Connect with us

Politics

A year after Newsom called for constitutional amendment on gun safety, no other states have joined him

Published

on

A year after Newsom called for constitutional amendment on gun safety, no other states have joined him

On NBC’s “Today” show last June, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a proposal that seemed politically impossible from the start: Convincing two-thirds of state legislatures in America to officially call for a constitutional convention to adopt national gun safety laws.

Newsom didn’t see it that way.

“It’s possible because their constituency demands it,” Newsom said when the interviewer pointed out that more than half the states are controlled by Republicans who generally oppose gun restrictions.

One year later, no other state has joined Newsom’s fight.

Advertisement

The inability to advance the gun safety proposal beyond California, even in other Democratic-controlled states, suggests that — so far at least — Newsom’s plan was more flash than substance.

The governor’s pitch inspired a round of media coverage last year that elevated his national profile as a Democrat trying to do something about mass shootings and other gun violence. Newsom pointed to findings of a Fox News Poll that found overwhelming voter support for the restrictions.

The gun initiative has given him another opportunity to reach out to voters outside of California, widening his national appeal for a potential White House run in the future and creating an opportunity to expand his database of political supporters before his time as governor ends in two years.

Yet Newsom must still contend with the stubborn politics of the 2nd Amendment. Many lawmakers at the national and state level are reluctant to buck a powerful gun lobby and risk being accused of trying to dilute the constitutional right to bear arms.

The governor said he expected the slow progress, adding that support for a constitutional amendment on gun control could take 20 years to catch on.

Advertisement

“Come on, no one was naive about this,” Newsom said in a recent interview with The Times. “This has been done before, but not recently. It will have its fits and starts. It will have its champions and will have its setbacks.”

So far, the setbacks have been easier to spot.

Newsom’s plan would require two-thirds of states to pass resolutions supporting a constitutional convention. Through the convention, new federal gun safety measures would have to be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures. Newsom is calling for states to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that requires universal background checks on gun purchases and raises the minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21. The governor wants the gathering of states to also result in a “reasonable waiting” period for all gun purchases and to prohibit the sale of assault weapons to the public.

California lawmakers passed a resolution in September calling for a constitutional convention to consider the proposal.

The governor and his political aides began reaching out to other states after the California Legislature acted, hoping to find lawmakers around the country with compelling personal stories to lead the effort.

Advertisement

Some states have part-time Legislatures, which meet for only a few months annually or every other year, and lawmakers told Newsom’s aides it wasn’t feasible to pass a resolution this year, an advisor to the governor said. In other states, legislators who advocate for gun control had already committed to their bill packages for 2024.

“And others specifically said, ‘Not right now,’ I mean, there’s electoral issues,” Newsom said.

Newsom said he’s had “dozens of conversations,” but the governor and his political staff declined to name any states or individuals they have spoken with.

He said he’s discussed the constitutional amendment in every state he’s visited through his Campaign for Democracy, a political action committee that he formed to raise money for Democrats and to fight Republicans nationally in the 2024 election.

“So we’re talking to legislative leaders in all those red states,” Newsom said.

Advertisement

Last year, a few weeks after launching his call for the constitutional convention, Newsom went to Idaho to meet with Democrats and fund-raise for Biden’s reelection through his political action committee.

Democrat Melissa Winthrow, the minority leader in the Idaho state Senate, said she never heard from the California governor.

“No, I have not spoken to Gov. Newsom,” Winthrow said. “I’m not aware of if he’s been in communication with anybody. I have not.”

Winthrow doesn’t see how Newsom’s proposal has a chance of passing in Idaho.

“This is a supermajority red state, probably one of the most conservative in the country, with the strictest abortion bans and so forth,” she said. “So you’re not going to see any movement to restrict anything with firearms.”

Advertisement

Winthrow said she’s not sure she could support Newsom’s resolution because if a convention ever took place, her state would be represented by Republicans who would gut any amendment to restrict guns. In California, some Democrats declined to back the measure after legal scholars warned that states might be able to take up other issues beyond the scope of Newsom’s gun amendment at a constitutional convention.

There also are political realities in states like Idaho, where gun culture is so ingrained that Democrats largely avoid campaigning on the issue. Winthrow has introduced legislation to keep firearms from people convicted of domestic abuse and another bill to keep firearms from convicted pedophiles. Both failed.

She can’t imagine a scenario where Newsom’s proposal gains traction.

“There’s just no way the state is going to agree to that. It just isn’t going to happen. As I’ve described, the political climate here is such that it just wouldn’t even be on the table,” Winthrow said. “They would laugh.”

Newsom said he knew his proposal might not play well in some GOP-controlled states. But there are no signs it’s taken off in blue states either.

Advertisement

Despite Newsom’s cooperation with the Democratic leaders of other West Coast states on abortion access and curbing climate change, neither Oregon nor Washington have picked up the mantle of his gun control amendment.

“There has been no talk here of doing something similar,” said Aaron Wasser, a spokesman for Washington state Senate Democrats.

Washington House Speaker Laurie Jinkins “has not had any discussions with Gov. Newsom about this topic,” said her spokesperson Jen Waldref.

“This is not a concept that has been considered by the Oregon Legislature,” said Lucas Bezerra, spokesman for Oregon House Democrats.

Newsom did not directly answer questions about whether a nationwide campaign to restrict guns could hurt Biden’s reelection bid if Republicans responded by claiming Democrats are out to take away firearms. The governor said other issues, such as inflation, the cost of living and the economy were more top of mind to voters.

Advertisement

Newsom reiterated that his proposal would preserve the right of Americans to bear arms and focus strictly on gun safety that most Americans support. Newsom was inspired by inaction in Congress and California’s own efforts to pass gun control laws that have been struck down by federal courts.

“This was done very thoughtfully in the context of where things actually are, and where the American people are in every state,” Newsom said.

Newsom’s political advisor said lawmakers in many states are focused on their own elections or the presidential race this year, forcing the governor’s team to reevaluate their strategy and timetable.

Newsom’s team shifted focus to building support on the local level this year before ramping up their effort in 2025.

“Since California passed the amendment last year, the campaign has been building a grassroots army of activists who will support a national right to safety in states across the country and working with legislators on bill introductions for 2025 when states begin a new legislative session,” said Nathan Click, a spokesperson for Newsom.

Advertisement

Click said the campaign has “signed up over a million Americans to support the right to safety in their states.” More than 1,500 have completed volunteer training to help in their states and 10,000 volunteers will be trained by early 2025 when the bill introductions begin, he said.

Newsom’s Campaign for Democracy, his national political committee, sent out an email to its fundraising list in early May seeking volunteers.

The goal for volunteers laid out in the email was two-fold: To turn out voters across the country who will elect Democrats and get the Right to Safety amendment introduced in more states next year.

But the odds of Newsom building a successful movement are slim, because it’s so difficult to amend the Constitution, said University of Texas law school professor Sanford Levinson.

“He’s swimming upstream in terms of trying to persuade people that a constitutional amendment regarding guns is going to be a very fruitful way of spending their time,” Levinson said.

Advertisement

“No knowledgeable person about contemporary politics could really believe that that proposal is going to take off nationally with other state legislatures.”

Newsom’s pitch echoes a similar move the governor of Texas once made from the opposite end of the political spectrum.

In 2016, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott called for a convention of the states to make nine amendments to the U.S. constitution. They included a slew of conservative goals to limit federal power and require a balanced federal budget, which Abbott detailed in a 92-page plan.

The Texas Legislature passed the resolution the next year. But not much happened after that.

“He obviously thought that it might give him some political mileage,” Levinson said. “And it clearly didn’t.”

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

Published

on

Video: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

new video loaded: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

transcript

transcript

Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill that would have required President Trump to obtain congressional authorization to continue waging war against Iran.

“The yeas are 47. The nays are 53. The motion to discharge is not approved.” “President Trump decided to attack Iran. That decision was profound, deliberate and correct. The president understands the weight of war.” “Why is Donald Trump hellbent on making history repeat itself? Why is he plunging America headfirst into a war that Americans do not want, and which he cannot even explain? The American people deserve a say, and that is what our resolution is about.”

Advertisement
Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill that would have required President Trump to obtain congressional authorization to continue waging war against Iran.

By Shawn Paik

March 5, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’

Published

on

DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

EXCLUSIVE: Newly obtained financial statements shed light on claims that former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s company made millions from a DHS advertising campaign.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem faced intense questioning during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, and Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., specifically called out the agency for contracting a public relations firm headed by McLaughlin’s husband, Benjamin Yoho.

“I have personally reviewed the allegations against Ms. McLaughlin, and I find them to be baseless,” DHS General Counsel James Percival told Fox News Digital. “Nothing illegal or unethical occurred with respect to these contracts. Ms. McLaughlin was not involved in selecting any subcontractors.

“She is, however, a superstar in the public affairs world, so I am not surprised that she married a successful businessman whose services were attractive to these outside firms.”

Advertisement

Newly obtained financial statements address allegations that former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s firm improperly profited from a multimillion-dollar DHS ad campaign. Lawmakers pressed Secretary Kristi Noem over the contracts during a heated Senate hearing. (Jack Gruber/USA Today)

Kennedy alleged that Yoho’s firm, The Strategy Group, “got most of the money” out of what the Louisiana Republican senator says was $220 million in “television advertisements that feature [Noem] prominently.”

“I’m sorry,” Kennedy said. “Safe America Media was a company formed 11 days before you picked them. And that the Strategy Group got most of the money. And the head of that is married to your former spokesperson.”

“It’s just hard for me to believe knowing the president as I do, that you said, ‘Mr. President, here’s some ads I’ve cut, and I’m going to spend $220 million running them,’ that he would have agreed to that,” Kennedy explained. “I don’t think Russ Vought at OMB [Office of Management and Budget] would have agreed to that.”

‘YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!’: PROTESTER DRAGGED FROM KRISTI NOEM’S SENATE HEARING

Advertisement

Senate scrutiny intensified over a DHS advertising campaign after Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., questioned whether a firm linked to McLaughlin’s husband benefited unfairly. DHS officials and the company deny any wrongdoing or multimillion-dollar profits. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The Strategy Group is a conservative advertising agency for which Yoho serves as CEO.

Figures obtained by Fox News Digital show a slightly lesser total advertising expenditure of approximately $185 million, with a total of roughly $146.5 million going to a campaign called “Save America.”

However, of the total that went to “Save America,” roughly $348,000 went to production costs, while the remaining $142 million went to “media buys.”

Sources at DHS say that media buys are the cost of actually buying the ads themselves, whether purchased from social media or for a TV ad.

Advertisement

Kennedy also alleged that the bidding process for the contracts never took place and that Safe America Media’s recent founding was a cause for concern and collusion between McLaughlin and her husband’s business. 

WATCH THE MOST VIRAL MOMENTS AS KRISTI NOEM’S HEARING GOES OFF THE RAILS

Debate over DHS’ “Save America” ad campaign intensified as senators challenged its costs and contractor ties, even as agency officials touted the initiative as a historic success in promoting self-deportation. (Graeme Sloan/Getty Images)

“Yes they did,” Noem responded during the hearing. “They went out to a competitive bid, and career officials at the department chose who would do those advertising commercials.”

The Strategy Group posted to X Tuesday that it never had a contract with the department. While it did receive several hundred thousand dollars for production costs associated with the advertising campaigns, The Strategy Group never made millions.

Advertisement

“The Strategy Group has never had a contract with DHS,” the post said. “We had a subcontract with Safe America [Media] for limited production services. Safe America paid us $226,137.17 total for 5 film shoots, 45 produced video advertisements and 6 produced radio advertisements.

DHS SPOKESWOMAN TRICIA MCLAUGHLIN TO LEAVE TRUMP ADMIN, SOURCE CONFIRMS

Critics raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest in a high-dollar DHS advertising effort, but department representatives say McLaughlin recused herself and that subcontracting decisions were made independently. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“If you’re going to try to question our integrity, bring actual evidence — we did,” the post concluded.

Because these ads were purchased using public funds, all contract totals are publicly available. 

Advertisement

Lauren Bis, who took up the role of assistant secretary once McLaughlin left office, told Fox News Digital Tuesday that scrutiny from Republicans and Democrats over the advertising spending was unjustified because the campaigns resulted in “the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history.”

“Sanctuary politicians are attacking this ad campaign because it has been successful in CLOSING our borders and getting more than 2.2 million illegal aliens to LEAVE the U.S.,” Bis said. 

“The DHS domestic and international ad campaign was the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history. The results speak for themselves: 2.2 million illegal aliens self-deported, and we now have the most secure border in American history.”

KRISTI NOEM TO FACE SENATE GRILLING OVER MINNEAPOLIS SHOOTINGS AS DHS SHUTDOWN HITS WEEK 3

The Trump administration reaffirmed that all illegal immigrants are eligible for deportations as they focus on arresting violent criminals first.  (Raquel Natalicchio/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

Advertisement

Bis also compared the cost of arresting and deporting an illegal migrant to that of the minimal cost of an illegal migrant self-deporting. The department says the advertising campaign played a key role in marketing self-deportation.

A spokesperson at DHS also told Fox News Digital that contractors decide who they hire, fulfilling the terms of a contract, not the department itself. 

“By law, DHS cannot and does not determine, control or weigh in on who contractors hire or use to fulfill the terms of the contract,” a DHS spokesperson told Fox. “Those decisions are made by the contractor alone. We have only become aware of these companies because of this inquiry and did not hire those companies.”

The spokesperson also noted that McLaughlin “recused herself” from interactions with subcontractors to avoid “any perceived appearance of impropriety.”

“Upon hearing who the subcontractors were for production of the ad, Ms. McLaughlin recused herself from any interaction or engagement with any subcontractors to avoid any perceived appearance of impropriety,” the spokesperson continued. “DHS Office of Public Affairs is the program officer. Ms. McLaughlin oversees the DHS Office of Public Affairs, which is simply the vehicle for this contract.”

Advertisement

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem takes her seat as she arrives to testify during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)

McLaughlin told Fox News Digital the criticism of her and her family by senators at the hearing is a matter of public manipulation.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“This is yet another example of politicians intentionally trying to dupe and manipulate the public to try to manufacture division and anger,” McLaughlin told Fox News Digital. “The ad spend and contracts are a matter of public record, and the process was done by the book.

“These politicians would rather smear private citizens and American small businesses than do any basic research.”

Advertisement

Fox News Digital’s Alexandra Koch contributed to this report.

Related Article

DHS defends ad blitz amid Senate scrutiny, says campaign drove 2.2M self-deportations and saved taxpayers $39B
Continue Reading

Politics

Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran

Published

on

Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran

Senate Republicans blocked a war powers resolution Wednesday designed to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities in Iran, as the Trump administration accelerates its military campaign in a conflict that has killed hundreds, including at least six American service members.

The motion failed in a vote of 47-53.

In addition to pulling out military resources from the Middle East, the measure — introduced by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) — would have required Congress’ explicit approval before future engagement with Iran, a power granted to the legislative branch in the Constitution.

The House, where Republicans also hold an advantage, is scheduled to weigh in on a similar measure Thursday. Even if both Democratic-led measures were to succeed, President Trump was widely expected to veto the legislation.

“We are doing very well on the war front, to put it mildly,” President Trump said at a White House event on Wednesday afternoon. The president, who has come under scrutiny for offering shifting explanations on the war’s endgame, said that if he was asked to scale the American military operation from one to 10, he would rate it a 15.

Advertisement

Democrats dispute that Trump possesses the authority to wage the ongoing operation in Iran without explicit congressional approval.

Acknowledging the measure was unlikely to succeed, they framed the vote as a strategy to force lawmakers to put their support for or opposition to the war on record.

“Today every senator — every single one — will pick a side,” Schumer said. “Do you stand with the American people who are exhausted with forever wars in the Middle East, or stand with Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth as they bumble us headfirst into another war?”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and most of his Republican colleagues have maintained that the president carried out a “pre-emptive” and “defensive” strike in Iran, giving him full authority to continue unilateral military operations.

Republicans saw the vote as the “last roadblock” stopping Trump from carrying out his mission against the Islamic Republic.

Advertisement

“I think the president has the authority that he needs to conduct the activities and operations that are currently underway there. There are a lot of controversy and questions around the war powers act, but I think the president is acting in the best interest of the nation and our national security interests,” Thune said at a news conference.

Senators largely held to party loyalties, with the exception of Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, who broke ranks to support the measure, and Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman, who opposed it.

The vote comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the war against Iran is “accelerating,” with American and Israeli forces expanding air operations into Iranian territory. He pointed to evidence released by U.S. Central Command of a submarine strike on an Iranian warship, and also lauded other strikes throughout the region as civilian casualties in Iran surpassed 1,000 on the fourth day of the conflict, according to rights groups.

“We’re going to continue to do well,” Trump said Wednesday. “We have the greatest military in the world by far and that was a tremendous threat to us for many years. Forty-seven years they’ve been killing our people and killing people all over the world, and we have great support.”

Republicans blocked a similar war powers vote in January after the president ordered U.S. special forces to capture and extradite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas on drug trafficking charges.

Advertisement

GOP leaders argued that the outcome of that mission equated to a quick success in the Middle East, despite an uncertain timeline from the Department of Defense.

In the House, lawmakers will vote on a separate war powers effort Thursday. That bill is led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the two lawmakers who authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

“Instead of sending billions overseas, we need to invest in jobs, healthcare, and education here,” Khanna said on X.

In addition to that proposal, moderate Democrats in the House have introduced a separate resolution that would give the administration a 30-day window to justify continued hostilities in the Middle East before requiring a formal declaration of war or authorization from Congress.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending