Connect with us

Politics

Newsom sides with Musk in dispute over SpaceX rocket launches

Published

on

Newsom sides with Musk in dispute over SpaceX rocket launches

In a legal dispute between Elon Musk and the California Coastal Commission over the number of rockets the billionaire’s company can launch from the coast, Gov. Gavin Newsom has sided with Musk, saying over the weekend, “I’m with Elon.”

The comment by the governor is surprising because Musk, a staunch supporter of former President Trump, has often clashed with Newsom in public disputes over transgender rights, “deepfakes” and other issues that have often descended into crude posts from Musk on social media.

For the record:

2:36 p.m. Oct. 21, 2024An earlier version of this article misstated where Gov. Gavin Newsom was campaigning when he was interviewed by Politico as Northern California. He made his comments in North Carolina.

Advertisement

Newsom made the comments to Politico during an interview as the California governor campaigned for Vice President Kamala Harris in North Carolina.

The SpaceX dispute centers around the Coastal Commission’s rejection of the company’s plan to increase the number of rockets it launches from Vandenberg Space Force base near the Santa Barbara coast to 50 a year. The commission, made up of appointed members, is tasked with regulating development of land and protecting the natural resources along the coast.

The commission has most recently agreed for SpaceX to launch up to 36 times a year from Vandenberg. So far this year, the company has launched 34 rockets, with the most recent one occurring Saturday.

Military officials told the commission they expected to submit another request by March to increase the number of SpaceX launches to 100 a year.

The commission‘s members, who for months have been airing concerns about the impact of the rocket launches and sonic booms on the region’s wildlife, also cited Musk’s political influence, his posts on X, and his companies’ labor record as concerns when they voted to reject the plan.

Advertisement

SpaceX sued the agency over the vote, accusing it of “egregiously and unlawfully overreaching its authority.”

In the interview Thursday, Newsom seemed to side with Musk, saying, “Look, I’m not helping the legal case,” he said, adding, “You can’t bring up that explicit level of politics.”

A spokesperson for the Coastal Commission declined to comment.

SpaceX and the commission have clashed for months over the company’s plan to rapidly increase the number of rockets it launches from Vandenberg.

SpaceX is a leading contractor with the Space Force, and military officials have argued that the company’s launches benefit the U.S. government. Because the launches are considered federal activity, the state commission can’t technically stop SpaceX from launching the rockets, but is supposed to come to an agreement with federal officials to mitigate the effects of the launches, called a federal consistency plan.

Advertisement

When it rejected SpaceX’s accelerated launch plan earlier this month, several of the commissioners cited Musk’s political activity and posts on X, which he bought in 2022, as concerns.

“We’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race,” commission Chair Caryl Hart said at the meeting.

Other members cited Musk’s social media posts, spreading false information about the federal government’s response to hurricane victims, as well as his decision to refuse permission for Ukraine, a U.S. ally, to use his satellite internet service, Starlink, to carry out an attack against Russia in 2022.

Some commissioners have also been increasingly looking at whether SpaceX could be forced to apply for launch permits, as is required of a private company, instead of as a federal contractor. The commission has pointed out that 80% to 87% of SpaceX launches don’t carry government payloads, but instead carry Starlink satellites.

A spokesperson for SpaceX did not respond to requests for comment.

Advertisement

Federal officials have argued that all rocket launches benefit the U.S. government.

“These are good commissioners,” Newsom told Politico. “But you‘ve got to call balls and strikes. And trust me, I’m not big on the Elon Musk bandwagon right now. So that’s me calling balls and strikes.”

Musk and Newsom have clashed in the past, and Musk has been a vocal critic of California politicians after announcing that burdensome regulations and high taxes are forcing him to move his companies, X and SpaceX, out of California.

In an MSNBC interview, Newsom criticized Musk’s attempts to influence the presidential election, saying Musk was one of “those sucking up to Donald Trump.”

“I’m very concerned about a country where people like Elon Musk, others, that are sucking up to Donald Trump, that will undoubtedly be carved out of regulations,” Newsom said Sunday. “It is an American oligarchy that can be formed here.”

Advertisement

Newsom also blasted Musk’s use of a deepfake political ad that doctored video of Vice President Kamala Harris, and signed a law banning such videos.

Musk responded on X to Newsom, posting crude jokes.

Newsom said the commissioners and his team had been working behind the scenes to help reach an agreement with military officials to resolve “legitimate concerns.”

Commissioners had asked the U.S. Air Force to agree to seven conditions that would increase monitoring of the effects of operations on wildlife on and near the base, as well as develop a written plan to mitigate the impact and increased occurrences of sonic booms across the coast.

Military officials had initially rejected several of the provisions in August, but agreed to them during the subsequent meetings.

Advertisement

However, the governor said he was concerned that the discussion veered away from the issues surrounding the launches.

“They certainly could have said, ‘We are just not comfortable with [the proposal] right now,’” he said. “But that wasn’t what they said.”

Advertisement

Politics

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

Published

on

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.

The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House. 

The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

Published

on

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.

“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”

The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.

While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.

Advertisement

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.

And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.

That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.

It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.

That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.

Advertisement

That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is true in the streets of America today.

Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

Published

on

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.

The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.

Advertisement

USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION 

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.

The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022.  (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Advertisement

In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs. 

HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.

‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL

The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud.  (AP Digital Embed)

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”

Advertisement

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending