Connect with us

Politics

Newsom sides with Musk in dispute over SpaceX rocket launches

Published

on

Newsom sides with Musk in dispute over SpaceX rocket launches

In a legal dispute between Elon Musk and the California Coastal Commission over the number of rockets the billionaire’s company can launch from the coast, Gov. Gavin Newsom has sided with Musk, saying over the weekend, “I’m with Elon.”

The comment by the governor is surprising because Musk, a staunch supporter of former President Trump, has often clashed with Newsom in public disputes over transgender rights, “deepfakes” and other issues that have often descended into crude posts from Musk on social media.

For the record:

2:36 p.m. Oct. 21, 2024An earlier version of this article misstated where Gov. Gavin Newsom was campaigning when he was interviewed by Politico as Northern California. He made his comments in North Carolina.

Advertisement

Newsom made the comments to Politico during an interview as the California governor campaigned for Vice President Kamala Harris in North Carolina.

The SpaceX dispute centers around the Coastal Commission’s rejection of the company’s plan to increase the number of rockets it launches from Vandenberg Space Force base near the Santa Barbara coast to 50 a year. The commission, made up of appointed members, is tasked with regulating development of land and protecting the natural resources along the coast.

The commission has most recently agreed for SpaceX to launch up to 36 times a year from Vandenberg. So far this year, the company has launched 34 rockets, with the most recent one occurring Saturday.

Military officials told the commission they expected to submit another request by March to increase the number of SpaceX launches to 100 a year.

The commission‘s members, who for months have been airing concerns about the impact of the rocket launches and sonic booms on the region’s wildlife, also cited Musk’s political influence, his posts on X, and his companies’ labor record as concerns when they voted to reject the plan.

Advertisement

SpaceX sued the agency over the vote, accusing it of “egregiously and unlawfully overreaching its authority.”

In the interview Thursday, Newsom seemed to side with Musk, saying, “Look, I’m not helping the legal case,” he said, adding, “You can’t bring up that explicit level of politics.”

A spokesperson for the Coastal Commission declined to comment.

SpaceX and the commission have clashed for months over the company’s plan to rapidly increase the number of rockets it launches from Vandenberg.

SpaceX is a leading contractor with the Space Force, and military officials have argued that the company’s launches benefit the U.S. government. Because the launches are considered federal activity, the state commission can’t technically stop SpaceX from launching the rockets, but is supposed to come to an agreement with federal officials to mitigate the effects of the launches, called a federal consistency plan.

Advertisement

When it rejected SpaceX’s accelerated launch plan earlier this month, several of the commissioners cited Musk’s political activity and posts on X, which he bought in 2022, as concerns.

“We’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race,” commission Chair Caryl Hart said at the meeting.

Other members cited Musk’s social media posts, spreading false information about the federal government’s response to hurricane victims, as well as his decision to refuse permission for Ukraine, a U.S. ally, to use his satellite internet service, Starlink, to carry out an attack against Russia in 2022.

Some commissioners have also been increasingly looking at whether SpaceX could be forced to apply for launch permits, as is required of a private company, instead of as a federal contractor. The commission has pointed out that 80% to 87% of SpaceX launches don’t carry government payloads, but instead carry Starlink satellites.

A spokesperson for SpaceX did not respond to requests for comment.

Advertisement

Federal officials have argued that all rocket launches benefit the U.S. government.

“These are good commissioners,” Newsom told Politico. “But you‘ve got to call balls and strikes. And trust me, I’m not big on the Elon Musk bandwagon right now. So that’s me calling balls and strikes.”

Musk and Newsom have clashed in the past, and Musk has been a vocal critic of California politicians after announcing that burdensome regulations and high taxes are forcing him to move his companies, X and SpaceX, out of California.

In an MSNBC interview, Newsom criticized Musk’s attempts to influence the presidential election, saying Musk was one of “those sucking up to Donald Trump.”

“I’m very concerned about a country where people like Elon Musk, others, that are sucking up to Donald Trump, that will undoubtedly be carved out of regulations,” Newsom said Sunday. “It is an American oligarchy that can be formed here.”

Advertisement

Newsom also blasted Musk’s use of a deepfake political ad that doctored video of Vice President Kamala Harris, and signed a law banning such videos.

Musk responded on X to Newsom, posting crude jokes.

Newsom said the commissioners and his team had been working behind the scenes to help reach an agreement with military officials to resolve “legitimate concerns.”

Commissioners had asked the U.S. Air Force to agree to seven conditions that would increase monitoring of the effects of operations on wildlife on and near the base, as well as develop a written plan to mitigate the impact and increased occurrences of sonic booms across the coast.

Military officials had initially rejected several of the provisions in August, but agreed to them during the subsequent meetings.

Advertisement

However, the governor said he was concerned that the discussion veered away from the issues surrounding the launches.

“They certainly could have said, ‘We are just not comfortable with [the proposal] right now,’” he said. “But that wasn’t what they said.”

Advertisement

Politics

Playing catchup to Republicans, Democrats launch ‘largest-ever’ partisan national voter registration campaign

Published

on

Playing catchup to Republicans, Democrats launch ‘largest-ever’ partisan national voter registration campaign

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Acknowledging that “we’ve been getting our butts kicked for years now by the Republicans on voter registration,” Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin on Tuesday announced the DNC will spend millions of dollars to get “back in the game.”

Martin said that the newly created “When We Count” initiative, which he described as the party’s “largest ever voter registration effort … will train hundreds of fellows throughout the country to register tens of thousands of new voters in communities across the country.”

The announcement by the DNC, in what Martin called an “all hands on deck moment,” comes in the wake of massive voter registration gains by Republicans in recent years and ahead of November’s midterms, when Democrats aim to win back majorities in the House and Senate and a whopping 36 states hold elections for governor.

“For too long, Democrats have ceded ground to Republicans on registering voters,” Martin pointed out. “Between 2020 and ’24 alone, our party lost a combined 2.1 million registered voters. Meanwhile, Republicans gained 2.4 million voters.”

Advertisement

GOP OVERTAKES DEMOCRATS ON VOTER ROLLS IN KEY SWING STATE AFTER YEARS OF DEM DOMINANCE

Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin addresses party members at the DNC’s summer meeting, on Aug. 25, 2025, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Paul Steinhauser/Fox News)

The latest example is North Carolina, where new State Board of Elections data indicated that Republicans officially surpassed Democrats in voter registration for the first time in the crucial southeastern battleground state’s history.

Martin said a key reason for the Democrats’ deficit is that “Republicans have invested heavily in targeted partisan registration” to mobilize and grow their base of voters.

TRUMP TOUTS NEW INFLATION NUMBERS AS AFFORDABILITY ISSUE FRONT AND CENTER AHEAD OF MIDTERMS

Advertisement

But he lamented that “on the left” voter registration for decades has largely been led by nonpartisan advocacy organizations and civic “which limits their ability to engage in partisan conversations about registering as a Democrat.”

Martin said the new effort “is going to require everyone,” including the national, state and local parties, as well as outside groups and political campaigns, “participating in this critical work.”

Pointing to the sweeping ballot box successes by President Donald Trump and the GOP in the 2024 elections, when Republicans won back the White House and Senate and held onto their House majority, Martin said “we can’t just assume that certain demographics, whether they be young voters, voters of color or otherwise, will automatically support the Democratic Party. We have to earn every registration so that we can earn every vote.”

The DNC’s seven-figure initiative, which Martin said would kick off in the western battleground states of Arizona and Nevada, “puts our national party and local parties back in the game. When we count, we’ll begin to chip away at the Republican advantage as we prepare to organize everywhere and win everywhere in 2026.”

The Democratic National Committee announced on Tuesday it will spend millions to shift its voter registration strategy ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. (Melissa Sue Gerrits/Getty Images)

Advertisement

The DNC, as it ramps up to this year’s midterm elections, also faces a formidable fundraising deficit compared to the rival Republican National Committee (RNC).

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

RNC Communications Director Zach Parkinson, pointing to the DNC’s campaign cash problems, charged in a statement to Fox News Digital that “Ken Martin has driven the DNC into debt, overseen anemic fundraising.”

“We at the RNC think he’s the perfect person to oversee Democrats voter registration efforts,” Parkinson added, in a shot at the DNC chair.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

House Democrats challenge new Homeland Security order limiting lawmaker visits to immigration facilities

Published

on

House Democrats challenge new Homeland Security order limiting lawmaker visits to immigration facilities

Twelve House Democrats who last year sued the Trump administration over a policy limiting congressional oversight of immigrant detention facilities returned to federal court Monday to challenge a second, new policy imposing further limits on such unannounced visits.

In December, those members of Congress won their lawsuit challenging a Department of Homeland Security policy from June that required a week’s notice from lawmakers before an oversight visit. Now they’re accusing Homeland Security of having “secretly reimposed” the requirement last week.

In a Jan. 8 memorandum, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote that “Facility visit requests must be made a minimum of seven (7) calendar days in advance. Any requests to shorten that time must be approved by me.”

The lawmakers who challenged the policies are led by Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) and include five members from California: Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles), Raul Ruiz (D-Indio) and Norma Torres (D-Pomona).

Advertisement

Last summer, as immigration raids spread through Los Angeles and other parts of Southern California, many Democrats including those named in the lawsuit were denied entry to local detention facilities. Before then, unannounced inspections had been a common, long-standing practice under congressional oversight powers.

“The duplicate notice policy is a transparent attempt by DHS to again subvert Congress’s will…and this Court’s stay of DHS’s oversight visit policy,” the plaintiffs wrote in a federal court motion Monday requesting an emergency hearing.

On Saturday, three days after Renee Nicole Good was shot and killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, three members of Congress from Minnesota attempted to conduct an oversight visit of an ICE facility near Minneapolis. They were denied access.

Afterward, lawyers for Homeland Security notified the lawmakers and the court of the new policy, according to the court filing.

In a joint statement, the plaintiffs wrote that “rather than complying with the law, the Department of Homeland Security is attempting to get around this order by re-imposing the same unlawful policy.”

Advertisement

“This is unacceptable,” they said. “Oversight is a core responsibility of Members of Congress, and a constitutional duty we do not take lightly. It is not something the executive branch can turn on or off at will.”

Congress has stipulated in yearly appropriations packages since 2020 that funds may not be used to prevent a member of Congress “from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens.”

That language formed the basis of the decision last month by U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb in Washington, who found that lawmakers cannot be denied entry for visits “unless and until” the government could show that no appropriations money was being used to operate detention facilities.

In her policy memorandum, Noem wrote that funds from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which supplied roughly $170 billion toward immigration and border enforcement, are not subject to the limitations of the yearly appropriations law.

“ICE must ensure that this policy is implemented and enforced exclusively with money appropriated by OBBBA,” Noem said.

Advertisement

Noem said the new policy is justified because unannounced visits pull ICE officers away from their normal duties. “Moreover, there is an increasing trend of replacing legitimate oversight activities with circus-like publicity stunts, all of which creates a chaotic environment with heightened emotions,” she wrote.

The lawmakers, in the court filing, argued it’s clear that the new policy violates the law.

“It is practically impossible that the development, promulgation, communication, and implementation of this policy has been, and will be, accomplished — as required — without using a single dollar of annually appropriated funds,” they wrote.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Minnesota and Illinois Sue Trump Administration Over ICE Deployments

Published

on

Video: Minnesota and Illinois Sue Trump Administration Over ICE Deployments

new video loaded: Minnesota and Illinois Sue Trump Administration Over ICE Deployments

transcript

transcript

Minnesota and Illinois Sue Trump Administration Over ICE Deployments

Minnesota and Illinois filed federal lawsuits against the Trump administration, claiming that the deployment of immigration agents to the Minneapolis and Chicago areas violated states’ rights.

This is, in essence, a federal invasion of the Twin Cities and Minnesota, and it must stop. We ask the courts to end the D.H.S. unlawful behavior in our state. The intimidation, the threats, the violence. We ask the courts to end the tactics on our places of worship, our schools, our courts, our marketplaces, our hospitals and even funeral homes.

Advertisement
Minnesota and Illinois filed federal lawsuits against the Trump administration, claiming that the deployment of immigration agents to the Minneapolis and Chicago areas violated states’ rights.

By Jackeline Luna

January 12, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending