Connect with us

Politics

55 years after Reagan took on Berkeley, Newsom stays in the background amid roiling campus protests

Published

on

55 years after Reagan took on Berkeley, Newsom stays in the background amid roiling campus protests

In May 1969 a National Guard helicopter hung over the campus of UC Berkeley, spraying protesters with what The Times then described as “heavy clouds of tear gas.”

It was the sixth consecutive day of campus demonstrations over plans to develop the land known as “People’s Park.” An ambitious governor who would go on to become president had called in 2,300 National Guard troops and hundreds of Highway Patrolmen. They brought shotguns, rifles and bayonets.

The problems, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan said in a feisty televised appearance, all started because universities “let young people think they had the right to choose the laws they would obey, as long as they were doing it in the name of social protest.”

Reagan was unapologetic in his response to protests on the campus, which was also home to large demonstrations against the Vietnam War. He called student protests “orgies of destruction.”

Advertisement

Gov. Ronald Reagan walks past some of the 100 law enforcement officers assembled at University Hall on his arrival to attend a meeting of the regents of the University of California on the Berkeley campus. A screaming mob of demonstrators was dispersed at UC Berkeley in a massive tear gas barrage and Reagan later alerted National Guardsmen should their assistance be required.

(Bettmann / Getty)

Almost exactly 55 years later, California campuses are again overwhelmed by student uprisings and police crackdowns, including violent clashes last week at UCLA. This time, over the Israel-Hamas war.

And another ambitious California governor is responding with a very different approach.

Advertisement

Gov. Gavin Newsom has lingered in the background as universities grapple with student protests, which have led to at least 200 arrests at UCLA, three injuries at UC Berkeley and forced classes to move online at Cal Poly Humboldt.

While he’s met privately with law enforcement officials and university leaders, Newsom has yet to speak to the news media about the unrest. He directed the state’s office of emergency services to support police response on campuses when requested by local agencies, but did not activate the National Guard. He took to social media last week to condemn the violence at UCLA, with a written statement saying “The right to free speech does not extend to inciting violence, vandalism or lawlessness on campus.”

Elevated view of students and activists assembled on the campus of UC Berkeley.

Students and activists assemble on the campus of UC Berkeley for a protest related to the nearby People’s Park on May 19, 1969.

(Garth Eliassen / Getty Images)

On Thursday, hours after the arrests at UCLA, Newsom posted a video promoting expanded national monuments that showed him at a creek beneath the trees on a sun-drenched hillside — a move seen by some as tone-deaf.

Advertisement

For a governor who is rarely shy about grabbing the spotlight on controversial issues, including new abortion restrictions and mass shootings, Newsom’s response to the campus upheaval has been noticeably low-key.

Reagan and Newsom are political opposites and led California at very different times. In many ways, their divergent responses to campus unrest reflect how they presented themselves to the voters who elected them. Reagan, a Republican, ran for office during an earlier period of campus protests and had promised to “clean up the mess at Berkeley.” Newsom, a Democrat, campaigned as a champion for legalizing marijuana and gay marriage, and supported ending California’s decades-old tough-on-crime policies.

But the responses also reflect different political eras and highlight the complexities posed by the Israel-Hamas war, particularly for Democrats.

A lone demonstrator argues with National Guard troops.

A lone demonstrator stays behind to argue with National Guard troops who moved in to help California Highway Patrol officers break up a rally on the UC Berkeley campus on May 16, 1969.

(Associated Press)

Advertisement

“Reagan’s moves fit the political environment and the political dynamic of the time,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a retired professor at the Sol Price School of Public Policy at USC.

“Newsom understands that if he [gets] out front, he risks alienating, at this point in time, critical constituencies he doesn’t have to.”

Young people, progressives, people of color and Jewish voters are all important constituencies for Democrats, Bebitch Jeffe said, but the party is split over President Biden’s response to the Israel-Hamas war.

The divisions have created an opening for Republicans, even in Sacramento where they lack power. That didn’t stop GOP leaders from calling a news conference in the state Capitol last week to call for cutting state funding for administrators at campuses where protests turned violent, and rescinding Cal Grant scholarships from students engaged in criminal acts.

“It’s unacceptable that our governor has largely said very little about this and taken very little action to quell what has been going on on our campuses,” Assembly Republican leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) said Thursday.

Advertisement

Some Democrats have been raising alarms about the climate on California campuses for months.

In a letter in November, a month after Hamas attacked Israel, members of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus called for “immediate action” from University of California President Michael V. Drake and California State University Chancellor Mildred García to protect Jewish students from what they called an “explosion of antisemitism.”

Newsom, too, sent the university leaders a letter then calling on them to do more to stop threats against students who were “targeted because of a Jewish, Arab, or Muslim identity.” He wrote that “some faculty have inflamed the discourse with violent rhetoric. This is unacceptable and demands action.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during an event in San Francisco on Nov. 9, 2023.

(Jeff Chiu / Associated Press)

Advertisement

In March, well before the protests had reached the level of violence they did this past week, the Jewish caucus introduced a bill that would require California college leaders to adopt policies “prohibiting violence, harassment, intimidation and harassment” specifically when it comes to any events that “call for or support genocide.”

Democrats leading the legislation have emphasized that they aren’t trying to limit free speech, but the American Civil Liberties Union opposed the bill, saying it goes further than federal laws that already do not protect hate speech or violence under the 1st Amendment and that it could allow universities to “silence a range of protected speech based on viewpoint alone.”

Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who is a co-author of the campus bill and signed the letter to university leadership, said he supports the right to protest, especially on college campuses.

But what’s happening now “crosses a line,” he said.

“What’s different here is in addition to the protest, we have the targeting harassment of one specific group of students — Jewish students,” he said. “I want them to be able to protest the war in Gaza and to call for a cease-fire and to call for peace. … that’s healthy. But you have some people who are going well beyond that and saying antisemitic things, and it is undermining what they’re actually protesting for.”

Advertisement

The governor has taken quiet actions in recent weeks by convening Jewish and Muslim leaders, publishing a plan to combat antisemitism and communicating with Palestinian American communities about Islamophopia. He has said he supports Biden’s call for a cease-fire in Gaza.

Newsom has no direct authority over California’s public universities, but does exert influence as an ex officio member of the UC regents and the Cal State Board of Trustees. That gives him some responsibility for what happens on campus, said Bill Whalen, a fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institute who was a speechwriter for GOP Gov. Pete Wilson.

Demonstrators and police clash at UCLA.

Demonstrators occupy a pro-Palestinian encampment at UCLA as authorities breach and break up the encampment on Thursday.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

“The governor technically is the landlord of these operations,” Whalen said. “Even if he’s behind the scenes, you would hope that he is very active.”

Advertisement

But the politics within the Democratic Party make it difficult for him to be too forceful, Bebitch Jeffe said. Newsom is supporting Biden’s reelection campaign while also navigating divisions among Democratic voters who are torn over U.S. support for Israel.

“If you’re Gavin Newsom and you don’t know whether it will help or hurt you, just leave the battlefield,” Bebitch Jeffe said. “And that’s apparently what he’s done.”

Times librarian Scott Wilson contributed research for this article.

Advertisement

Politics

ActBlue CEO faces June 10 grilling after fundraising powerhouse allegedly misled Congress on foreign donations

Published

on

ActBlue CEO faces June 10 grilling after fundraising powerhouse allegedly misled Congress on foreign donations

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

FIRST ON FOX: The embattled head of a Democratic fundraising behemoth is headed for a congressional grilling next month over allegations of fraudulent donations on its platform.

ActBlue’s CEO Regina Wallace-Jones will testify in a public hearing before the House Administration Committee on June 10, a committee spokesman told Fox News Digital. 

Wallace-Jones’ agreement to testify comes as ActBlue faces mounting scrutiny over whether it misled Congress regarding foreign donations on its payment processing platform.

“Ms. Wallace-Jones allegedly misled our committee at the outset of our investigation into ActBlue’s fraud prevention standards,” House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., said in a statement. “It’s past time we set the record straight and got answers for the American people. I look forward to hearing her testify.”

Advertisement

House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., holds a press conference in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 10, 2025. (Anna Rose Layden/Getty Images)

DEM FUNDRAISING GIANT ACTBLUE ROCKED BY ALLEGATIONS IT MISLED CONGRESS ABOUT FOREIGN DONATIONS

The statement referenced an explosive report in The New York Times earlier this year that said ActBlue’s then-outside counsel warned Wallace-Jones in 2023 the group may have misrepresented facts to Steil’s committee about its vetting of potentially illegal foreign donations.

Under U.S. law, foreign nationals who are not lawful permanent residents are generally prohibited from donating to candidates seeking federal office or political action committees.

Steil previously requested that Wallace-Jones testify before his committee on May 19. The invitation was met with outrage from ActBlue’s lawyers, who dismissed the committee action as a “partisan attack.”

Advertisement

But Republicans have pointed to documents that ActBlue has allegedly withheld in response to subpoenas issued in 2025, which Steil has characterized as “deliberately incomplete.”

All five current or former ActBlue employees who appeared in depositions with the committee invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination a combined 146 times, according to an interim staff report released in April by House Republicans.

ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones, a delegate from California, wears a U.S.-flag themed outfit ahead of the Democratic National Convention at the United Center in Chicago, Ill., on Aug. 19, 2024.

TEXAS AG PAXTON SUES DEM FUNDRAISING PLATFORM ACTBLUE, ALLEGING ‘FRAUDULENT AND FOREIGN DONATIONS’

The House Administration Committee has been probing ActBlue’s fraud prevention safeguards since 2023, when Steil’s panel investigated the group’s failure to require credit card verification value (CVV) when processing payments.

Advertisement

“Given ActBlue’s demonstrated history of misleading Congress, there is considerable reason to believe that ActBlue may have deliberately withheld this responsive material to impede our investigation,” Steil and House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, wrote in a letter to Wallace-Jones in April.

In the letter, the senior Republicans also directed ActBlue to produce a trove of documents related to its vetting of political contributions from abroad.

Wallace-Jones has denied making false statements to Congress. The group’s lawyers have previously characterized the investigation as politically motivated and contended that ActBlue has been forthright with the committee.

Amid the GOP scrutiny, ActBlue has experienced a wave of resignations from senior legal and compliance staff.

An election countdown calendar hangs at the ActBlue fundraising office in Somerville, Mass. (Jessica Rinaldi/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The June hearing notice immediately follows the House Administration Committee advancing legislation to crack down on fraudulent political donations, including illegal contributions from foreigners. The campaign finance measure cleared Steil’s panel unanimously on Thursday. 

“It’s a positive sign that people are beginning to take this risk and this threat seriously,” the Wisconsin Republican told Spectrum News.

Continue Reading

Politics

The Steyer campaign pays influencers. Their posts don’t always make that clear

Published

on

The Steyer campaign pays influencers. Their posts don’t always make that clear

In recent weeks, several social media influencers have popped up in online feeds touting the California gubernatorial campaign of billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer.

Some complain about the price of gasoline. Others mention environmental concerns. One cites her newfound sobriety as evidence that people can change — a nod to Steyer’s self-proclaimed metamorphosis from hedge fund titan to scourge of big corporations.

“I did not expect the most progressive governor candidate to be a billionaire, but look at the policies you guys,” said one content creator on TikTok with the user name Jaz R. “Hear me out. I know Tom Steyer is a billionaire, but he also is for the people.”

The posts include direct-to-the-camera appeals, with personal details interwoven into messages of support for Steyer. An influencer goes for a stroll as onscreen text touts Steyer’s policies. Some seek to convey authenticity, if occasionally ham-fistedly; one influencer mispronounces Steyer’s last name.

Advertisement

What they do not include is a disclosure that their creators were paid by the Steyer campaign to produce the videos, according to a complaint filed this week with California’s Fair Political Practices Commission and a Times review of the posts.

The complaint alleges that the Steyer campaign failed to notify the influencers it hired of their obligation to inform their audience when their posts have been sponsored by the campaign.

California passed a law in 2023 requiring that influencers disclose if they have been paid to create promotional content for or against a candidate or ballot measure, one of the few jurisdictions in the country with such a requirement. There is no such requirement at the federal level.

“Every time there’s a new technology, you have to create legislation that requires them to disclose,” said state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange), who sponsored the bill.

Violating the law doesn’t carry criminal, civil or administrative penalties, but the FPPC can take influencers who break the law to court and ask a judge to force them to comply.

Advertisement

The complaint was filed by two California women — political influencers themselves — who said they noticed a number of new accounts that suddenly started posting similar-sounding videos promoting Steyer earlier this month.

“They had the exact same language, they had the same talking points,” said Beatrice Gomberg, who worked with Kaitlyn Hennessy in their digital sleuthing efforts.

The FPPC did not comment on the complaint.

Steyer’s campaign appears to have relied on paid influencers more than any candidate for governor, according to the most recent campaign finance filings.

That spending represents only a small fraction of the massive campaign war chest Steyer has seeded with nearly $180 million of his own money. But the complaint highlights the growing degree to which political candidates have come to seek out the authenticity that social media influencers seem to offer.

Advertisement

Steyer campaign spokesperson Kevin Liao said the campaign had properly followed the rules in hiring influencers and that the campaign is “confident” that Gomberg and Hennessy’s complaint is “baseless.”

“Creators make their living generating content. The campaign believes in compensating people for their time and work product and has paid creators to generate content,” Liao said in a statement. “Payments for creator content are disclosed in campaign finance reports, and we notify creators we directly work with of their disclosure requirements.”

While many of the new Steyer influencers have few followers, Steyer’s campaign disclosed in its most recent campaign finance report that it had paid thousands of dollars to numerous social media influencers with massive audiences, the Sacramento Bee reported.

Several of the videos produced by these popular social media personalities also failed to disclose that they had been paid by the campaign, according to the complaint and The Times’ review of the content.

But even accounts with few followers can still have a big impact if they are producing a steady stream of content supporting Steyer, said veteran California political strategist Mike Madrid.

Advertisement

“What they’re trying to do is trip the algorithm,” he said. “It looks like it has a bigger audience than it really does. It’s taking the concept of astroturfing into the digital age.”

Gomberg and Hennessy said they became friends after meeting at an April campaign event for Xavier Becerra, Steyer’s chief Democratic rival in the race, who holds a narrow advantage over Steyer in several recent political polls.

The pair have been prolific social media supporters of Becerra’s campaign ever since, though they insist they are not being paid for their efforts.

They said they discovered that many of the new pro-Steyer accounts seemed to be run by influencers — mostly women — who had previously created different social media accounts to hawk other products.

One of the pro-Steyer influencers had an online portfolio listing numerous clients, including the Steyer campaign and a gummy designed to boost arousal, according to the complaint and the Times review of the publicly accessible website.

Advertisement

The pair said they stumbled on an advertisement placed by a vendor for the campaign on a platform used by creators to find work. The advertisement indicated that creators would be paid $10 for each post, with bonuses for posts that amassed large viewership.

The vendor who posted the ad did not respond to a request for comment.

The advertisement has since been updated to say that it pays $1,000 per month and that creators will have to disclose that it is paid content.

As Gomberg and Hennessy dug deeper, they determined that some of the influencers promoting a candidate for governor weren’t even based in California.

A TikTok account using the handle jess.votes, for example, appears to be connected to a woman registered to vote in Florida. Other accounts were connected to women who indicated elsewhere that they were based in Pennsylvania, Missouri and Michigan.

Advertisement

Several influencers who created seemingly paid content promoting Steyer did not respond to multiple requests for comment from The Times.

The brouhaha over paid social media content is just the latest instance of the growing political impact of online creators.

Eric Swalwell’s campaign for governor — and congressional career — came to an end after multiple women accused him of sexual assault. A pair of influencers had publicly raised concerns about Swalwell’s behavior and helped connect victims with journalists who produced highly detailed reports of the allegations.

The California law requires influencers to disclose in a political post’s audio or text that it was sponsored and who paid for it.

The onus is on the creators to make the disclosure, but campaigns are required to tell them that they must do so. Despite passage of the law, the issue has so far remained largely under the radar.

Advertisement

“I have dozens of candidates and campaigns and I have not heard this issue come up one time,” said a campaign finance lawyer who requested anonymity because they represent numerous candidates with active campaigns.

Gomberg and Hennessy said that they were driven to call attention to potential violations of the disclosure requirements because of their concern about the corrosive influence such paid content could have if left unchecked.

“You have people who have trust in these creators,” Hennessy said. “You have a responsibility to your audience.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Why Were These C.E.O.s in Beijing With Trump?

Published

on

Video: Why Were These C.E.O.s in Beijing With Trump?

new video loaded: Why Were These C.E.O.s in Beijing With Trump?

Some of America’s most powerful C.E.O.s accompanied President Trump to Beijing during his summit with President Xi Jinping of China. Our reporter Ana Swanson explains what they were hoping to gain from the trip.

By Ana Swanson, Nour Idriss, Nikolay Nikolov and James Surdam

May 15, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending