Politics
Potential risk of a constitutional convention sets stage for a fight between Newsom and a fellow Democrat
Last summer, Gov. Gavin Newsom made a splashy announcement on a nationally televised morning show.
As millions of Americans tuned in over their breakfast and coffee, California’s Democratic governor said he was fed up with Congress’ inability to pass gun safety laws and was taking matters into his own hands, calling for a new constitutional amendment to restrict firearms.
The proposal was more of a swashbuckling play for attention than a plan with any rational chance of success. The last — and only — time the states gathered for a constitutional convention was in 1787, when George Washington had yet to be elected as the United States’ first president.
Still, California’s Democratic lawmakers overwhelmingly approved Newsom’s proposal, and formally called for a convention to amend the Constitution to ban the sale of assault weapons, require universal background checks on gun purchases and raise the minimum age to buy a firearm from 18 to 21.
But a handful of Democrats did not go along with the plan. A progressive senator from San Francisco was the most vocal critic, arguing that a constitutional convention could wind up empowering a conservative agenda. And now, with the country in flux and a former president known for defying the laws of political gravity and pulverizing long-standing norms soon to be sworn back into office, he’s launched a new push to blunt Newsom’s flashy maneuver and rescind California’s call to amend the Constitution.
“There is no way that I want California to accidentally help these extremists trigger a constitutional convention where they, you know, rewrite the Constitution to restrict voting rights, to eliminate reproductive health access and so forth,” said Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco).
Come January, Republicans will control the White House and both chambers of Congress. The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority is likely to remain in place for years to come.
To Wiener and some other Democrats, the once-improbable prospect of another constitutional convention suddenly seems a bit more credible under a second Trump term.
Calling another constitutional convention would require the approval of 34 of the 50 states. But many, like California, have existing calls on the books. Accounts differ on how many states have already called for a constitutional convention, but at least one tally puts the count above the requisite 34.
Wiener’s proposal, which was first reported by the New York Times, would nullify and supersede all constitutional convention applications previously put forth by the Legislature.
Wiener, like Newsom, is an ambitious and media-savvy politician. A frequent Fox News bête noire, he routinely carries legislation that makes headlines and pushes Democrats from the left. Wiener has made no secret of his desire for a congressional seat — specifically the one long occupied by Democratic powerbroker and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whenever she retires.
Wiener is far from the only Democratic politician to fear the possibility of a conservative-led constitutional convention on the horizon. Several other states, including New Jersey and Illinois, have similarly rescinded their open calls for a constitutional convention in recent years.
“I think it’s a more present danger than many appreciate. There has been a movement by fringe conservatives for many, many years now to create a constitutional convention. And those folks are closer to power in Washington, D.C., than ever before,” said Jonathan Mehta Stein, executive director of the nonpartisan democracy advocacy group California Common Cause.
Mehta Stein described the possibility of such a convention as a “Pandora’s box for our Constitution” that would create “the opportunity for forces we don’t even know to overhaul our democratic institutions and our basic human rights.”
The governor’s office said his position had not changed regarding his support for a new constitutional amendment and declined to comment further.
Wiener’s decision to bring the resolution forward is a bit of a finger in the eye to the governor, who has vetoed some of Wiener’s most high-profile bills, including one to regulate artificial intelligence and another to decriminalize psychedelic mushrooms.
Newsom could try to will Wiener’s resolution toward a soundless death by leaning on lawmakers to bury it without a vote. Representatives for Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) both declined to say whether the Democratic legislative leaders support Wiener’s resolution.
Republican leaders were also noncommittal, though Wiener may wind up with their support. Senate GOP Leader Brian Jones (R-Santee) said he was reviewing Wiener’s resolution and assessing the benefits and potential consequences of a constitutional convention. Like Wiener, both Jones and Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) voted against Newsom’s proposal last year.
“This scheme was nothing but a publicity stunt from the start,” said Gallagher, who is leaning toward supporting Wiener’s repeal effort. “If repealing it will get Newsom to focus on California’s problems instead of chasing the national limelight, that sounds like a good thing.”
The fight ahead could also be a boon for Wiener, further raising his public profile ahead of a potential congressional campaign. That said, it will also test his political might, particularly if the governor chooses to wage a behind-the-scenes campaign against the proposal.
At issue, in part, is the question of how a constitutional convention would actually play out on the ground, and whether it could be convened around a specific topic, such as gun safety, as Newsom has insisted.
The instructions for how the states would proceed after calling a constitutional convention are laid out in Article V of the Constitution, a 143-word sentence that includes virtually no instructions for specific logistics.
Newsom’s office has maintained that his original resolution includes provisions rendering the call void if a constitutional convention is convened on a topic other than gun control.
But legal experts have pushed back on the idea that a constitutional convention could be convened around a single topic.
“The problem is, since there’s never been a constitutional convention under Article V, no one knows” whether it can be limited to one topic, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley Law School and a leading constitutional law scholar. “People have said you can do it and people have said you can’t do it. The only honest answer anybody can give you is there’s no way to know, since it’s never happened.”
Chemerinsky, who characterized Newsom’s call for a constitutional convention on gun safety as misguided, said he agreed with Wiener and thought it was plausible that a constitutional convention could actually happen.
“There’s certainly a risk that it could be a very ideologically driven group of people who would propose quite extreme changes to the Constitution,” Chemerinsky said.
Politics
To ‘run’ Venezuela, Trump presses existing regime to kneel
WASHINGTON — Top officials in the Trump administration clarified their position on “running” Venezuela after seizing its president, Nicolás Maduro, over the weekend, pressuring the government that remains in power there Sunday to acquiesce to U.S. demands on oil access and drug enforcement, or else face further military action.
Their goal appears to be the establishment of a pliant vassal state in Caracas that keeps the current government — led by Maduro for more than a decade — largely in place, but finally defers to the whims of Washington after turning away from the United States for a quarter-century.
It leaves little room for the ascendance of Venezuela’s democratic opposition, which won the country’s last national election, according to the State Department, European capitals and international monitoring bodies.
President Trump and his top aides said they would try to work with Maduro’s handpicked vice president and current interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, to run the country and its oil sector “until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” offering no time frame for proposed elections.
Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem underscored the strategy in a series of interviews Sunday morning.
“If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” Trump told the Atlantic magazine, referring to Rodríguez. “Rebuilding there and regime change, anything you want to call it, is better than what you have right now. Can’t get any worse.”
Rubio said that a U.S. naval quarantine of Venezuelan oil tankers would continue unless and until Rodríguez begins cooperating with the U.S. administration, referring to the blockade — and the lingering threat of additional military action from the fleet off Venezuela’s coast — as “leverage” over the remnants of Maduro’s government.
“That’s the sort of control the president is pointing to when he says that,” Rubio told CBS News. “We continue with that quarantine, and we expect to see that there will be changes — not just in the way the oil industry is run for the benefit of the people, but also so that they stop the drug trafficking.”
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told CNN that he had been in touch with the administration since the Saturday night operation that snatched Maduro and his wife from their bedroom, whisking them away to New York to face criminal charges.
Trump’s vow to “run” the country, Cotton said, “means the new leaders of Venezuela need to meet our demands.”
“Delcy Rodríguez, and the other ministers in Venezuela, understand now what the U.S. military is capable of,” Cotton said, adding: “It is a fact that she and other indicted and sanctioned individuals are in Venezuela. They have control of the military and security forces. We have to deal with that fact. But that does not make them the legitimate leaders.”
“What we want is a future Venezuelan government that will be pro-American, that will contribute to stability, order and prosperity, not only in Venezuela but in our own backyard. That probably needs to include new elections,” Cotton said.
Whether Rodríguez will cooperate with the administration is an open question.
Trump said Saturday that she seemed amenable to making “Venezuela great again” in a conversation with Rubio. But the interim president delivered a speech hours later demanding Maduro’s return, and vowing that Venezuela would “never again be a colony of any empire.”
The developments have concerned senior figures in Venezuela’s democratic opposition, led by Maria Corina Machado, last year’s Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and Edmundo González Urrutia, the opposition candidate who won the 2024 presidential election that was ultimately stolen by Maduro.
In his Saturday news conference, Trump dismissed Machado, saying that the revered opposition leader was “a very nice woman,” but “doesn’t have the respect within the country” to lead.
Elliott Abrams, Trump’s special envoy to Venezuela in his first term, said he was skeptical that Rodríguez — an acolyte of Hugo Chávez and avowed supporter of Chavismo throughout the Maduro era — would betray the cause.
“The insult to Machado was bizarre, unfair — and simply ignorant,” Abrams told The Times. “Who told him that there was no respect for her?”
Maduro was booked in New York and flown at night over the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, where he is in federal custody at a facility that has housed inmates including Sean “Diddy” Combs, Ghislaine Maxwell, Bernie Madoff and Sam Bankman-Fried.
He is expected to be arraigned on federal charges of narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices as soon as Monday.
Although few in Washington lamented Maduro’s removal, Democratic lawmakers criticized the operation as another act of ousting a foreign government by a Republican president that could have violated international law.
“The invasion of Venezuela has nothing to do with American security. Venezuela is not a security threat to the U.S.,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut. “This is about making Trump’s oil industry and Wall Street friends rich. Trump’s foreign policy — the Middle East, Russia, Venezuela — is fundamentally corrupt.”
In their Saturday news conference, and in subsequent interviews, Trump and Rubio said that targeting Venezuela was in part about reestablishing U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere, reasserting the philosophy of President Monroe as China and Russia work to enhance their presence in the region. The Trump administration’s national security strategy, published last month, previewed a renewed focus on Latin America after the region faced neglect from Washington over decades.
Trump left unclear whether his military actions in the region would end in Caracas, a long-standing U.S. adversary, or whether he is willing to turn the U.S. armed forces on America’s allies.
In his interview with the Atlantic, Trump suggested that “individual countries” would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. On Saturday, he reiterated a threat to the president of Colombia, a major non-NATO ally, to “watch his ass,” over an ongoing dispute about Bogota’s cooperation on drug enforcement.
On Sunday morning, the United Nations Security Council held an urgent meeting to discuss the legality of the U.S. operation in Venezuela.
It was not Russia or China — permanent members of the council and long-standing competitors — who called the session, nor France, whose government has questioned whether the operation violated international law, but Colombia, a nonpermanent member who joined the council less than a week ago.
Politics
Dan Bongino officially leaves FBI deputy director role after less than a year, returns to ‘civilian life’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Dan Bongino returned to private life on Sunday after serving as deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for less than a year.
Bongino said on X that Saturday was his last day on the job before he would return to “civilian life.”
“It’s been an incredible year thanks to the leadership and decisiveness of President Trump. It was the honor of a lifetime to work with Director Patel, and to serve you, the American people. See you on the other side,” he wrote.
The former FBI deputy director announced in mid-December that he would be leaving his role at the bureau at the start of the new year.
BONDI, PATEL TAP MISSOURI AG AS ADDITIONAL FBI CO-DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALONGSIDE BONGINO
Dan Bongino speaks with FBI Director Kash Patel as they attend the annual 9/11 Commemoration Ceremony at the National 9/11 Memorial and Museum in New York City on Sept. 11, 2025. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
President Donald Trump previously praised Bongino, who assumed office in March, for his work at the FBI.
“Dan did a great job. I think he wants to go back to his show,” Trump told reporters.
FBI DIRECTOR, TOP DOJ OFFICIAL RESPOND TO ‘FAILING’ NY TIMES ARTICLE CLAIMING ‘DISDAIN’ FOR EACH OTHER
“After his swearing-in ceremony as FBI Deputy Director, Dan Bongino paid his respects at the Wall of Honor, honoring the brave members of the #FBI who made the ultimate sacrifice and reflecting on the legacy of those who paved the way in the pursuit of justice and security,” the FBI said in a post on X. (@FBI on X)
Bongino spoke publicly about the personal toll of the job during a May appearance on “Fox & Friends,” saying he had sacrificed a lot to take the role.
“I gave up everything for this,” he said, citing the long hours both he and FBI Director Kash Patel work.
“I stare at these four walls all day in D.C., by myself, divorced from my wife — not divorced, but I mean separated — and it’s hard. I mean, we love each other, and it’s hard to be apart,” he added.
The FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover headquarters building in Washington on Nov. 2, 2016. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen, File)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Bongino’s departure leaves Andrew Bailey, who was appointed co-deputy director in September 2025, as the bureau’s other deputy director.
Politics
Commentary: Unhappy with the choices for California governor? Get real
California has tried all manner of design in choosing its governor.
Democrat Gray Davis, to name a recent example, had an extensive background in government and politics and a bland demeanor that suggested his first name was also a fitting adjective.
Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, by contrast, was a novice candidate who ran for governor on a whim. His super-sized action hero persona dazzled Californians like the pyrotechnics in one of his Hollywood blockbusters.
In the end, however, their political fates were the same. Both left office humbled, burdened with lousy poll numbers and facing a well of deep voter discontent.
(Schwarzenegger, at least, departed on his own terms. He chased Davis from the Capitol in an extraordinary recall and won reelection before his approval ratings tanked during his second term.)
There are roughly a dozen major candidates for California governor in 2026 and, taken together, they lack even a small fraction of Schwarzenegger’s celebrity wattage.
Nor do any have the extensive Sacramento experience of Davis, who was a gubernatorial chief of staff under Jerry Brown before serving in the Legislature, then winning election as state controller and lieutenant governor.
That’s not, however, to disparage those running.
The contestants include a former Los Angeles mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa; three candidates who’ve won statewide office, former Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, schools Supt. Tony Thurmond and former Controller Betty Yee; two others who gained national recognition during their time in Congress, Katie Porter and Eric Swalwell; and Riverside County’s elected sheriff, Chad Bianco.
The large field offers an ample buffet from which to choose.
The rap on this particular batch of hopefuls is they’re a collective bore, which, honestly, seems a greater concern to those writing and spitballing about the race than a reflection of some great upwelling of citizens clamoring for bread and circuses.
In scores of conversations with voters over the past year, the sentiment that came through, above all, was a sense of practicality and pragmatism. (And, this being a blue bastion, no small amount of horror, fear and loathing directed at the vengeful and belligerent Trump administration.)
It’s never been more challenging and expensive to live in California, a place of great bounty that often exacts in dollars and stress what it offers in opportunity and wondrous beauty.
With a governor seemingly more focused on his personal agenda, a 2028 bid for president, than the people who put him in office, many said they’d like to replace Gavin Newsom with someone who will prioritize California and their needs above his own.
That means a focus on matters such as traffic, crime, fire prevention, housing and homelessness. In other words, pedestrian stuff that doesn’t light up social media or earn an invitation to hold forth on one of the Beltway chat shows.
“Why does it take so long to do simple things?” asked one of those voters, the Bay Area’s Michael Duncan, as he lamented his pothole-ridden, 120-mile round-trip commute between Fairfield and an environmental analyst job in Livermore.
The answer is not a simple one.
Politics are messy, like any human endeavor. Governing is a long and laborious process, requiring study, deliberation and the weighing of competing forces. Frankly, it can be rather dull.
Certainly the humdrum of legislation or bureaucratic rule-marking is nothing like the gossipy speculation about who may or may not bid to lead California as its 41st governor.
Why else was so much coverage devoted to whether Sen. Alex Padilla would jump into the gubernatorial race — he chose not to — and the possible impact his entry would have on the contest, as opposed to, say, his thinking on CEQA or FMAP?
(The former is California’s much-contested Environmental Quality Act; the latter is the formula that determines federal reimbursement for Medi-Cal, the state’s healthcare program for low-income residents.)
Just between us, political reporters tend to be like children in front of a toy shop window. Their bedroom may be cluttered with all manner of diversion and playthings, but what they really want is that shiny, as-yet unattained object — Rick Caruso! — beckoning from behind glass.
Soon enough, once a candidate has entered the race, boredom sets in and the speculation and desire for someone fresh and different starts anew. (Will Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta change his mind and run for governor?)
For their part, many voters always seem to be searching for some idealized candidate who exists only in their imagination.
Someone strong, but not dug in. Willing to compromise, but never caving to the other side. Someone with the virginal purity of a political outsider and the intrinsic capability of an insider who’s spent decades cutting deals and keeping the government wheels spinning.
They look over their choices and ask, in the words of an old song, is that all there is? (Spoiler alert: There are no white knights out there.)
Donald Trump was, foremost, a celebrity before his burst into politics. First as a denizen of New York’s tabloid culture and then as the star of TV’s faux-boardroom drama, “The Apprentice.”
His pizzazz was a large measure of his appeal, along with his manufactured image as a shrewd businessman with a kingly touch and infallible judgment.
His freewheeling political rallies and frothy social media presence were, and continue to be, a source of great glee to his fans and followers.
His performance as president has been altogether different, and far less amusing.
If the candidates for California governor fail to light up a room, that’s not such a bad thing. Fix the roads. Make housing more affordable. Help keep the place from burning to the ground.
Leave the fun and games to the professionals.
-
World1 week agoHamas builds new terror regime in Gaza, recruiting teens amid problematic election
-
Indianapolis, IN1 week agoIndianapolis Colts playoffs: Updated elimination scenario, AFC standings, playoff picture for Week 17
-
Business1 week agoGoogle is at last letting users swap out embarrassing Gmail addresses without losing their data
-
Southeast1 week agoTwo attorneys vanish during Florida fishing trip as ‘heartbroken’ wife pleads for help finding them
-
Politics1 week agoMost shocking examples of Chinese espionage uncovered by the US this year: ‘Just the tip of the iceberg’
-
News1 week agoRoads could remain slick, icy Saturday morning in Philadelphia area, tracking another storm on the way
-
World1 week agoPodcast: The 2025 EU-US relationship explained simply
-
News1 week agoMarijuana rescheduling would bring some immediate changes, but others will take time