Politics
Newsom calls the Democratic brand 'toxic' as he defends his podcast
SACRAMENTO — Since his podcast debuted in March, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California has flummoxed Democrats who fear that the politician they considered a liberal prizefighter is turning MAGA-friendly.
The rap against “This Is Gavin Newsom,” in which the governor spoke out against trans athletes competing in women’s sports and disavowed the gender-inclusive term “Latinx,” is that he doesn’t sound like the Newsom they know at all.
“What in God’s name is going on with Gavin Newsom?” asked CNN anchor Erin Burnett, quoting a headline criticizing the podcast, during a recent segment ripping the governor’s apparent shift.
“The country is trying to figure out how he went from progressive hero and governor of the most liberal state in the country to interviewing and spending time with MAGA favorites like Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk.”
The Democratic governor was also surprised, but by the response.
“I did what I said I was going to do. I mean, when I launched this, I said I was going to have, not debates with people I disagree with, I said we’re gonna have people on we disagree and agree with to have civil conversations to try to understand each other at this time of such polarization,” Newsom said in an interview with The Times on Friday. “And I said I was going to specifically meet with members of the MAGA movement. And then we did it and people were shocked.”
A common takeaway from the podcast is that Newsom is attempting to shape-shift into a moderate as he gears up to run for president in the aftermath of the Democratic Party’s disastrous 2024 election.
Newsom disputed that “exhausting” assumption, which he said others have attributed to actions for more than two decades. The governor offered his own blistering critique of his party to explain why he’s sitting down with controversial GOP figures now.
“Because our party’s getting our ass kicked,” Newsom said. “Because the Democratic Party brand is toxic. Because people don’t think we make any damn sense. They think we make noise. They don’t think we support them. You fill in the generic them. They don’t think we have their values. They think we’re elite. We talk down to people. We talk past people. They think we just think we’re smarter than other people, that we’re so judgmental and full of ourselves.”
The governor paused to say he loves his party, but “we’ve lost our way” and he wants people to know he hears it.
“I think you do that by having people you disagree with [on the podcast] without being disagreeable.”
It’s not the first time the governor has disagreed with his fellow Democrats.
As speculation mounted about whether then-President Biden was fit to run for president last summer, Newsom called the chatter from his own party “unhelpful” and “unnecessary” as he encouraged Democrats to back the president. A year earlier, he scolded the Democratic Party for its passive response to Republicans and for its lack of an offensive political playbook.
Newsom created headlines across the country in the premiere episode of his podcast when he told Kirk, a conservative activist and Trump loyalist, that allowing transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports is “deeply unfair.” Newsom’s comments represented a clear break from progressives.
The backlash from the left was swift. Newsom was accused of deserting his core LGBTQ+ constituency and flip-flopping after old social media posts surfaced with him expressing support for the California law signed by former Gov. Jerry Brown that gave trans students more rights in public schools, including the ability to compete in sports and use bathrooms based on their gender preference.
Newsom’s position aligned with 66% of American adults, who in a Pew Research survey in February said trans athletes should be required to compete on teams that match their sex assigned at birth.
The governor also was criticized for suggesting, in his podcast with Kirk, that no one in his office used the term “Latinx,” a gender neutral term, to describe Latinos, despite direct quotes of the governor that prove otherwise. A Pew poll from 2024 found that only 4% of Latinos describe themselves as “Latinx.”
Eric Jaye, the chief consultant for Newsom’s 2003 mayoral campaign, said the governor is an astute politician, though he disagreed with his decision to speak out against transgender athletes.
“San Francisco has produced many extraordinary politicians — Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Willie Brown, Kamala Harris — but in terms of the ability to adapt to changing political times and climes, Gavin Newsom’s head and shoulders above all of them,” Jaye said. “He’s deeply, deeply attuned to which way the political wind is blowing and he has so far shown an extraordinary ability to navigate changing political weather.”
“Now the challenge is, the question will be, at what point does that stop seeming like someone adapted to changing times and start seeming inauthentic, if not outright fake?”
On Friday, Newsom said he understood why people might view his podcast as a departure from his liberal image, shaped largely by his groundbreaking support for gay marriage as mayor of San Francisco and as an advocate for universal healthcare.
But the governor said his politics has never fit into an “ideological prism.”
Anyone who knows him, he said, remembers when he was the “small business supervisor” in San Francisco, raging against the board for raising fees on business owners and championing “Care Not Cash,” a policy to take welfare checks from homeless people and use the savings to pay for treatment options.
“I’m open to argument,” Newsom said. “I’m interested in evidence. I have very strong values. I’m a progressive but I’m a pragmatic one, and that’s something that anyone who has followed me knows, and people that don’t, they’re learning a little bit about that now.”
Still, Newsom always has been the main architect of his public image.
A wine entrepreneur allied with the business community, he ran as a moderate to win the mayor’s office in 2003 against a Green Party candidate. “Care Not Cash” was widely panned by progressives but helped seal his victory.
When Newsom set his sights on the biggest political prize in California in the 2018 governor’s race, he ran as a progressive advocate for single-payer healthcare and pledged to build more affordable housing.
Yet even as he effused his liberal platform, Newsom couldn’t shake criticism from his opponents that his positions were a mirage.
Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a moderate Democrat, accused Newsom of selling “snake oil” with his support for single-payer healthcare in order to win over the nurses union and progressives.
Newsom delivered some of his campaign pledges in his first term as governor. He successfully advocated for universal preschool and state-sponsored healthcare coverage to all income-eligible Californians regardless of immigration status. He also paused death row executions.
The governor, who has a close relationship with the tech industry and counts Google founder Sergey Brin and Salesforce Chief Executive Marc Benioff as his friends, has shown more of his moderate side in his second term.
He drew criticism from truck drivers for rejecting their push to require more regulation of autonomous big rigs. He vetoed a marquee bill last year that would have required artificial intelligence developers to put safeguards on the technology. Newsom rebuffed Hollywood unions when he rejected a bill that would have allowed workers to receive unemployment benefits when on strike.
He made a show this year of saying he would veto a bill for a second time that sought to restrict the state prison system’s ability to coordinate with federal immigration authorities attempting to deport felons. He’s also rejected proposals to allow immigrants who are in the country illegally to participate in a subsidized home loan program and to allow undocumented students to work at public universities.
Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, said she wasn’t shocked to see Newsom appear more moderate on the podcast.
“He has always been more or less a tech bro from Northern California with the same kind of politics as we thought,” Gonzalez said.
Perhaps, she said, “He’s done playing liberal and now he’s just going to be himself.”
Steve Kawa, Newsom’s chief of staff as mayor, scoffed at the idea that Newsom has changed. He said the governor has always been interested in speaking to people on all sides of a policy idea. Politicians, like regular people, aren’t one-dimensional.
“Maybe he’s moderate on this issue,” Kawa said. “Maybe he’s progressive on this issue. I don’t think he looks at it in terms of under what column is this solution to make life better for the public and I can only be in this column.”
To criticism that he appears too comfortable talking to Bannon, a Trump campaign architect, and Kirk one day and Democrats such as Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and commentator Ezra Klein the next, Newsom said he meets with people he disagrees with all the time. He mentioned his 90-minute sit-down with Trump in the Oval Office.
“That’s called life,” Newsom said. “I don’t decide who my friends are on the basis of their politics. I’d never met Charlie Kirk. I’d never met Bannon, but I know people that think like them and they’re good parents and they’re good people, and I vehemently disagree with their politics and they’re Trumpers.”
The amicability he displayed in the podcast toward Republican figures whom Democrats perceive as villains doesn’t come as a surprise to people who have closely followed his career.
“He sounds evenhanded about the views of people that you would think he would find an anathema to his being. That’s because of how he is on a path of existence beyond politics and I think that’s reflected in the podcast,” said David McCuan, a professor of political science at Sonoma State University.
“He’s always lived a charmed life in terms of politics, but there’s also been more to him.”
Politics
Appeals court declares DC ban on certain gun magazines unconstitutional
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
An appeals court struck down a local law in the District of Columbia that banned gun magazines containing more than 10 bullets, describing the measure as unconstitutional.
The ruling Thursday from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals also reversed the conviction of Tyree Benson, who was taken into custody in 2022 for being in possession of a handgun with a magazine that could contain 30 bullets, according to The New York Times.
“Magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition are ubiquitous in our country, numbering in the hundreds of millions, accounting for about half of the magazines in the hands of our citizenry, and they come standard with the most popular firearms sold in America today,” Judge Joshua Deahl wrote on behalf of the two-judge majority in the three-judge panel.
“Because these magazines are arms in common and ubiquitous use by law-abiding citizens across this country, we agree with Benson and the United States that the District’s outright ban on them violates the Second Amendment,” he added.
A salesperson holds a high capacity magazine for an AR-15 rifle at a store in Orem, Utah, in March 2021. (George Frey/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
“This appeal presents a Second Amendment challenge to the District’s ban on firearm magazines capable of holding ‘more than 10 rounds of ammunition.’ Appellant Tyree Benson argues that ban contravenes the Second Amendment so that his conviction for violating it should be vacated,” Deahl also wrote. “The United States, which prosecuted Benson in the underlying case and defended the ban’s constitutionality in the initial round of appellate briefing, now concedes that this ban violates the Second Amendment. The District of Columbia, which is also a party to this appeal, continues to defend the constitutionality of its ban.”
“We therefore reverse Benson’s conviction for violating the District’s magazine capacity ban. And because Benson could not have registered, procured a license to carry, or lawfully possessed ammunition for his firearm given that it was equipped with a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds, we likewise reverse his convictions for possession of an unregistered firearm, carrying a pistol without a license, and unlawful possession of ammunition,” Deahl said.
Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby, the judge who dissented, wrote that, “The majority bases its common usage analysis on ownership statistics that show only that magazines holding 11, 15, or 17 rounds of ammunition are in common use.”
GUN RIGHTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY DEBATED AT SUPREME COURT
Magazines at Norm’s Gun & Ammo shop in Biddeford, Maine, in April 2013. From left, the first two are high capacity magazines for handguns, an AK-47 magazine, an AR-15 magazine and an SKS magazine. (Shawn Patrick Ouellette/Portland Press Herald via Getty Images)
“The majority, however, fails to contend with the reality that these statistics do not support the conclusion that the particularly lethal 30-round magazine, such as the one Mr. Benson possessed here, is in common use for self-defense. It simply is not,” she added.
The District of Columbia can now appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, or ask the local appeals court to take another look at the ruling with a larger panel of judges, according to the Times.
High-capacity rifle magazines are removed from a display at Freddie Bear Sports in January 2023 in Tinley Park, Illinois. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The newspaper also reported that in a previous case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the constitutionality of the local law surrounding gun magazine sizes. It’s unclear how the two rulings will interact.
Politics
Contributor: The stars align for Democrats in Texas. Trump is helping them
If Democrats expect to flip a U.S. Senate seat in Texas, they’ll need all the stars to align. This almost never happens, because politics has a way of scrambling the constellations. But on Tuesday, the first star blinked on.
I’m referring to state Rep. James Talarico’s victory over Rep. Jasmine Crockett in the Democratic primary. Most political prognosticators agree that Talarico, an eloquent young Democrat who speaks openly about his Christian faith, is their best hope in a red state that Donald Trump won by 14 points.
The second star was Crockett’s conciliatory concession — far from a foregone conclusion after a nasty primary — in which she pledged to “do my part,” adding that “Texas is primed to turn blue, and we must remain united because this is bigger than any one person.”
The third star — a vulnerable Republican opponent — has not yet appeared over the Texas sky, although forecasters say it might.
Most observers agree that scandal-plagued Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton would be beatable in the general election, while incumbent Sen. John Cornyn would present a much tougher challenge. Cornyn is the kind of steady, conventional politician who tends to win elections, and so, of course, modern voters are extremely suspicious of him.
In the GOP primary on Tuesday, Cornyn’s 42% share of the vote edged out Paxton by about a point. Unfortunately for Republicans, neither candidate garnered enough votes to avoid a May 26 runoff election.
Conventional wisdom suggests that when a majority of Republican voters choose someone other than the incumbent in the first round of voting, an even greater majority will inevitably break toward the challenger in the runoff. If that happens, Paxton would become the nominee, and Democrats would get their third star to align.
Even better for Democrats — a fourth star, so to speak — would be for this protracted runoff to become a “knife fight,” as one Texas Republican predicted, in which Paxton staggers out of the fight as the battered GOP nominee.
The only problem is that Republicans can see these stars aligning, too.
And while the Texas Senate seat matters a lot on its own, it matters even more in the context of nationwide midterm elections, in which a Texas win would help Democrats take back the Senate.
Enter the cavalry — or, more accurately, President Trump, who is now entering a second war in the span of a week, this one a civil war in the Lone Star State.
The day after the primary, Trump announced that he would be “making my Endorsement soon, and will be asking the candidate that I don’t Endorse to immediately DROP OUT OF THE RACE!”
Reports suggest Trump may endorse Cornyn in order to save the seat for Republicans. But who knows? Trump is famously unpredictable. And it’s likely he admires Paxton’s ability to survive scandals that would have caused most normal politicians to curl up in the fetal position. As they say, “game recognizes game.”
Whomever he backs, conventional wisdom also says Trump should make his endorsement “soon,” as he promised. That would save Republicans a lot of time and money. But Trump currently has enormous leverage. Right now, people are coming to him, pleading for his support.
Do you think he wants to resolve that situation quickly?
Me neither.
With Trump, you never know what you’re going to get. In 2021, he helped torpedo Republican Senate candidates David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler in Georgia, handing Democrats control of the Senate. The following year he backed football legend Herschel Walker in another Georgia Senate race, which did not exactly work out great. Democrat Raphael Warnock won and holds that seat, though Walker is now ambassador to the Bahamas so that’s something.
This is to say: Trump’s political assistance does not always assist.
It’s unclear whether Trump’s endorsement would be dispositive — and whether he could muscle the other Republican out of the primary race.
Paxton, for example, initially vowed to stay in the race, no matter what. (He later suggested he would “consider” dropping out if the Senate passes the SAVE America Act, a bill to require proof of citizenship to vote.)
There’s also this: Trump’s endorsements tend to either be made out of vengeance or to pad the totals of an already inevitable winner, so his track record is probably overrated.
Case in point: While most of his endorsed candidates won their Texas elections, his endorsed candidate for agriculture commissioner lost reelection. And according to the Texas Tribune, “at least three Trump-endorsed candidates for Congress were headed to runoffs, one of them in a distant second place.”
Another issue is that Cornyn needs more than a perfunctory endorsement: He needs a clear, full-throated endorsement.
In a 2022 Missouri Senate race, Trump endorsed “ERIC,” which was awkward because two candidates named Eric were running.
More recently, he endorsed two rival candidates in the same 2026 Arizona gubernatorial race — like betting on both teams in the Super Bowl.
This is all to say that the only thing standing between Texas Democrats and a rare celestial alignment may be the whims of the Republican Party’s one and only star.
Sure, establishment Republicans can beg Trump to quickly step in and settle the race, and maybe he will. But it’s entirely possible the president will find a way to blow up his party’s chances for holding the U.S. Senate — and there’s nothing they can do to stop him.
When you’re a star, they let you do it.
Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”
Politics
Video: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary
new video loaded: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary
transcript
transcript
President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary
President Trump fired Kristi Noem, his embattled homeland security secretary, on Thursday and announced his plans to replace her with Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.
-
“The fact that you can’t admit to a mistake which looks like under investigation is going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back. Law enforcement needs to learn from that. You don’t protect them by not looking after the facts.” “Our greatness calls people to us for a chance to prosper, to live how they choose, to become part of something special. Anyone who searches for freedom can always find a home here. But that freedom is a precious thing, and we defend it vigorously. You crossed the border illegally — we’ll find you. Break our laws — we’ll punish you.” “Did you bid out those service contracts?” “Yes they did. They went out to a competitive bid.” “I’m asking you — sorry to interrupt — but the president approved ahead of time you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently?” “Yes, sir. We went through the legal processes. Did it correctly —” Did the president know you were going to do this?” “Yes.” “I’m more excited about just ready to get started. There’s a lot of work we can do to get the Department of Homeland Security working for the American people.”
By Jackeline Luna
March 5, 2026
-
World1 week agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Wisconsin5 days agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Maryland6 days agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Florida5 days agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Denver, CO1 week ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Oregon1 week ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling