spread.

Targeting political deepfakes

California will now impose stricter restrictions that require social media companies to moderate the spread of misinformation about the election created with artificial intelligence, known as deepfakes, after Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a batch of new laws targeting the technology. Of the five laws he signed, three are directly related to the election and deepfakes. Only one of the laws will go into effect before the 2024 presidential election, but the "trio could offer a road map for regulators across the country who are attempting to slow the spread of the manipulative content powered by artificial intelligence," said The New York Times.

The signed measures include A.B. 2839, which expands the time period that outlaws people or groups from knowingly posting deceptive AI-generated or manipulated content about the election. The law, which goes into effect immediately, was previously enforceable for 120 days before the election but will now extend to 60 days after. He also signed A.B. 2655, which will require social media companies to remove or label deceptive or digitally altered AI-generated content within 72 hours of a complaint, and A.B. 2355, which requires election advertisements to disclose whether they use AI-generated or manipulated content.

California's laws are the latest in the efforts of "dozens of states to limit the spread of the AI fakes around elections and sexual content," said the Times. While some laws similarly target election-related content, "most are focused on deepfake pornography." There are no federal regulations for deepfakes, but such regulations have been proposed several times. California's new laws are "very different from other bills that have been put forth," Ilana Beller, an organizing manager for the democracy team at Public Citizen, said to the Times. "This is the only bill of its kind on a state level."

Newsom draws backlash

The upcoming election has already been tinged with the looming threat of misinformation and misleading deepfake content. Republican candidate and former president Donald Trump shared deepfakes of Taylor Swift and her fans, the Swifties, implying they supported him. One image riffed on old military recruitment posters, with Swift pointing and a caption saying, "Taylor wants you to vote for Donald Trump." The incident led to Swift publicly endorsing his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump also shared AI-generated images of himself surrounded by Black people that "purported to demonstrate his support among Black voters," said Fortune. Another image he shared on X resembled Harris speaking at the DNC surrounded by communist flags. The latter image would "likely be the sort of thing that would be covered by California's new laws," the outlet said.

After signing the bill, Gov. Newsom drew the ire of tech mogul Elon Musk. In July, the governor vowed to sign legislation to crack down on political deepfakes after Musk posted an altered campaign video of Harris. After the bills were signed, Musk targeted Newsom in a scathing post on his X platform, implying that he "signed a LAW to make parody illegal." He then said California needed "new leadership" and urged his following to make the Harris deepfake video "viral." The man who made the viral video with AI-generated audio clips of Harris calling herself the "ultimate diversity hire" sued to block two new laws, arguing that they threatened the right to freedom of speech.

Vice President Kamala Harris has secured the necessary delegates to become the Democratic nominee for president, but she has one big job left: picking a vice presidential running mate. As the countdown to the 2024 election passes the 100-day mark, the Harris campaign has reportedly been vetting numerous potential VP contenders. 

Some of these names are prominent figures on the national stage, while others, such as North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, have already ruled themselves out. But with the Democratic National Convention's virtual roll call days away, Americans will likely know Harris' choice sooner rather than later. 

What did the commentators say? 

Each of the known contenders has a "distinct set of political assets. Some have geographic ties that may help with the Electoral College math. Some are strong debaters ready to make Democrats' case," said Katie Glueck at The New York Times. Harris' reported shortlist is also "stacked with contenders who can raise big money," said Brian Schwartz at CNBC. 

This shortlist appears down to "three elected officials with nationwide appeal: Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz," said Nancy Cook, Josh Wingrove, and Jenny Leonard at Bloomberg. All three of these contenders are "white, male politicians with centrist leanings who could help Harris appeal to swing-state voters, as well as business leaders and donors." They also have a "track record of attacking Trump and his firebrand style of politics."

When it comes to Democratic politicians on Capitol Hill, many think Harris "should pick Sen. Mark Kelly as her vice president, believing he would offset her biggest current weakness: the border," said Politico. Kelly has "pushed the Biden administration to take a tougher position on border security and aligned more closely with other border-state Democrats." However, he sometimes struggles to "connect with voters on the ground or command attention on the stump," and has "never been considered among the top tier of Democratic orators." 

If Kelly were picked, Arizona would hold a special Senate election in 2026, and "in a state like Arizona, a Democratic victory would be far from assured," said Timothy Noah at The New Republic. As a result of the Democrat's thin Senate majority, there is "no current senator [who] should be under consideration for the Democratic vice presidential slot," especially because there is "little evidence that vice presidential candidates help with winning their home states."

Walz, meanwhile, is a "popular two-term Midwestern governor, former congressman, military veteran and former public school teacher" whose "canny folksiness is just one of the attributes that make him uniquely suited to be the Democratic vice presidential nominee," said Adam Edelman at NBC News. Picking Walz could also create "broad appeal across the critical nearby 'blue wall' states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — something few other VP contenders can offer." 

Many pundits feel that Shapiro is at the top of Harris' list. In particular, Republicans "see Shapiro, a first-term governor from a critical state, as Harris' strongest vice presidential contender," said Julia Terruso at The Philadelphia Inquirer. Beyond popularity in his own state, Shapiro "could pull in more moderate voters and even some Republicans, which he has done in all three of his previous statewide campaigns." Shapiro "would be the one that makes it the most challenging" for Republicans, Bill Bretz, the GOP chair in Pennsylvania's Westmoreland County, said to the Inquirer. A new Bloomberg / Morning Consult poll also shows Pennsylvania is the battleground state where Harris trails Trump the most, and picking the Keystone State governor could help close that gap.

But "there are demerits to Shapiro, too," Emily Tamkin said at Slate. Shapiro, who is Jewish, is strongly pro-Israel, and this stance "could very well hurt Democratic unity and suppress voter turnout on the political left." It may also "signify an embrace of an understanding of antisemitism that some American Jews contest, issuing a ruling on American Jewish political identity that many would chafe against."

What next? 

Other names are also being vetted for VP by the Harris campaign. This includes Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer was also in the running, but like Cooper, took herself out of contention.

It has already been reported that Harris is planning to campaign with her vice presidential pick in the first full week of August, following the Democratic National Committee beginning its virtual roll call on Aug. 1. This means it's all but certain that Harris' choice to accompany her on the ticket is days away.

What happened

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) announced on Thursday that state officials would begin removing thousands of encampments populated by unhoused people across the state, following a sweeping ruling by the United States Supreme Court, which upheld Oregon's ban on people without homes sleeping outdoors. 

Who said what

Newsom's executive order directs state agencies to "address dangerous encampments while supporting and assisting the individuals living in them," the Governor said in a statement. "There are simply no more excuses. It's time for everyone to do their part." 

Homelessness has become a "paramount issue in California and a political liability for Newsom and other Democrats as voter frustration has grown," Politico said. Newsom was "among a host of leaders who begged the high court to intervene" earlier this year, after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals initially ruled that it was "unconstitutional to punish people for sleeping in public spaces when they had no other legal place to spend the night," The New York Times said. Homeless people and their advocates have argued that the push to clear the encampments is "cruel and a waste of taxpayer money," which should be put toward "more housing, not crackdowns," The Associated Press said. 

What next?

Newsom's order requires state and local officials to "adopt humane and dignified policies to urgently address encampments on state property," the Governor's office said. They do not need to "ensure there are enough shelter beds for everyone before removing an encampment," Politico said.

"I am running. I am the leader of the Democratic Party. No one is pushing me out." These were the words of President Joe Biden during a recent phone call with his staffers, according to The Associated Press. Biden's strong statement came amid increasing calls for him to step aside as the presumptive Democratic nominee following a poor performance in his debate against Donald Trump.

So while it seems that Biden will indeed be the Democratic Party's nominee this November, what would happen if the president changed his mind? Here are some Democrats who could potentially replace him at the top of the ticket. 

Kamala Harris

The first female vice president seems like an obvious choice to try and become the first female president. A recent CNN/SSRS poll found that Kamala Harris trailed Trump by only two points in a hypothetical matchup, while Biden trailed Trump by six points. 

Despite frequent criticism, Harris is "emerging as an indispensable surrogate and defender, and maybe even successor," said Vox, and has been "able to showcase her value on the campaign trail." However, she would still need to win a majority of delegates, as "party rules give the vice president no major mechanical benefit over other candidates," said NBC News. 

Gavin Newsom

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has long been working to raise his national profile and is frequently cited as a potential Democratic presidential candidate in 2028. He could get his chance earlier, though, if Biden were to decide to drop out. 

The governor is no stranger to domestic and foreign policy experience. Newsom has "popped up in Tel Aviv and Beijing, meeting with world leaders [and] promoting his climate agenda," said The Washington Post, and last year he "toured Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas to push back against what he describes as 'the rollback of progress' on civil, women's and LBGTQ+ rights." 

J.B. Pritzker 

He's not as well known on the national stage as Newsom, but Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker could end up being just as influential in the coming months. Pritzker has been the governor of Illinois for five years and notably helped helm the state's Covid-19 response. 

For now, the billionaire Pritzker is a "surrogate for the Biden campaign, but his name has been mentioned as an emergency replacement" for the president, said Axios. He has gone head-to-head with Trump online in recent months and leads a nonprofit group to fund abortion rights ballot measures.

Gretchen Whitmer

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer likely has the second-largest profile nationally among Democratic governors and is already a co-chair of Biden's campaign. So it's no surprise that her name is being floated to take over the ticket.

Whitmer leads a "critical swing state" and has "championed gun safety legislation, electric car manufacturing and abortion rights," said NPR. Perhaps none of Biden's potential replacements have "been the recipient of more wish-casting among despairing Democrats than the second-term Michigan governor," said Politico, though Whitmer herself, like Newsom, has pushed back against these calls.

Pete Buttigieg

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg is one of the more recognizable Cabinet secretaries and has worked in tandem with Biden throughout his first term. Buttigieg also has campaign experience, having run for president in 2020. 

Buttigieg, a Navy veteran and the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, would shatter a significant barrier as the first openly gay U.S. president. But "despite his credentials, the Data for Progress poll shows Buttigieg trailing Trump if he were to replace Biden on the Democratic ticket," said Newsweek.

Josh Shapiro

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro is another state leader with a growing national profile. He also has experience against MAGA-backed candidates, as Shapiro beat Trump-endorsed conspiracy theorist Doug Mastriano in a landslide to become governor. Shapiro would also break a major barrier as the first Jewish president. 

There is a "case to be made for Josh," Biden fundraiser Alan Kessler said to The Philadelphia Inquirer, because "you don't win in November without winning Pennsylvania." Even so, Shapiro remains "light years away from the top of the 2024 presidential ballot," and his candidacy doesn't "have any basis in reality," said Kessler.

Talk has been swirling since last week's presidential debate that the Democratic Party may seek to replace President Joe Biden on its 2024 presidential ticket, and one name pundits have consistently put forward is California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The 56-year-old has led the Golden State since 2019 and has raised his national profile considerably over the last few years. 

But even if Biden doesn't drop out of this November's race, Newsom is unlikely to disappear from the national stage; the governor has long been groomed as a rising face of the party and could emerge as the frontrunner to be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2028. Where did Newsom get his start, how has he run California and what are his future ambitions?

Newsom's beginnings and governorship

Gavin Newsom was born in San Francisco in 1967. His father was a state appeals court judge, giving Newsom an early interest in politics. He "received a partial baseball scholarship from Santa Clara University, where he graduated in 1989 with a degree in political science," according to Newsom's gubernatorial biography. 

Newsom then made his way up the totem pole in San Francisco politics throughout the 1990s. In 2003, he was elected the city's mayor, serving until 2011. Newsom then immediately jumped into statewide politics, serving as California's lieutenant governor. He was elected the 40th governor of California in 2018, beating his Republican challenger by nearly three million votes, and was reelected in 2022. 

As governor, Newsom has "led a historic transformation of the state's behavioral health care system, awarded over $267 million to 55 cities and counties to combat and increase prosecutions of organized retail crime, launched the Reproductive Freedom Alliance and built new climate partnerships across the globe," according to a press release from the governor's office. But his tenure has also been controversial; Newsom faced a recall vote in 2021 following "mask mandates, shuttered schools, sluggish vaccine rollouts" and increased crime and homelessness in California, said CalMatters. However, the governor was able to fend off this recall attempt by a large margin. 

Newsom's future

For all of the talk of replacing Biden, that doesn't appear to be a likely scenario. The president has said he intends to stay in the race, and Democrats "aren't going to turn our backs because of one performance. What kind of party does that?" Newsom said after Biden's debate. If Biden were to change his mind and drop out, Newsom would need to win enough delegates at the brokered Democratic National Convention this summer.  

But this doesn't mean that Democrats aren't still high on Newsom's prospects in 2028, and the governor has been traversing the U.S. and abroad raising his profile. In 2023, he "toured Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas to push back against what he describes as 'the rollback of progress' on civil, women's and LBGTQ+ rights in red states," said The Washington Post. He also "popped up in Tel Aviv and Beijing, meeting with world leaders [and] promoting his climate agenda."

While "other potential White House aspirants are quietly laying the groundwork for the future, the second-term governor has been more of an attention-seeking missile," said the Post. Newsom has been "darting across the country and the world stage as he courts a broad array of Democratic constituencies who could be helpful in a future presidential run." 

Perhaps most notably, this includes a long-running feud with a formerly shining GOP star: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. The pair have sparred numerous times over each other's running of their states, and in 2023 participated in a feisty debate with each other. That matchup, perhaps a preview of what the California governor would be like during a presidential campaign, "revealed a new side of Newsom — who'd never participated in such a high-profile debate since he governs a deep-blue state," said Politico. It also presented a "kind of fantasy for an alternate world many yearn for — a 2000s-era throwback."

'Wisdom in foreign policy is found in making credible commitments'

Michael Brendan Dougherty at National Review

President Joe Biden promised to support Ukraine's fight against Russian invaders for "as long as it takes," says Michael Brendan Dougherty at National Review. But Germany's Bild magazine reported last week that, as the war dragged on, "Biden was going back on his word," joining Germany to "softly pressure" Ukraine to negotiate with Moscow. Ukraine might have to accept its "continued existence" as a victory, and forget about "retaking the Donbas and Crimea, let alone toppling Putin."

Read more

'Biden has virtually abandoned "Bidenomics"'

Walter Shapiro in The New Republic

President Joe Biden has stopped touting "Bidenomics," says Walter Shapiro in The New Republic. Inspired by the "political success of 'Reaganomics'" in the 1980s, Biden embraced the term in June to shake voters "from their conviction that these are dire economic times." Folks in "Biden-land" hoped reminding people unemployment is low and inflation has been worse would do the trick. It didn't work. You can't convince people "they've never had it so good" when they're hurting.

Read more

'Neither of them won the debate'

Frank Bruni in The New York Times

We were all losers in the red-state, blue-state debate between Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, says Frank Bruni in The New York Times. DeSantis, a Republican, and Newsom, a Democrat, have sparred for months. Thursday's showdown could have been "climactic." Instead, their sniping reflected "just how little quarter each side will give the other" in this hyper-partisan era. There's no longer room for "grace," or even "constructive and civil dialogue." 

Read more

'People hate inflation, just not enough to spend less'

Annie Lowrey at The Atlantic

"Sticker shock is real," says Annie Lowrey in The Atlantic. During the pandemic, supply-chain bottlenecks and stimulus checks sent prices sky-high. More recently, the "strong labor market" has kept costs rising. So, you might think "Americans would have tempered their enthusiasm for shopping of late." But consumer spending is still rising, which only adds to upward price pressure. Americans are angry about inflation, but, in some ways, they "have nobody to blame but themselves."

Read more

California Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) office confirmed late Sunday that he will name Laphonza Butler, a Democratic strategist and former labor leader, to fill the Senate seat left vacant by Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) death at age 90 on Thursday. Butler is currently president of Emily's List, a national organization that works to elect female Democrats who support abortion rights. She was an adviser to Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2020 campaign. 

In naming Butler, Newsom fulfilled a promise to appoint a Black woman to the Senate. He had faced pressure to appoint Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who is running in a competitive three-way race for the same Senate seat; Feinstein intended to retire after her term ended in 2024. But choosing Lee would have given her an advantage over Rep. Adam Schiff and Rep. Katie Porter, and Newsom said he wanted to stay neutral in that primary. 

Butler will serve through the end of 2024, and if "she wants to seek a full term in 2024, then she is free to do so," Newsom spokesperson Anthony York said Sunday. "There is absolutely no litmus test, no promise." The filing deadline is Dec. 8. Butler could be sworn in as soon as Tuesday evening, The Associated Press reported, returning the Democrats to their 51-49 advantage in the Senate. 

This is Newsom's second Senate appointment after elevating Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) in 2020 to fill the vacancy left when Harris became vice president. Butler will be the only Black woman in the Senate and the first openly LGBTQ lawmaker to represent California in the upper chamber. She is currently a resident of Maryland, though she used to live in California and can change her residency back again before being sworn in, the Los Angeles Times reported.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) are not on the same page for their proposed debate.

Newsom and DeSantis are already polar opposites when it comes to major issues like gun reform, abortion rights, immigration, and education, and have been trading barbs for months. In June, Fox News host Sean Hannity asked Newsom if he would ever debate DeSantis, who is also a Republican candidate for president. Newsom said yes, and sent proposed terms to Hannity in late July, writing that the event "will be marketed as a Red vs. Blue debate that is focused on the impact of representation at the state level."

Hannity would be the moderator, Newsom said, and the two governors would be the only speakers. The 90-minute debate would air live on Fox News, with Newsom and DeSantis each having four minutes to deliver an opening statement. They would not be allowed to come in with any notes or documents, and there would not be an audience in the room with them. Newsom suggested holding the event in Nevada, Georgia or North Carolina and said he is available on Nov. 8 or Nov. 10.

DeSantis told Hannity last Wednesday that he was open to debating Newsom, adding, "This is a debate for the future of our country." He submitted his proposal to the host on Friday, and said he wants the event to take place in front of a live audience split evenly between both sides. DeSantis does not want any opening remarks, and instead proposed the governors should put together two-minute videos, approved by Fox News, to play at the start of the event.

DeSantis' counterproposal is "a joke," Nathan Click, a spokesman for Newsom, said in a statement, and it is "littered with crutches to hide his insecurity and ineptitude — swapping opening statements with a hype video, cutting down the time he needs to be on stage, adding cheat notes and a cheering section." DeSantis, he continued, "should be able to stand on his own two feet. It's no wonder Trump is kicking his ass."

Eric Ting, politics editor at SFGate, wrote that DeSantis had been smart to avoid debating Newsom, as "it would be bizarre for someone polling at second place in a presidential primary to debate against someone on the sidelines." When DeSantis finally accepted the invitation, it was because his presidential campaign is "bleeding staff, money and support in the polls," Ting added. "He needs something, anything, to give his campaign life. Debating Newsom looks like an act of desperation because it is one."

Florida claimed responsibility Tuesday for two charter flights that carried 36 migrants from Texas to a Catholic church in Sacramento, California, on Friday and Monday. Alecia Collins, a spokeswoman for Florida's Division of Emergency Management, insisted the flights were "voluntary," but California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and Attorney General Rob Bonta said some of the migrants were misled and flown to California under false pretenses. They said prosecutors are considering criminal charges.

The flights from Texas and New Mexico were financed through a $12 million migrant relocation fund Florida's Republican-dominated Legislature approved for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R). DeSantis took credit for earlier charter flights of 49 migrants from San Antonio to Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, but he has not yet commented on the Sacramento flights.

The sheriff of Bexar County, which includes San Antonio, said Monday that his office had completed its investigation of the Martha's Vineyard flight and filed unlawful restraint charges against unidentified officials. In cases involving children, those would be felony charges. Bexar County District Attorney Joe Gonzales said Tuesday that determining whether there is enough evidence to pursue the charges in court could be a "lengthy and labor-intensive" process but his office "will be thorough" and "follow the law."

Newsom called DeSantis a "small, pathetic man" in a tweet on Monday and suggested the Sacramento flights may merit "kidnapping charges." When he met with some of the migrants on Saturday, they "independently told me similar stories about how they were misled and lied to," Newsom told Politico on Tuesday. "We are very serious about pursuing action, if the facts dictate it. And Mr. DeSantis should know that."

Holding anyone criminally or civilly responsible for Florida's migrant flights may prove challenging and will rest on proving the migrants were misled and did not give informed consent when boarding the planes, legal experts told The New York Times.

Collins said the migrants gave "verbal and written consent" and "indicated they wanted to go to California." She also complained that the DeSantis administration is being held to a different standard than state and local leaders who bussed migrants from their cities and states elsewhere in the country, a trick pioneered by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R). Bonta told The Washington Post on Tuesday that the migrants were "dumped and deserted" in Sacramento as "political pawns," with false promises of employment and no understanding they were heading to California. He called Collins' statement "propaganda," adding, "You cannot have consent to travel if it's based on deception."

Newsom pointed out that DeSantis wasn't even flying migrants from his own non-border state. "How utterly pathetic it is that a governor from an East Coast state had to hire, with tax dollars, staff and a private contractor to find people in another state to travel them to two states in order to get attention," he told Politico. "How pathetic is that? And potentially illegal as well."

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) tweeted Monday that his state will not be doing business with Walgreens after the company announced it would not distribute abortion pills in some GOP-led states where abortion is still legal, Reuters reports. The drugstore's announcement came after Republican attorneys general warned Walgreens "of risking breaking the law if it distributed the pills," Reuters summarizes.

Newsom wrote that California would not work with Walgreens or "any company that cowers to the extremists and puts women's lives at risk." A spokesperson for Newsom told Reuters that "all relationships" between the company and California are under review, though they declined to explain how the pair's business relationship might change.

Last month Walgreens responded to the legal threats from Republican state leaders by committing to not selling the pills in 20 states, including Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, and Montana, where abortion medications are legal, per sexual rights research group The Guttmacher Institute.

That said, an early March statement from Walgreens is "at odds" with that commitment, The Washington Post writes. In the statement, the company says that it "plans to dispense Mifepristone in any jurisdiction where it is legally permissible to do so."

"Once we are certified by the FDA, we will dispense this medication consistent with federal and state laws," the statement continues.

In January, the Food and Drug Administration changed regulations to allow retail pharmacies to dispense Mifepristone, an abortion pill, as long as it was prescribed by a certified health care provider prescribed it and sold by a certified pharmacy. But when "leading chains like Walgreens, CVS, and Rite Aid announced they would apply for certification to sell mifepristone, the pushback was swift," says the Post. In addition to the warning letters from GOP leaders, anti-abortion protestors also crashed a Walgreens shareholder meeting.

The company is still seeking certification and therefore does not carry Mifepristone at this time.

Gavin Newsom, the Democratic governor of California, will not challenge President Biden for the White House in 2024, Politico reported.

Newsom, a rising star within the Democratic Party, has won three elections in the past five years in the Golden State, including surviving a notable recall effort. While he is seen by some as a potential replacement for the 80-year-old Biden, Newsom reportedly told Politico on the night of the midterm elections that he would not seek to cause any rifts within the party.

"I've told everyone in the White House, from the chief of staff to the first lady," Newsom said. "I'm all in, count me in," he added in regard to Biden's re-election efforts. This is a message that has made its way to the president himself, as Newsom personally told Biden, "Put me in coach ... we have your back," Politico reported.

While there is precedence for presidents being challenged in the primaries by members of their own party, it appears that Newsom has decided against this. While he has been critical of the Democrats' messaging during the Biden administration, Newsom said that the president "Not only beat Trump once, I think he can beat him again.

"I hope he runs, I'll enthusiastically support him," Newsom told Politico.

While Biden has not officially announced his re-election bid yet, he has said that he intends to run for the job again. If his campaign is eventually confirmed, then it appears Biden already has one ardent supporter behind him.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) was re-elected on Nov. 8, more than a year after he easily fended off a recall effort. Although he's said he has "subzero interest" in being president, there are signs that point to him wanting to increase his national name recognition, possibly before announcing a run for the White House. Here's everything you need to know:

The latest:

Newsom continues to support a potential re-election bid from President Biden and says he still has no desire to challenge him in the 2024 Democratic primary.

Speaking with Politico in November, Newsom said he's made those intentions clear to Team Biden. "I've told everyone in the White House, from the chief of staff to the first lady," Newsom said on election night. In terms of Biden's possible re-election, Newsom reportedly said, "I'm all in, count me in." The president has not officially announced any 2024 plans but has stated that he intends to run.

Newsom said the speculation around him is "frustrating because I have so much reverence and respect for not only the president but the vice president is an old friend."

How long has Gavin Newsom been governor of California?

The 55-year-old was first elected in November 2018 after serving on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, as mayor of San Francisco, and as California lieutenant governor. Before going into politics, Newsom was part of a group of investors that launched a company called PlumpJack Associates, which ultimately opened a winery, several restaurants, hotels, and retail stores.

Why did he face a recall?

Newsom was sworn into office in January 2019, and by February 2020, a recall petition was introduced, with the organizers accusing Newsom of failing to enforce immigration laws, increasing taxes, and lowering the quality of life for California residents. The effort stalled, only picking up steam in 2021 when critics accused him of being too strict with COVID-19 lockdown regulations.

Enough signatures were collected — 1,495,709 — to set a recall election. On Sept. 14, 2021, voters overwhelmingly rejected the recall, with 61.9 percent of ballots in favor of keeping Newsom in office through the end of his term and 38.1 percent of ballots in favor of ousting him.

What makes people think Newsom is considering running for president in 2024?

As the governor of California, which Bloomberg said is poised to overtake Germany as the world's fourth-largest economy, Newsom has a more recognizable name than many other Democratic governors. Still, to be president, he'll need an even bigger profile, especially on the East Coast, with its high concentration of voters.

During the midterms, he had taken out television and newspaper ads in Florida and Texas, calling out Republican lawmakers like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) for passing strict abortion, voting, and educational laws. Los Angeles Times opinion columnist Anita Chabria thinks Newsom is "standing up for the values of an America under attack," and he has positioned himself "not just as a viable candidate but as a hero in a time of need, when our democracy is in peril from a bunch of fascist morons in red baseball caps who are apparently willing to do a nouveau Nazi salute with no regrets ... His chances, I think, depend on how much that fascism advances or dissipates before 2024."

Not everyone who is convinced Newsom is running for president thinks it's going to happen in 2024 — if President Biden decides to run for a second term, they believe Newsom won't put up a challenge, and it's unlikely he'll go up against Vice President Kamala Harris either. But if there is an open Democratic primary in 2028, the timing would work perfectly for Newsom, veteran Republican political consultant Sean Walsh told Cal Matters. By that point, Newsom would be finishing up his second term and able to immediately launch a campaign. "The calendar favors you," Walsh said. "So be a good guy, don't get arrogant. As long as you are the good soldier for the party, let people speculate about what you want. Let all the talk flourish."

What makes people think Newsom isn't considering running for president?

Some believe Newsom bought ads in Florida and Texas not to market himself, but because he thinks it's important to counter Republicans, while also boosting both California and Democrats. "I think Gov. Newsom is doing what he loves to do, which is be part of the national conversation," Jessica Levinson, a political analyst and professor at Loyola Law, told CBS News in July. "He also loves to talk about how California is different from other states. We've heard this from him before: 'California is a place where your rights are protected.'" Those ads also play well in his home state, where they stir up Newsom's Democratic base and get ample coverage on local news.

What else has Newsom said in the past about running for president?

In the spring, Newsom said he had "subzero interest" in running for president, and he elaborated on this during an interview in September with Politico's David Siders, who asked him to explain why. "Why?" Newsom responded. "Out of reverence for the incumbent president of the United States, Joe Biden. Out of respect for one of my oldest friends, former Californian and colleague, Kamala Harris. You just begin with those two, and you move on to, I'm focused on other things." Newsom also discussed the ads running in other states, saying that at the time of filming the messages, his feeling was, "You know what? Let's take it to these guys."

Before the November election, Newsom and his Republican opponent, California state Sen. Brian Dahle, held their sole debate in October. Dahle declared it's "obvious" that Newsom is running for president, adding, "he's spending money in other states. He's not focused on California, and Californians are suffering." Newsom responded that if was re-elected, he would serve out the full four-year term.

Just days before the election, Newsom told CBS News' Major Garrett "it's not my ambition" to run for president. "It's not the direction that I'm leaning into," he continued. "It's not the moment." He also told Garrett he wants Biden to run for re-election in 2024. "I don't think there's been two years of more effective policy-making of a modern American president," Newsom said. He praised Biden for doing this "under the circumstance, with all the headwinds, the obfuscation, and opposition. I think it's been remarkable."

Could Newsom be planning a run for a different office?

It's possible. Sonja Diaz, director of the Latino Policy and Politics Institute at the University of California Los Angeles, told The Guardian all signs point to Newsom "setting a course for higher office, after his tenure as governor." California's senior senator, Democrat Dianne Feinstein, is now 89 years old, and not expected to run for re-election in 2024. It's possible Newsom could attempt to fill that vacated seat, or seek a high-ranking position in a Democratic administration.

"You don't build a brand overnight," Bob Shrum, director of the University of Southern California's Dornsife Center for the Political Future, told Cal Matters. "You build it over time. You can't time any of this perfectly, because you can't know what the future is going to bring. So when you have an opportunity to assert a degree of national leadership, then you assert it."

Update Nov. 30: This article has been updated to reflect Newsom's discussion with Politico.

Well, this we've gotta see.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Friday challenged Ron DeSantis (R) to a televised debate, after having decried the Florida governor and his conservative counterpart —Texas' Greg Abbott — for relocating vulnerable migrants in protest of President Biden's border policies,

"Hey [DeSantis], clearly you're struggling, distracted, and busy playing politics with people's lives," Newsom tweeted Friday. "Since you have only one overriding need — attention — let's take this up & debate. I'll bring my hair gel. You bring your hairspray. Name the time before Election Day."

On Thursday, the California governor called on the Department of Justice directly to investigate whether Abbott, who that same day bused some 100 migrants to Vice President Kamala Harris' residence in Washington, D.C., and DeSantis, who on Wednesday flew roughly 50 migrants to Martha's Vineyard, had violated federal law. Those flown to Martha's Vineyard specifically also claim to have been misled about their destination, per The New York Times.

"Like millions of Americans, I have been horrified at the images of migrants being shipped on buses and planes across to the country to be used as political props," Newsom wrote in Sept. 15 letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland. "I strongly urge the U.S. Department of Justice to open an investigation into possible criminal or civil violations of federal law based on this alleged fraudulent scheme."

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday signed Senate Bill 1327, a gun control law modeled on the Texas abortion ban known as SB 8, CNN reported. Both pieces of legislation rely on private citizens, not police, to enforce the law.

Specifically, SB 1327 empowers Californians to bring civil action — for a minimum of $10,000 per gun — against licensed dealers who sell firearms to people under 21. It also allows for lawsuits against anyone who manufactures, distributes, transports, or imports assault weapons or ghost guns in California.

Newsom's comments on the bill suggest that it's intended less as a serious piece of legislation than as an way of proving a point. "We believe this will be litigated in the Supreme Court and we believe the Supreme Court will be challenged. Because if there's any principle left whatsoever — and that's an open-ended question with this Supreme Court — there is no way they can deny us the right to move in this direction," Newsom said after signing the bill.

The California gun law contains a provision that would make it "inoperative upon invalidation" of the Texas abortion law.

The U.S. Supreme Court and the Texas Supreme Court have both rejected challenges to SB 8, but the fall of Roe v. Wade (1973) may have rendered the point moot. Texas is now able to enforce its pre-Roe abortion law, which bans the procedure at all stages unless the life of the mother is at risk.

The 2024 presidential election is still more than two years away, but it's not a sure thing that we'll see a rematch of Joe Biden versus Donald Trump. Biden leads a Democratic Party disappointed in his failure to deliver a forceful response to the Supreme Court's ruling overturning abortion rights, and Trump is vulnerable to Republican conservatives who love his "America first" agenda but would like to move on without all of the former president's scandalous baggage.

Who might step forward to replace them on the ballots? Governors, of course. For a long stretch of the late 20th century, experience as the chief executive of a state was the surest path to the White House: Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush all served as governors. Can the nation's statehouses provide a platform for America's next president? Here are four possibilities.

The Fox News favorite: Ron DeSantis

The Florida Republican is clearly positioning himself to lead the GOP if Trump decides not to run, and maybe even if he does. "DeSantis is building a campaign to take on Trump. And he can win," Jonathan Chait writes at New York, pointing to a recent New Hampshire poll that has DeSantis winning a primary battle in that state by a narrow two-point margin. The most striking aspect of that poll is that DeSantis leads Trump by double-digit large margins among Fox News viewers and voters who listen to conservative talk radio. That's because the conservative media establishment — not just Fox, but outlets like National Review and American Greatness — have pushed DeSantis to the front of the pack by featuring him prominently in their coverage. Chait's conclusion: "Republicans who consume conservative media are getting the message."

DeSantis has positioned himself at the head of the pack by making Florida a laboratory for right-wing governance: He's signed laws forbidding school districts from requiring masks to prevent the spread of COVID, banning discussion of sexuality in classrooms and stripping Disney of its tax advantages for opposing the classroom law. "DeSantis has remade the political landscape in Florida," Dexter Filkins wrote in a recent New Yorker profile. "It seems conceivable that he could attempt something similar on a national level."

The angry Democrat: Gavin Newsom

California's governor easily survived a recall election last year and, in the wake of the Supreme Court's abortion ruling, has offered himself as the man to lead the Democratic Party into battle. "Newsom is now planning to do what he demanded of fellow Democrats: directly engage with Republicans in those culture wars," Christopher Cadelago and David Siders write for Politico. While his prominence in the latest hot-button debates has prompted presidential speculation, observers say he wouldn't challenge Biden in a primary, and would be hesitant to take on Vice President Kamala Harris — a California ally — if she decided to run. But that comes with a caveat: "If her candidacy appeared weak, it would not be unthinkable" for Newsom to run.

Despite his protestations, Newsom just ran an ad on Fox News criticizing DeSantis. That's not the kind of thing a person who isn't running for president does. But there are questions about what kind of appeal a deep-blue Californian would have in red and purple states. "All three of the country's Californian presidents — Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan — were Republicans," Blake Hounshell points out in The New York Times. "No Democrat from California has ever been elected to the Oval Office."

The fresh face: Glenn Youngkin

Wait. Wasn't Virginia's Republican governor elected just last year? Yes, that's true, but it's also true that Virginia term-limits its governors to a single term — which means Youngkin is already thinking about his next job. Glenn Youngkin "is nowhere close to announcing his candidacy. He's just in the megadonor meeting stage, trying to better read the room," Dan Primack writes for Axios. "But his underdog victory in Virginia was emboldening, and there's a pragmatic case for seeking higher office before establishing too much of a record in lower office (see Obama, Barack)."

Youngkin's appeal might be his ability to reach beyond the GOP's base. During his gubernatorial run, "Youngkin managed to excite the deep-red base without alienating moderate suburbanites," Laura Vozzella and Gregory S. Schneider write for The Washington Post. His ability to appeal to Trump voters without resorting to Trumpist bombast might be a winner on the national level, too: "Republicans pointed to his win as a template for a way forward from the Trump presidency." But he'll soon find out if GOP donors decide to put their money behind that gamble.

The billionaire: J.B. Pritzker

The Democratic governor of Illinois has attracted attention for a couple of reasons. First, he made a trip to New Hampshire in June to give a speech to Dems in that state — just days before the gubernatorial primary election in his own state. Second, he made headlines around the same time for suggesting that Biden might face a primary challenge in 2024. "That's not something I'm encouraging, but it's certainly possible," he told NBC News. "We've seen it in the past." Democrats tout his policy accomplishments as governor, Tina Sfondeles reports for the Chicago Sun-Times, including "legalizing cannabis, raising the minimum wage, expanding voting rights, reforming criminal justice and enshrining reproductive rights."

A third factor in the presidential speculation: Pritzker has deep pockets — Forbes estimates his net worth at $3.6 billion, money that comes from his former career running a private equity firm, as well as his status as an heir to the Hyatt Hotel fortune. He's used that money freely in his gubernatorial campaigns. "Which means that if Pritzker wants to run against Biden in 2024," Chris Cillizza writes for CNN, "he won't lose for a lack of funds."

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) is running an ad in Florida on July 4 attacking the Sunshine State's Republican leaders, saying that this Independence Day, "Freedom is under attack."

Republican lawmakers in Florida are "banning books, making it harder to vote, restricting speech in classrooms, even criminalizing women and doctors," Newsom, who is up for reelection, said. "I urge all of you living in Florida to join the fight or join us in California where we still believe in freedom — freedom of speech, freedom to choose, freedom from hate, and the freedom to love. Don't let them take your freedom."

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) declined to comment, but his campaign spokesperson, Dave Abrams, said Newsom is wasting his money on a gimmick, calling the ad a "desperate attempt to win back the California refugees who fled the hellhole he created in his state to come to Florida." It's been speculated that both Newsom and DeSantis plan on running for president, possibly as early as 2024.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has been accused of meddling in the discrimination case against video game giant ​​Activision Blizzard.

Melanie Proctor, a lawyer with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, leveled the claim as she resigned in protest of Newsom allegedly firing her boss, Bloomberg reports.

According to the report, Proctor in an email to staff alleged Newsom's office "began to interfere" with the agency's lawsuit against ​​Activision Blizzard, demanding "advance notice of litigation strategy and of next steps in the litigation." She also alleges that her boss, Chief Counsel Janette Wipper, was "abruptly terminated" for trying to "protect" the agency's independence. "As we continued to win in state court, this interference increased, mimicking the interests of Activision's counsel," Proctor, who served as assistant chief counsel, claimed.

The Department of Fair Employment and Housing sued ​​Activision Blizzard, publisher of games like World of Warcraft, last year, alleging the company created a "breeding ground for harassment and discrimination." The lawsuit said that "female employees almost universally confirmed that working for Defendants was akin to working in a frat house, which invariably involved male employees drinking and subjecting female employees to sexual harassment with no repercussion."

In January, Microsoft announced it would buy ​​Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion, with CEO Bobby Kotick, who was accused of knowing about sexual misconduct allegations at the company for years, remaining in his role. The lawsuit against Activision Blizzard remains ongoing. The company recently settled a separate sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for $18 million.

A spokesperson for Proctor told Bloomberg she is "evaluating all avenues of legal recourse including a claim under the California Whistleblower Protection Act."

With gas prices in California surging, several Democratic lawmakers are hoping that a $400 rebate sent to all taxpayers in the state will help with sticker shock at the pump.

In his State of the State address last week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said there would soon be relief for those who have been financially hit by high gas prices. Food and housing costs are also on the rise, and Republican lawmakers have proposed temporarily suspending the state's 51-cents-a-gallon gas tax. Instead, a group of 10 Democratic and independent assemblymembers have proposed $400 rebates.

In a letter obtained by the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday, the lawmakers shared an outline of their proposal with Newsom, saying it should be considered during state budget negotiations later this spring. The proposed rebate would "cover the current 51-cents-per-gallon gas tax for one full year, 52 trips to the pump for most vehicles," the lawmakers said. They argued a rebate is "a better approach than suspending the gas tax — which would severely impact funding for important transportation projects and offers no guarantee that oil companies would pass on the savings to consumers."

Republican leaders have said they support the proposal, but still want to see the gas tax suspended, the Times reports.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) visited a stretch of Union Pacific railroad tracks in Los Angeles on Thursday and helped clean up the littered packaging from thousands of goods stolen from shipping containers. Video of the debris-strewn tracks gained national attention last week, prompting outrage and confusion over how such rampant pillaging could happen in the heart of one of America's largest cities.

"The images looked like a Third World country," Newsom told reporters. "What you saw here in the last week is just not acceptable. So, I took off the suit and tie and said I'm coming because I couldn't take it. I can't turn on the news anymore. What the hell is going on?"

What's going on, experts tell the Los Angeles Times, is that organized crime rings and petty bandits have found a way to exploit a weak link in the supply chain. Trains loaded with goods ordered online often have to wait to enter congested freight yards, and "a train at rest is a train at risk," said Keith Lewis at cargo theft tracker CargoNet.

Union Pacific, in charge of security along its tracks, has also slashed its private police force, former employees and police tell the Times. "Union Pacific from Yuma, Arizona, to L.A. has six people patrolling," said Los Angeles Police Capt. German Hurtado, whose precinct inclues the theft-plagued tracks. "It is like digging sand at the beach."

Union Pacific, a publicly traded company based in Omaha, "is worth $155 billion and reported record profits on Thursday," the Times notes. "The other major railroad operator, BNSF, said it has not seen the same level of theft around its facilities."

Union Pacific would not say how many agents it has, but it did say thefts have jumped 160 percent since December 2020. Various law enforcement agencies arrested 122 people along Union Pacific tracks from February to December 2021, the Times reports, citing LAPD data. Newsom put the number of arrests at 280 and said the thieves and people who fence the stolen goods "need to be held to account."

Robert Vega, who lives near the tracks, told the Times he noticed a sharp spike in thefts about seven months ago, as the police presence waned. On any Friday night, "you could see sparks flying" as thieves cut the locks, he said. "I can come out at night and there are trucks loading up. It's insane."

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Thursday denied parole for Sirhan Sirhan, the 77-year-old man convicted in 1969 of murdering Robert F. Kennedy.

"Mr. Sirhan's assassination of Sen. Kennedy is among the most notorious crimes in American history," Newsom said in a statement. "After decades in prison, he has failed to address the deficiencies that led him to assassinate Sen. Kennedy. Mr. Sirhan lacks the insight that would prevent him from making the same type of dangerous decisions he made in the past."

In an opinion piece published Thursday afternoon in the Los Angeles Times, Newsom further explained that he carefully reviewed the case and examined historical records, and determined that Sirhan has "not developed the accountability and insight required to support his safe release into the community." Sirhan is "a potent symbol of political violence," Newsom wrote, and Kennedy's assassination "not only changed the course of this nation and robbed the world of a promising young leader, it also left his 11 children without a father and his wife without a husband. Kennedy's family bears his loss every day."

Kennedy was shot and killed in June 1968 at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, shortly after he won California's Democratic presidential primary. Sirhan, a Palestinian immigrant, claimed that he didn't remember opening fire. He was originally sentenced to death, but this was commuted to life in prison when California briefly outlawed capital punishment in 1972.

A two-person state parole panel recommended in August that Sirhan receive parole. While two of Kennedy's children said they supported his release, six others stated that they were upset by the recommendation.

It wasn't hard to see this coming: California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday threatened to use Texas' unusual abortion law as a model for new gun restrictions in his own state.

"SCOTUS is letting private citizens in Texas sue to stop abortion?! If that's the precedent then we'll let Californians sue those who put ghost guns and assault weapons on our streets," Newsom, a Democrat, tweeted after the Supreme Court's decision on Friday to let the law remain in effect while abortion providers bring court challenges. "If TX can ban abortion and endanger lives, CA can ban deadly weapons of war and save lives."

Newsom's anger should be understandable, even if you're against abortion. The Texas law's enforcement mechanism — which encourages random private citizens to sue abortion providers in civil courts — is novel, alarming, and unjust. If the law is ultimately allowed to stand, it's likely that blue states will continue to be tempted to match red states with similar laws aimed at lefty hobbyhorses.

That would be disastrous, for several reasons.

Ideally, civil courts exist to fairly arbitrate and resolve disputes between citizens — usually a case in which one or both litigants has suffered some kind of injury or loss. The Texas law does something different: It uses those courts to create a new class of conflict, one in which a plaintiff is allowed to sue even if they have no relationship whatsoever to the persons either providing or receiving care. (Indeed, the first Texas lawsuit was brought by a former lawyer from Arkansas, more or less because he could.)

The law invites Americans to get up in each other's business. So, presumably, would Newsom's anti-gun law, as well as any other similar laws that both Republican- and Democratic-led states might pass. That's probably unwise at any point in history. At this particular moment, with partisans on both sides so bitterly pitted against each other and with democracy itself seemingly in the balance, such laws would throw kindling on the fire. Instead of trying to resolve our political differences through normal processes and debate — a frustrating slog that often can produce results we hate — Americans would be unleashed to simply sue each other over their political differences, to try to dominate the disagreeable and deplorable into bankruptcy and ruin. Who wants to live in a country like that?

But the proliferation of Texas-style laws wouldn't just pit citizen against citizen: They would probably also serve as a crippling blow to the already shaky legitimacy of the courts. That legitimacy relies, in part, on the courts being seen as fair and reasonably neutral. It's why judges sometimes recuse themselves in cases where they're seen to have a conflict of interest, and why Supreme Court justices have argued so vociferously and unconvincingly in recent months that their job isn't political. (It is, and few people believe otherwise, but for now the fiction must be preserved.)

The Texas law mocks the ideal of impartiality by putting a thumb on the scale for pro-life litigants — among other provisions, it allows plaintiffs to recover attorney's fees if they win their lawsuits, but not the abortion providers who would be defending those suits. "These provisions are considerable departures from the norm in Texas courts and in most courts across the Nation," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent from the court's Friday ruling. If such procedural trickery leads Americans to believe they can't get a fair deal in the courts, the judicial system will take a nasty hit — and it will be entirely deserved.

Even if the courts somehow manage to survive such a process, it's not clear the country could. America has 50 states, each with a different set of laws that reflect the differing values, priorities, and powers of their voters and leaders: Just ask, say, any Philadelphian who has crossed the Delaware River to New Jersey to avoid dealing with Pennsylvania's weird liquor laws. Those differences can be harmless, if inconvenient. They're mostly accommodated. As Newsom's rhetoric suggests, Texas-style laws could well harden the political divisions between red states and blue states, with radical differences in legal regimes and understandings of civil rights feeding the anger between the two. We've seen how that can work out.

The Texas abortion law is terrible all on its own. Now imagine that kind of law, about all kinds of issues, being passed in states across the country.

I continue to suspect and hope that the law's provisions are so outrageous — for reasons that have nothing to do with abortion — that even a Supreme Court composed mostly of pro-life conservatives will strike it down. The future of abortion rights won't be resolved in Texas. And even if they agree with the ends, justices must understand that the means are too destructive. That would still be the case in the service of an ostensibly good cause like reducing gun violence.

Despite the anger that Newsom and so many pro-choice people feel right now, it's not a model that Democrats should want to replicate — especially as a form of revenge.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) responded Saturday to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to strike down a controversial Texas abortion law by announcing plans to adopt that law's legal framework to gun control, Reuters reports.

In an 8-1 decision, the court left Texas' law in place but allowed challenges from the state's abortion providers to proceed.

"I am outraged by yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing Texas' ban on most abortion services to remain in place, and largely endorsing Texas' scheme to insulate its law from the fundamental protections of Roe v. Wade," Newsom said in a statement.

The Texas law allows private citizens to sue abortion providers in civil court but provides no enforcement role for the state's criminal justice system. According to The Wall Street Journal, this unusual piece of legislation was designed specifically to "insulate" it from "federal court review by assigning enforcement power to private litigants."

Newsom's proposal would allow private citizens to sue manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of assault weapons and ghost gun kits.

Earlier this month, Rick Henderson wrote a piece for The Week warning of the potential dangers of "hacking" the Constitution in this way. He argued that the Texas law "could be replicated to directly attack any federal constitutional right, including many less controversial than abortion."

Even after he cruised to victory in California's recall election, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has suggested he's not thinking about a White House bid, though as Los Angeles Times columnist Mark Barabak points out, he hasn't explicitly said it'll never happen.

Still, Barabak argues there's one reason why you should probably take Newsom, whom he described as a "hot commodity" in the wake of the recall rout, at his word — for now, at least. That would be Vice President Kamala Harris, a fellow Californian who has come up through the political ranks alongside Newsom. Barabak paints them as occasional rivals who have also helped each other out when needed, and noted that Harris is considered the natural successor to President Biden, perhaps as soon as 2024 if the commander-in-chief doesn't seek a second term.

"As big as California is, there's not room enough for two top-tier White House hopefuls — especially when one is already the proverbial heart tick away from the presidency," Barabak writes.

So for now, Barabak believes Newsom is "checkmated" by Harris, but he notes that "time is on his side" considering he'll be younger than Biden is now if he does take a shot at the Oval Office any time up to 2044. Read Barabak's full argument at the Los Angeles Times.

A month ago, Democrats were in catastrophizing mode. Early polls showed the recall election of Gov. Gavin Newsom as a coin flip, with the Democrat most likely to be replaced by right-wing radio host Larry Elder. If that were to happen, it no doubt would cause the Gnostic demiurge to strike down Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Elder would replace her with the Hamburglar, Democrats would lose their Senate majority, we'd breach the debt ceiling, and the Earth's crust would crack open and swallow the country.

Instead, as my colleague David Faris writes, Republicans got rinsed. Votes are still being counted, but Newsom won by something like 28 percentage points. Now Democrats have gotten a shot of confidence and are looking to apply the California victory formula to the rest of the country — and it just might work.

The remarkable thing about the recall is that Republicans very possibly could have won it if they had behaved strategically. As David Dayen writes at The American Prospect, the recall process is an undemocratic nightmare — in one election, voters simultaneously choose whether or not to recall and then who will be their replacement. If a majority vote yes to recall, then whoever gets the most votes as replacement wins no matter how many candidates there are. In theory, Newsom could have been turfed out with 49.99 percent of the vote and replaced with someone who got 5 percent. Even many Californians don't understand how it works, or can't believe that anyone could possibly design such a moronic system.

That gave Republicans an advantage. Democrats won in 2020, and victorious parties tend to be less energized than ones out of power. If the GOP could leverage that apathy and ignorance (helped along by Newsom's disastrous decision to flout his own pandemic rules), and get behind some moderate — either a bland ordinary politician, or a popular celebrity, which worked in 2003 — they just might have been able to sneak into office.

Instead California conservatives got behind a loud, extremist idiot with no political experience: talk radio host Larry Elder. As Faris notes, this was exactly what Democrats needed to light a fire under their base. Elder not only had a mile-long history of saying incredibly inflammatory things (comments that were anti-abortion rights, denied climate science, were virulently sexist, and on and on) he also directly campaigned against popular pandemic control measures Newsom had implemented.

In terms of political plausibility, this was roughly akin to nominating Revolutionary Communist Party leader Bob Avakian in a race for governor of Mississippi. All Democrats had to do was say, accurately, that Elder would fling California into the same virus pit that Texas and Florida have been stuck in thanks to their deranged right-wing governors, and the recall was in the bag.

Now, as Greg Sargent writes at The Washington Post, Democrats are eyeing this victory as a way to keep their voters mobilized in upcoming elections in Virginia. A solid majority of the country is sick and tired of this pandemic, and increasingly willing to countenance strict measures to increase vaccine uptake and join a quickly-growing list of European countries that have basically defeated the virus. Sure enough, Republicans are exposing themselves to the same vulnerability in Virginia as they did in California. "Democrat Terry McAuliffe is highlighting his support for vaccine and mask mandates and excoriating Republican Glenn Youngkin's opposition to them, and casting this as a hangover of Trump's deranged approach to COVID," writes Sargent.

All this proves that Trumpism still rules the Republican base. Even in an overwhelmingly liberal state like California, conservatives insisted on a violently right-wing choice for governor. And in most other conservative states, Republicans' oppositional defiant disorder has made them turn angrily against President Biden's efforts to fight the pandemic, particularly the recent mandate for companies with more than 100 employees to require vaccination or weekly coronavirus testing. Dozens of lawsuits are being prepared right now to try to get the reactionary Supreme Court majority to invent some pretext to overturn the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which undoubtedly authorizes Biden's rule, to make the pandemic worse. All that is tremendously unpopular — it turns out being effectively pro-virus during the worst pandemic in a century is not a winning message!

It looks like Newsom will win by something close to the same margin he won in the Democratic wave year of 2018, when Trump inspired furious mobilization from liberals and a sweeping Democratic victory across the country. Republicans' total inability to behave responsibly even when their own voters' lives — and those of their beloved regional radio hosts — are at stake might just be enough for a repeat performance.