Connect with us

Politics

Commentary: Front-runner or flash in the pan? Sizing up Newsom, 2028

Published

on

Commentary: Front-runner or flash in the pan? Sizing up Newsom, 2028

The 2028 presidential election is more than 1,000 days away, but you’d hardly know it from all the speculation and anticipation that’s swirling from Sacramento to the Washington Beltway.

Standing at the center of attention is California Gov. Gavin Newsom, fresh off his big victory on Proposition 50, the backatcha ballot measure that gerrymandered the state’s congressional map to boost Democrats and offset a power grab by Texas Republicans.

Newsom is bidding for the White House, and has been doing so for the better part of a year, though he won’t say so out loud. Is Newsom the Democratic front-runner or a mere flash in the pan?

Times columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak disagree on Newsom’s presidential prospects, and more. Here the two hash out some of their differences.

Advertisement

Barabak: So is the presidential race over, Anita? Should I just spend the next few years backpacking and snowboarding in the Sierra and return in January 2029 to watch Newsom iterate, meet the moment and, with intentionality, be sworn in as our nation’s 48th president?

Chabria: You should definitely spend as much time in the Sierra as possible, but I have no idea if Newsom will be elected president in 2028 or not. That’s about a million light-years away in political terms. But I think he has a shot, and is the front-runner for the nomination right now. He’s set himself up as the quick-to-punch foil to President Trump, and increasingly as the leader of the Democratic Party. Last week, he visited Brazil for a climate summit that Trump ghosted, making Newsom the American presence.

And in a recent (albeit small) poll, in a hypothetical race against JD Vance, the current Republican favorite, Newsom lead by three points. Though, unexpectedly, respondents still picked Kamala Harris as their choice for the nomination.

To me, that shows he’s popular across the country. But you’ve warned that Californians have a tough time pulling voters in other states. Do you think his Golden State roots will kill off his contender status?

Barabak: I make no predictions. I’m smart enough to know that I’m not smart enough to know. And, after 2016 and the election of Trump, the words “can’t,” “not,” “won’t,” “never ever” are permanently stricken from my political vocabulary.

Advertisement

That said, I wouldn’t stake more than a penny — which may eventually be worth something, as they’re phased out of our currency — on Newsom’s chances.

Look, I yield to no one in my love of California. (And I’ve got the Golden State tats to prove it.) But I’m mindful of how the rest of the country views the state and those politicians who bear a California return address. You can be sure whoever runs against Newsom — and I’m talking about his fellow Democrats, not just Republicans — will have a great deal to say about the state’s much-higher-than-elsewhere housing, grocery and gas prices and our shameful rates of poverty and homelessness.

Not a great look for Newsom, especially when affordability is all the political rage these days.

And while I understand the governor’s appeal — Fight! Fight! Fight! — I liken it to the fleeting fancy that, for a time, made attorney, convicted swindler and rhetorical battering ram Michael Avenatti seriously discussed as a Democratic presidential contender. At a certain point — and we’re still years away — people will assess the candidates with their head, not viscera.

As for the polling, ask Edmund Muskie, Gary Hart or Hillary Clinton how much those soundings matter at this exceedingly early stage of a presidential race. Well, you can’t ask Muskie, because the former Maine senator is dead. But all three were early front-runners who failed to win the Democratic nomination.

Advertisement

Chabria: I don’t argue the historical case against the Golden State, but I will argue that these are different days. People don’t vote with their heads. Fight me on that.

They vote on charisma, tribalism, and maybe some hope and fear. They vote on issues as social media explains them. They vote on memes.

There no reality in which our next president is rationally evaluated on their record — our current president has a criminal one and that didn’t make a difference.

But I do think, as we’ve talked about ad nauseam, that democracy is in peril. Trump has threatened to run for a third term and recently lamented that his Cabinet doesn’t show him the same kind of fear that Chinese President Xi Jinping gets from his top advisers. And Vance, should he get the chance to run, has made it clear he’s a Christian nationalist who would like to deport nearly every immigrant he can catch, legal or not.

Being a Californian may not be the drawback it’s historically been, especially if Trump’s authoritarianism continues and this state remains the symbol of resistance.

Advertisement

But our governor does have an immediate scandal to contend with. His former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, was just arrested on federal corruption charges. Do you think that hurts him?

Barabak: It shouldn’t.

There’s no evidence of wrongdoing on Newsom’s part. His opponents will try the guilt-by-association thing. Some already have. But unless something damning surfaces, there’s no reason the governor should be punished for the alleged wrongdoing of Williamson or others charged in the case.

But let’s go back to 2028 and the presidential race. I think one of our fundamental disagreements is that I believe people do very much evaluate a candidate’s ideas and records. Not in granular fashion, or the way some chin-stroking political scientist might. But voters do want to know how and whether a candidate can materially improve their lives.

There are, of course, a great many who’d reflexively support Donald Trump, or Donald Duck for that matter, if he’s the Republican nominee. Same goes for Democrats who’d vote for Gavin Newsom or Gavin Floyd, if either were the party’s nominee. (While Newsom played baseball in college, Floyd pitched 13 seasons in the major leagues, so he’s got that advantage over the governor.)

Advertisement

But I’m talking about those voters who are up for grabs — the ones who decide competitive races — who make a very rational decision based on their lives and livelihoods and which candidate they believe will benefit them most.

Granted, the dynamic is a bit different in a primary contest. But even then, we’ve seen time and again the whole dated/married phenomenon. As in 2004, when a lot of Democrats “dated” Howard Dean early in the primary season but “married” John Kerry. I see electability — as in the perception of which Democrat can win the general election — being right up there alongside affordability when it comes time for primary voters to make their 2028 pick.

Chabria: No doubt affordability will be a huge issue, especially if consumer confidence continues to plummet. And we are sure to hear criticisms of California, many of which are fair, as you point out. Housing costs too much, homelessness remains intractable.

But these are also problems across the United States, and require deeper fixes than even this economically powerful state can handle alone. More than past record, future vision is going to matter. What’s the plan?

It can’t be vague tax credits or even student loan forgiveness. We need a concrete vision for an economy that brings not just more of the basics like homes, but the kind of long-term economic stability — higher wages, good schools, living-wage jobs — that makes the middle class stronger and attainable.

Advertisement

The Democrat who can lay out that vision while simultaneously continuing to battle the authoritarian creep currently eating our democracy will, in my humble opinion, be the one voters choose, regardless of origin story. After all, it was that message of change with hope that gave us President Obama, another candidate many considered a long shot at first.

Mark, are there any 2028 prospects you’re keeping a particularly close eye on?

Barabak: I’m taking things one election at a time, starting with the 2026 midterms, which include an open-seat race for governor here in California. The results in November 2026 will go a long way toward shaping the dynamic in November 2028. That said, there’s no shortage of Democrats eyeing the race — too many to list here. Will the number surpass the 29 major Democrats who ran in 2020? We’ll see.

I do agree with you that, to stand any chance of winning in 2028, whomever Democrats nominate will have to offer some serious and substantive ideas on how to make people’s lives materially better. Imperiled democracy and scary authoritarianism aside, it’s still the economy, stupid.

Which brings us full circle, back to our gallivanting governor. He may be winning fans and building his national fundraising base with his snippy memes and zippy Trump put-downs. But even if he gets past the built-in anti-California bias among so many voters outside our blessed state, he’s not going to snark his way to the White House.

Advertisement

I’d wager more than a penny on that.

Politics

Video: Fani Willis Defends Failed Election Interference Case in Heated Hearing

Published

on

Video: Fani Willis Defends Failed Election Interference Case in Heated Hearing

new video loaded: Fani Willis Defends Failed Election Interference Case in Heated Hearing

transcript

transcript

Fani Willis Defends Failed Election Interference Case in Heated Hearing

The Atlanta-area district attorney called President Trump and his allies “criminals” while being questioned by a Georgia Senate committee on Wednesday.

“Are you ready to tell them what they want to hear?” “Is it true that part of your transition team was involved in the pr ocess of interviewing people before you entered office to lead the investigation into the 2020 presidential election?” “If you recall the facts, I was already district attorney when this all came to light. I interviewed everybody at the D.A.’s office. And I interviewed other people to come and work at the district attorney’s office. And as I told you, I did that on my free time before I became D.A., but I had no way of knowing that these criminals were going to commit a crime. You all want to intimidate people from doing the right thing, and you think that you’re going to intimidate me. But you see, I’m not Marjorie Taylor Greene. I ain’t going to quit in a month because somebody threatens me.” “Mr. Peter Skandalakis, as head of PAC, continued the investigation after you were disqualified. He concluded the investigation did not further warrant further action.” “Mr. Skandalakis has never read our entire file when he just dismissed this case. There is no way that he read the entire file. You want something to investigate as a legislature? Investigate how many times they’ve called me the N-word. Why don’t you investigate that? Why don’t you investigate them writing on my house? Why don’t you investigate the fact that my house has been SWATted? If you want something to do with your time that makes sense. And you can use all this in your campaign ad — you attacked Fani Willis. What have you done, sir? Nothing.” “Based on the indictment, that the goal was — the ultimate goal was to overthrow the 2020 election.” “That was the ultimate goal. And we’ve had people that are supposed to be leaders that instead of being leaders, are just cowering down. This country needs leaders, not cowards.”

Advertisement
The Atlanta-area district attorney called President Trump and his allies “criminals” while being questioned by a Georgia Senate committee on Wednesday.

By Meg Felling

December 17, 2025

Continue Reading

Politics

Border Patrol chief, progressive mayor caught on camera in tense street showdown: ‘Excellent day in Evanston’

Published

on

Border Patrol chief, progressive mayor caught on camera in tense street showdown: ‘Excellent day in Evanston’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A heated confrontation unfolded Wednesday in Evanston, Illinois, where city Mayor Daniel Biss — a progressive Democrat and congressional candidate — confronted Border Patrol Cmdr. Gregory Bovino during a street-level Title 8 immigration enforcement operation that drew “a couple dozen” protesters and quickly turned chaotic, according to video and accounts posted on X.

The standoff occurred around 11:30 a.m. near Green Bay Road and Dodge Avenue in the city outside Chicago, where an 11-vehicle Border Patrol convoy had arrived to detain multiple individuals. Eyewitness Mark Weyermuller wrote that agents “appeared to detain at least two” people as the crowd formed.

Video shared by FOX 32 Chicago reporter Paris Schutz shows Biss, dressed in a dark tailored coat and dress shoes, visibly standing out from the bundled-up crowd, stepping directly toward Bovino as protesters yell and blow whistles around them.

Biss confronts him immediately, declaring: “The abuse has not been acceptable, the racism has not been acceptable, the violence has not been acceptable.”

Advertisement

DHS: CHICAGO CRIME DROPS SHARPLY AFTER FEDERAL OPERATION TARGETING CRIMINAL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

Border Patrol Cmdr. Gregory Bovino, left, is confronted by Evanston, Ill., Mayor Daniel Biss, as immigration agents stop at a gas station while on patrol, Wednesday, in the city. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Bovino, surrounded by agents wearing protective masks and tactical gear, fires back: “Yeah, that’s why we’re here in your community.”

A nearby protester then shouts repeatedly at the commander: “Hey, Bovino! We don’t want you here, bro! We don’t want you!”

As the shouting intensified, multiple protesters tried to block the roadway while police from Evanston and Chicago worked to keep a corridor open for the vehicles to leave the area.

Advertisement

DHS TORCHES ‘BAMBOOZLED’ DEMS FOR CALLING ICE CRACKDOWN ‘VICIOUS LIES’

Border Patrol Cmdr. Gregory Bovino, left, speaks with Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, Wednesday, during an immigration operation in Evanston, Ill. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Biss, who is running for Congress as a “pragmatic progressive,” later amplified his criticism in a post on X, writing: “The only ‘violent mob’ in Evanston today was Greg Bovino and his masked thugs, terrorizing innocent people and then lying about our city to try and sow chaos.”

He added that Evanston is “safe in spite of ICE/CBP, not because of it,” praised residents who “chased you out of town,” and concluded with: “Don’t come back.”

Bovino disputed Biss’s claims and described the encounter as productive.

Advertisement

ICE ACCUSES DEM LAWMAKER OF JOINING ‘RIOTING CROWD’ IN ARIZONA, INTERFERING IN MASS ARREST

Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, right, confronts Border Patrol Cmdr. Gregory Bovino. (WFLD)

He wrote that agents were in Evanston “to make his city a safer place through Title 8 immigration enforcement” and said the mayor “fell back into the divisive talking points that we’ve heard ad nauseam.” Bovino called it an “excellent day in Evanston.”

Evanston Police Department and Chicago Police Department assisted with crowd control and ensuring federal vehicles could exit safely, according to Bovino’s account. In the video, officers can be seen directing traffic and creating space as protesters attempt to approach the convoy.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

Title 8 is the federal legal framework for immigration enforcement and can involve operations far from the border when agents are conducting investigations or targeting specific individuals.

Wednesday’s confrontation reflects growing tensions between federal immigration enforcement and leadership in Democrat-run communities.

Fox News Digital reached out to Biss’s office and U.S. Customs and Border Protection for comment.

Continue Reading

Politics

‘We want it back’: Trump asserts U.S. claims to Venezuelan oil and land

Published

on

‘We want it back’: Trump asserts U.S. claims to Venezuelan oil and land

President Trump’s order of a partial blockade on oil tankers going to and from Venezuela and his claim that Caracas stole “oil, land and other assets” from the United States mark a significant escalation of Washington’s unrelenting campaign against the government of President Nicolás Maduro.

Asked about Venezuela on Wednesday, Trump said the United States will be “getting land, oil rights and whatever we had.”

“We want it back,” he said without further elaboration. It was unclear whether Trump planned to say more about Venezuela in a televised address to the nation late Wednesday night.

The blockade, which aims to cripple the key component of Venezuela’s faltering, oil-dependent economy, comes as the Trump administration has bolstered military forces in the Caribbean, blown up more than two dozen boats allegedly ferrying illicit drugs in both the Caribbean and the Pacific, and threatened military strikes on Venezuela and neighboring Colombia.

“Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America,” Trump said in a rambling post Tuesday night on his social media site. “It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before.”

Advertisement

Not long after Trump announced the blockade Tuesday night, the government of Venezuela denounced the move and his other efforts as an attempt to “rob the riches that belong to our people.”

Venezuelan National Assembly President Jorge Rodriguez is flanked by First Vice President Pedro Infante, left, and Second Vice President America Perez during an extraordinary session at the Federal Legislative Palace in Caracas on Dec. 17, 2025.

(Juan Barreto / AFP/Getty Images)

Leaders of other Latin American nations called for calm and United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, after a phone call with Maduro, called on U.N. members to “exert restraint and de-escalate tensions to preserve regional stability.”

Advertisement

Also Wednesday, Trump received rare pushback from the Republican-dominated Congress, where some lawmakers are pressuring the administration to disclose more information about its deadly attacks on alleged drug boats.

The Senate gave final approval to a $900-billion defense policy package that, among other things, would require the administration to disclose to lawmakers specific orders behind the boat strikes along with unedited videos of the deadly attacks. If the administration does not comply, the bill would withhold a quarter of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s travel budget.

The bill’s passage came a day after Hegseth and Secretary Marco Rubio briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill about the U.S. military campaign. The meetings left lawmakers with a mixed reaction, largely with Republicans backing the campaign and Democrats expressing concern about it.

The White House has said its military campaign in Venezuela is meant to curb drug trafficking, but U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration data show that Venezuela is a relatively minor player in the U.S.-bound narcotics trade.

Trump also declared that the South American country had been designated a “foreign terrorist organization.” That would apparently make Venezuela the first nation slapped with a classification normally reserved for armed groups deemed hostile to the United States or its allies. The consequences remain unclear for Venezuela.

Advertisement
A gray military plane takes off from a tarmac, with greenery in the background

A U.S. Air Force Boeing C-17 Globemaster takes off from Jose Aponte de la Torre Airport, formerly Roosevelt Roads Naval Station, on in Ceiba, Puerto Rico.

(Miguel J. Rodriguez Carrillo / AFP/Getty Images)

Regional responses to the Trump threats highlight the new ideological fault lines in Latin America, where right-wing governments in recent years have won elections in Chile, Argentina and Ecuador.

The leftist leaders of the region’s two most populous nations — Brazil and Mexico — have called for restraint in Venezuela.

“Whatever one thinks about the Venezuelan government or the presidency of Maduro, the position of Mexico should always be: No to intervention, no to foreign meddling,” Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said Wednesday, calling on the United Nations to look for a peaceful solution and avert any bloodshed.

Advertisement

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has also urged Trump to pull back from confrontation. “The power of the word can outweigh the power of the gun,” Lula said he told Trump recently, offering to facilitate talks with the Maduro government.

But Chile’s right-wing president-elect, José Antonio Kast, said he supports a change of government in Venezuela, asserting that it would reduce migration from Venezuela to other nations in the region.

Surrounded by security, Chilean President-elect Jose Antonio Kast leaves the government house

Surrounded by security, Chilean President-elect José Antonio Kast, second from right, leaves after a meeting with Argentine President Javier Milei in Buenos Aires on Dec. 16, 2025.

(Rodrigo Abd / Associated Press)

“If someone is going to do it, let’s be clear that it solves a gigantic problem for us and all of Latin America, all of South America, and even for countries in Europe,” Kast said, referring to Venezuelan immigration.

Advertisement

In his Tuesday post, Trump said he had ordered a “complete blockade of all sanctioned oil tankers going into, and out of, Venezuela.” Although the move is potentially devastating to Venezuela’s economy, the fact that the blockade will affect only tankers already sanctioned by U.S. authorities does give Venezuela some breathing room, at least for now.

Experts estimated that between one-third and half of tankers transporting crude to and from Venezuela are part of the so-called dark fleet of sanctioned tankers. The ships typically ferry crude from Venezuela and Iran, two nations under heavy U.S. trade and economic bans.

However, experts said that even a partial blockade will be a major hit for Venezuela’s feeble economy, already reeling under more than a decade of U.S. penalties. And Washington can continue adding to the list of sanctioned tankers.

“The United States can keep sanctioning more tankers, and that would leave Venezuela with almost no income,” said David A. Smilde, a Venezuela expert at Tulane University. “That would probably cause a famine in the country.”

The growing pressure, analysts said, will probably mean the diminishing number of firms willing to take the risk of transporting Venezuelan crude will increase their prices, putting more pressure on Caracas. Purchasers in China and elsewhere will also probably demand price cuts to buy Venezuelan oil.

Advertisement

Trump has said that Maduro must go because he is a “narco-terrorist” and heads the “Cartel de los Soles,” which the White House calls a drug-trafficking syndicate. Trump has put a $50-million bounty on Maduro’s head. Experts say that Cartel de los Soles is not a functioning cartel, but a shorthand term for Venezuelan military officers who have been involved in the drug trade for decades, long before Maduro or his predecessor and mentor, the late Hugo Chávez, took office.

The White House at night
It is unclear whether President Trump planned to say more about Venezuela in a televised address to the nation late on Dec. 17, 2025.

(Graeme Sloan / Bloomberg / Getty Images)

In his comments Tuesday, Trump denounced the nationalization of the Venezuelan oil industry, a process that began in the 1970s, when Caracas was a strong ally of Washington.

Echoing Trump’s point that Venezuela “stole” U.S. assets was Stephen Miller, Trump’s Homeland Security advisor, who declared on X: “American sweat, ingenuity and toil created the oil industry in Venezuela. Its tyrannical expropriation was the largest recorded theft of American wealth and property.”

Among those believed to be driving Trump’s efforts to oust Maduro is Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants to Florida. Rubio has long been an outspoken opponent of the communist governments in Havana and Caracas. Venezuelan oil has helped the economies of left-wing governments in both Cuba and Nicaragua.

Advertisement

Christopher Sabatini, a senior fellow for Latin America at the think tank Chatham House, said Rubio has been on a longtime campaign to remove Maduro.

“He has his own political project,” Sabatini said. “He wants to get rid of the dictators in Venezuela and Cuba.”

McDonnell and Linthicum reported from Mexico City and Ceballos from Washington. Special correspondent Mery Mogollón in Caracas contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending