SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
gavin newsom
The Actual Gavin Newsom Is Much Worse Than You Think
If you want a more progressive Democratic Party, the California governor ain't it.
Feb 05, 2026
California Governor Gavin Newsom has made headlines this winter by vowing to defeat a proposal for a one-time 5 percent tax on billionaires in the state. Many national polls now rank him as the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, but aligning with the ultra-wealthy is not auspicious for wooing the party’s voters. Last year, Reuters/Ipsos pollsters reported that a whopping 86 percent of Democrats said “changing the federal tax code so wealthy Americans and large corporations pay more in taxes should be a priority.”
Newsom has drawn widespread praise for waging an aggressive war of words against President Trump. But few people outside of California know much about the governor’s actual record. Many Democratic voters will be turned off to learn that his fervent opposition to a billionaire tax is part of an overall political approach that has trended more and more corporate-friendly.
A year ago, Newsom sent about 100 leaders of California-based companies a prepaid cell phone “programmed with Newsom’s digits and accompanied by notes from the governor himself,” Politico reported. One note to the CEO of a big tech corporation said, “If you ever need anything, I’m a phone call away.” While pandering to business elites, Newsom has slashed budgets to assist the poor and near-poor with healthcare, housing and food—in a state where 7 million live under the official poverty line and child poverty rates are the highest in the nation.
The latest Newsom budget, released last month, continues his trajectory away from social compassion. “The governor’s 2026-27 spending plan balances the budget by dodging the harsh realities of the Republican megabill, H.R. 1, and maintains state cuts to vital public supports, like Medi-Cal, enacted as part of the current-year budget,” the California Budget & Policy Center pointed out. “Governor Newsom’s reluctance to propose meaningful revenue solutions to help blunt the harm of federal cuts undermines his posture to counter the Trump administration.” The statement said that the proposed budget “will leave many Californians without food assistance and healthcare coverage.”
So far, key facts about Newsom’s policy priorities have scarcely gone beyond California’s borders. “National media have focused on Newsom as a personality and potential White House candidate and have almost completely ignored what he has and has not done as a governor,” said columnist Dan Walters, whose five decades covering California politics included 33 years at The Sacramento Bee. “It's a perpetual failing of national political media to be more interested in image and gamesmanship rather than actual actions, the sizzle rather than the steak, and Newsom is very adept at exploiting that tendency.”
Walters told me that Newsom “has generally avoided direct conflicts with his fellow millionaires, such as discouraging tax increases, and has danced between corporations and labor unions on bread-and-butter issues such as minimum wages. He's also quietly moved away from environmental issues, most notably shifting from condemnation of the oil industry for price gouging and pollution to encouraging the industry to increase production and keep refineries operating.”
Newsom angered climate activists last fall by signing his bill to open up thousands of new oil wells. Noting that “Newsom just championed a plan to dramatically expand oil drilling in California,” the Oil and Gas Action Network said that he “can’t claim climate leadership while giving Big Oil what it wants.” Third Act, founded by Bill McKibben, responded by denouncing “Newsom’s Big Oil backslide” and accused the governor of “backtracking on key climate and community health commitments.”
Great efforts to curb the ubiquitous toxic impacts of PFAS “forever chemicals” hit a wall in October when Newsom vetoed legislation to ban them in such consumer items as cookware, dental floss, and cleaning products. “This bill had huge support from both within the state and beyond, and yet, apparently, the governor was interested only in the one sector opposing it—the cookware industry,” said Clean Water Action policy director Andria Ventura. The organization put the veto in context, observing that “the governor seems determined to move away from his pro-environment past.”
As with the environment, so with workers’ rights. In 2023, Newsom vetoed a bill to provide unemployment compensation to workers on strike. In 2024, he vetoed a bill to help protect farmworkers from violations of heat safety regulations, while temperatures in California’s agricultural fields spike above 110 degrees.
The latest Gallup polling of the party’s rank-and-file indicates a wide ideological gap between Newsom and the party’s base. Fifty-nine percent of Democrats described themselves as “liberal” or “very liberal,” while 32 percent said “moderate,” and 8 percent “conservative” or “very conservative.” And the trendline is striking: Democrats’ self-identification as liberal or very liberal has doubled in the last two decades.
It might be tempting to believe that Newsom’s services to corporatism and the rich are less important than the possibility that he would be an adept Democratic nominee to defeat the GOP ticket in 2028. But pursuit of such “moderate” politics was harmful to Democratic turnout in 2016 and 2024. Newsom’s current political attitude is similar to the timeworn approach that undermined the candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris.
Newsom says he’s eager to pitch a big tent for the Democratic Party, declaring that he welcomes the likes of former US senator Joe Manchin as well as New York’s socialist mayor Zohran Mamdani in the fold. “I want it to be the Manchin to Mamdani party,” Newsom said in November. “I want it to be inclusive.” He did not mention that during the Biden presidency, while in the Senate, Manchin wrecked prospects for transformational Build Back Better legislation and other measures that would have benefited tens of millions of Americans.
It’s telling that Newsom and former president Bill Clinton, a longtime backer, have voiced profuse mutual admiration. Interviewed after he came off the stage with the former president in a joint appearance at a Clinton Global Initiative event a few months ago, Newsom praised “the ability to reach across the aisle.” That formula is a throwback to what propelled Clinton into the presidency with a pledge to find common ground, only to toss the working class overboard from the Oval Office. The disastrous results—made possible by Clinton’s reaching “across the aisle”—included passage of the NAFTA trade pact, the “welfare reform” law that harshly undermined poor women with children, the mass-incarceration-boosting crime bill and the media monopoly-enabling Telecommunications Act.
Launching his podcast “This Is Gavin Newsom” a year ago, the host began warmly showcasing extremist bigots by featuring Charlie Kirk as his first guest. When Kirk was assassinated in September, Newsom lavished praise on him, tweeting: “The best way to honor Charlie’s memory is to continue his work: engage with each other, across ideology, through spirited discourse.” From the governor’s office, Newsom issued a statement that explained: “I knew Charlie, and I admired his passion and commitment to debate.”
The praise raises the question: how far right would someone need to be before no longer meriting Newsom’s admiration for “passion”? Clearly, Kirk wasn’t far right enough to be disqualified. He only said things like asserting that “Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America,” proclaiming “we made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s” and castigating Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and others as affirmative-action hires: “You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.”
Newsom’s show has continued to give a friendly platform to such extreme right-wingers as Steve Bannon and Ben Shapiro. In effect, Newsom is engaged in a podcast form of triangulation—by turns validating and disputing his guests’ attacks on progressivism.
On no issue is Newsom more out of step with the Democratic electorate than US support for Israel. Last summer, a Quinnipiac survey found that 77 percent of Democrats believed Israel was guilty of genocide in Gaza—but last month Newsom said the opposite, declaring “I don’t agree with that notion.” Like most Democratic officeholders who combine their denial of genocide with support for the nonstop weapons flow to Israel, Newsom lays blame narrowly on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying that he is “crystal clear about my love for Israel and condemnation of Bibi.” The same Quinnipiac poll found that fully three-quarters of Democrats were opposed to sending further military aid to Israel, a position that Newsom refuses to take at the same time that he dodges questions about the right-leaning Israel lobby group AIPAC.
Newsom can expect a direct challenge from another California Democrat likely to be on debate stages when the party’s presidential campaigns get underway next year. Congressman Ro Khanna said of Newsom in January: “He doesn’t want to offend the AIPAC donors. He doesn’t want to offend the donor class. And that explains his position on going to give Netanyahu a blank check right after October 7, on not being willing to ever call out the funding we were giving, and not willing to call out that clearly it was a genocide, and then not willing to challenge the billionaire class on tax policy.”
For anyone who wants a truly progressive Democratic Party, Gavin Newsom is bad news.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Blow to Trump Gerrymandering Scheme, US Supreme Court Lets California Adopt New Map
"Trump said he was 'entitled' to five more congressional seats in Texas," said California Gov. Gavin Newsom. "He started this redistricting war. He lost, and he’ll lose again in November."
Feb 04, 2026
The US Supreme Court on Wednesday dealt a major blow to President Donald Trump's mid-decade redistricting scheme when it refused to take up an emergency request by the California Republican Party to override an appeals court ruling that greenlit a newly redrawn congressional map in their state.
The court's decision came two months after it cleared the way for Texas to adopt a new map drawn up by state Republicans, which analysts have projected could net the GOP as many as five additional seats in the US House of Representatives.
California's initiative to redraw its map came as a direct rebuke to the Texas GOP, which pushed through its mid-decade partisan gerrymander at Trump's insistence. As drawn, the new California map is expected to balance out the redrawn Texas map by netting Democrats in the House five additional seats of their own.
California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, who led the charge to redraw his state's map, took a victory lap after the Supreme Court decision.
"Donald Trump said he was 'entitled' to five more congressional seats in Texas," Newsom wrote in a social media post. "He started this redistricting war. He lost, and he’ll lose again in November."
Attorney Norm Eisen, executive chairman of Democracy Defenders Fund, hailed the court's decision as a "huge, gigantic, enormous win" that will counter "Trump's attempt to steal congressional seats."
Trump’s unprecedented mid-decade redistricting crusade, which began in Texas and subsequently spread to Missouri and North Carolina, has been hit with major pushback from Democrat-controlled states.
In addition to California, Democrats in Virginia and Maryland are also working on redrawing their congressional maps to counter Trump's efforts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
However, Trump and his allies have signaled that aggressive gerrymandering won't be the only trick they'll play to hold onto power in the 2026 midterms.
Right-wing podcaster and political strategist Steve Bannon claimed on Tuesday that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers will "surround" polling places in November, and Trump on Monday called on Republicans to "nationalize the voting" and take away states' power to conduct their own elections.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'None of This Is Normal': Trump Attacks Allies, Demands Control of Greenland in Rambling Davos Speech
"Our friends think we've gone insane and our enemies are celebrating."
Jan 21, 2026
President Donald Trump on Wednesday used his closely watched speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland to threaten longtime US allies and once again demand control of Greenland, a performance that alarmed observers.
During his Davos address, the president took a shot at Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who on Tuesday made a case for creating a new system of international order outside of US hegemony.
"Canada gets a lot of freebies from us, by the way," Trump said. "They should be grateful also but they're not. I watched your prime minister yesterday, he wasn't so grateful. But they should be grateful to us, Canada. Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements."
Trump: "The Golden Dome is going to be defending Canada. Canada gets a lot of freebies from us, by the way. They should be grateful but they're not. I watched your prime minister yesterday. He wasn't so grateful. But they should be grateful to us. Canada. Canada lives because of… pic.twitter.com/pL1F9nppbx
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 21, 2026
Trump also once again falsely claimed that Greenland was a US territory, even though it has been recognized as a self-governing territory of Denmark for centuries.
"We need Greenland for strategic national security and international security," he said. "This enormous, unsecured island is actually part of North America on the northern frontier of the Western hemisphere. That's our territory. It is therefore a core national security interest of the United States of America."
Trump: "We need Greenland for strategic national security and international security. This enormous, unsecured island is actually part of North America on the northern frontier of the Western hemisphere. That's our territory." pic.twitter.com/PdAWZXdLAX
— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) January 21, 2026
Although Trump claimed that he would not take Greenland by force during his speech, he still insisted that the US would take control of the territory, a demand the governments of both Denmark and Greenland have flatly rejected.
Journalist Spencer Ackerman warned mainstream news outlets to not emphasize Trump's claims to have ruled out starting a war to seize Greenland.
"If you're only reading headlines and see 'Trump Says He Won't Use Force' it will give you a misimpression of both how bellicose this speech is and how dug in he is on Greenland," Ackerman wrote on Bluesky.
MSNOW columnist Paul Waldman also chastised the media for not conveying the unhinged nature of the president's speech.
"Trump is giving a deranged, rambling monologue in Davos to an audience stunned into silence," Waldman wrote. "He sounds incredibly tired, his voice raspy; he keeps trailing off into long pauses. It's jaw-dropping. The sanewashing headlines are going to say 'Trump Doubles Down On Greenland Demand In Davos Speech.'"
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is also in Davos attending the World Economic Forum, was asked by CNN's Kaitlan Collins if he noticed that Trump repeatedly misnamed the country he was demanding be given to the US during his address.
"Did it stand out to you that he said Iceland multiple times when he was talking about Greenland?" asked Collins.
Newsom indicated that it did stand out before noting that Trump also made an absurd claim about power-generating windmills costing $1,000 per rotation.
"A lot of stuff stands out," Newsom emphasized. "None of this is normal... It's really some jaw-dropping and remarkable statements that just, you know, fly in the face of facts and evidence."
COLLINS: Did it stand out to you that he said Iceland multiple times when he was talking about Greenland?
NEWSOM: And that every time a windmill turns it costs $1,000. A lot of stuff stands out. None of this is normal. There's a deviancy of consciousness. He's graded off the… pic.twitter.com/eIJmDWiKTn
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 21, 2026
Former Rep. Tom Malinkowski (D-NJ) said that Trump's belligerent address showed that Europe's attempts to appease the president for the last year have been a failure.
"I get why foreign leaders have tried to flatter Trump," he wrote. "But the problem is that flattery reinforces his delusions that what he's doing is working, that America is more respected, when in fact our friends think we've gone insane and our enemies are celebrating."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular