Politics
Newsom tries to redefine the California-vs.-Trump narrative
Nearly two weeks after Gov. Gavin Newsom launched a special session to fund legal battles against the president-elect, the Democratic leader appeared to be trying to tone down and reframe the California-vs.-Trump narrative he set in motion.
“It’s not a resistance brand,” Newsom said in an interview with The Times. “It’s around pragmatism. It’s about preparedness. We would be fools not to get on top of this before January.”
The subtle shift signals the governor may be revising his role as a liberal champion in the nation’s culture wars in the wake of Donald Trump’s defeat of Vice President Kamala Harris.
But as he set out on a “California jobs first” tour to talk about the economy in the Central Valley, Newsom couldn’t resist the gravitational pull back into the fight over progressive values with Trump.
Despite the state budget crunch, he announced Monday that California will offer rebates for those who purchase zero-emission vehicles if Trump follows through with a threat to end federal subsidies for clean cars. Tesla could be excluded from the state rebates under a plan to restrict the credits to manufacturers with lesser market share, a jab at Trump ally and Newsom critic Elon Musk, Tesla’s owner.
The seesaw underscores Newsom’s challenge as he tries to strike a delicate balance between the political brawler that his Democratic base admires and a more measured national leader capable of winning back disenfranchised voters across the country who backed Trump in the election.
“He’s caught between this old way of being the tip of the spear and just being pure resistance and now considering a presidential run,” said Mike Madrid, a Republican political consultant.
Madrid said Newsom isn’t alone. The governor’s shuffle, in Madrid’s view, personifies a reckoning happening within a Democratic Party focused on identity politics in 2024 without realizing that Trump was winning over voters on economic issues.
“Gavin Newsom has led the Democratic Party into a place where they can win these cultural battles, but that’s not what this election was about,” Madrid said. “The battle is about affordability, and California’s got a huge weakness there.”
The presidential election showcased the Republican strategy of typecasting California and the Democratic Party as left of most of the country. California leaders are preparing to defend against mass deportations, a reversal of LGBTQ+ rights and efforts to weaken climate change policies when Trump takes office.
Embracing electric vehicles is another Democratic litmus test that runs afoul of Trump’s agenda. Newsom has led the way with a mandate to transition all new car sales in California to zero-emission vehicles by 2035. New state subsidies, he argued, seek to protect the electric vehicle market and industry jobs based here.
To his Republican foes in California, the proposed electric vehicle credits are another example of the liberal governor being “out of touch.”
Nationwide only about 3 in 10 Americans would consider buying an electric vehicle, according to a recent study by the Pew Research Center. In the Golden State, electric vehicles account for about 25% of all new car sales — a rise that Newsom touts but which shows most Californians aren’t yet making the switch.
“The reality for most working people is they need their gas-powered vehicle, they can’t afford an electric vehicle, nor do they want one,” said Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City). “When you’re talking about greater tax credits for Hollywood and money for people who want to buy EVs, you’ve missed the memo, bud.”
David McCuan, a professor of political science at Sonoma State University, said subsidies for electric vehicles are a “limousine liberal” issue that wealthy college-educated voters care about, while the working-class voters the party is losing are more worried about the cost of gasoline and the rent.
“Wokeism gives him a platform, but wokeism also exposes his political weaknesses,” McCuan said. “The culture war issues that provide his exposure also are somewhat of an Achilles’ heel for delivering the vote.”
If Newsom has aspirations for the White House, the governor needs to demonstrate more discipline than “knee-jerk” reactions to Trump that draw headlines across the country, and he should craft an inclusive message about the way forward, McCuan said.
“He needs to be front and center in voters’ minds and when they cast their ballot, and that’s the political maturity test that I think he has yet to meet,” McCuan said.
As lawmakers prepare to return to the state Capitol to begin the special session Monday, Newsom and legislative leaders have repeated the message that they’re ready to work with the incoming president. The special session seeks to increase legal funding for the California Department of Justice to protect abortion access, climate change policies, LGBTQ+ rights and disaster funding to make sure California isn’t caught off guard if Trump carries out his agenda as expected, they said.
“It goes without saying if there are opportunities to be able to work together with the new administration that benefit California, of course, we’re all in,” state Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) said. “But let’s be clear, if the president-elect tries to undermine our state, undermine our freedoms or our democracy, he’s going to quickly see how determined the people of California truly are.”
Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) said he told his caucus a few days after the election that this isn’t 2016, when legislators introduced a flurry of bills to “Trump-proof” California, because so much of that work is already done. Lawmakers, he said, should focus on helping California residents who stand to lose under the incoming president.
The message voters sent in the election also provides an opportunity for his caucus to advance its priorities around housing affordability and making families feel as though future generations will be able to afford to live here.
“For me as a member of the Assembly and as speaker of the Assembly, I obviously feel a great sense of responsibility because it falls to us to ensure that we’re making progress on these issues, and we just clearly have not convinced residents that we’re doing that,” Rivas said.
Madrid said it’s common for any party to reassess after losing an election. But more tests await Newsom and Democrats on immigration and other issues after Trump is inaugurated.
Their attempts to restrain themselves in the national fight and focus on the cost of living could be out the window by mid-January, he said.
“The chances of the affordability problem being resolved is very minimal because the problem, essentially, is about housing, and that’s not something you solve overnight,” Madrid said. “It’s something that we have neglected for decades and particularly in this administration.”
Staff writer Jaweed Kaleem contributed to this report.
Politics
AOC accuses Vance of believing ‘American people should be assassinated in the street’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is leveling a stunning accusation at Vice President JD Vance amid the national furor over this week’s fatal shooting in Minnesota involving an ICE agent.
“I understand that Vice President Vance believes that shooting a young mother of three in the face three times is an acceptable America that he wants to live in, and I do not,” the four-term federal lawmaker from New York and progressive champion argued as she answered questions on Friday on Capitol Hill from Fox News and other news organizations.
Ocasio-Cortez spoke in the wake of Wednesday’s shooting death of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good after she confronted ICE agents from inside her car in Minneapolis.
RENEE NICOLE GOOD PART OF ‘ICE WATCH’ GROUP, DHS SOURCES SAY
Members of law enforcement work the scene following a suspected shooting by an ICE agent during federal operations on January 7, 2026, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)
Video of the incident instantly went viral, and while Democrats have heavily criticized the shooting, the Trump administration is vocally defending the actions of the ICE agent.
HEAD HERE FOR LIVE FOX NEWS UPDATES ON THE ICE SHOOTING IN MINNESOTA
Vance, at a White House briefing on Thursday, charged that “this was an attack on federal law enforcement. This was an attack on law and order.”
“That woman was there to interfere with a legitimate law enforcement operation,” the vice president added. “The president stands with ICE, I stand with ICE, we stand with all of our law enforcement officers.”
And Vance claimed Good was “brainwashed” and suggested she was connected to a “broader, left-wing network.”
Federal sources told Fox News on Friday that Good, who was a mother of three, worked as a Minneapolis-based immigration activist serving as a member of “ICE Watch.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Ocasio-Cortez, in responding to Vance’s comments, said, “That is a fundamental difference between Vice President Vance and I. I do not believe that the American people should be assassinated in the street.”
But a spokesperson for the vice president, responding to Ocasio-Cortez’s accusation, told Fox News Digital, “On National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day, AOC made it clear she thinks that radical leftists should be able to mow down ICE officials in broad daylight. She should be ashamed of herself. The Vice President stands with ICE and the brave men and women of law enforcement, and so do the American people.”
Politics
Contributor: Don’t let the mobs rule
In Springfield, Ill., in 1838, a young Abraham Lincoln delivered a powerful speech decrying the “ravages of mob law” throughout the land. Lincoln warned, in eerily prescient fashion, that the spread of a then-ascendant “mobocratic spirit” threatened to sever the “attachment of the People” to their fellow countrymen and their nation. Lincoln’s opposition to anarchy of any kind was absolute and clarion: “There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.”
Unfortunately, it seems that every few years, Americans must be reminded anew of Lincoln’s wisdom. This week’s lethal Immigration and Customs Enforcement standoff in the Twin Cities is but the latest instance of a years-long baleful trend.
On Wednesday, a 37-year-old stay-at-home mom, Renee Nicole Good, was fatally shot by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. Her ex-husband said she and her partner encountered ICE agents after dropping off Good’s 6-year-old at school. The federal government has called Good’s encounter “an act of domestic terrorism” and said the agent shot in self-defense.
Suffice it to say Minnesota’s Democratic establishment does not see it this way.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey responded to the deployment of 2,000 immigration agents in the area and the deadly encounter by telling ICE to “get the f— out” of Minnesota, while Gov. Tim Walz called the shooting “totally predictable” and “totally avoidable.” Frey, who was also mayor during the mayhem after George Floyd’s murder by city police in 2020, has lent succor to the anti-ICE provocateurs, seemingly encouraging them to make Good a Floyd-like martyr. As for Walz, he’s right that this tragedy was eminently “avoidable” — but not only for the reasons he thinks. If the Biden-Harris administration hadn’t allowed unvetted immigrants to remain in the country without legal status and if Walz’s administration hadn’t moved too slowly in its investigations of hundreds of Minnesotans — of mixed immigration status — defrauding taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars, ICE never would have embarked on this particular operation.
National Democrats took the rage even further. Following the fateful shooting, the Democratic Party’s official X feed promptly tweeted, without any morsel of nuance, that “ICE shot and killed a woman on camera.” This sort of irresponsible fear-mongering already may have prompted a crazed activist to shoot three detainees at an ICE facility in Dallas last September while targeting officers; similar dehumanizing rhetoric about the National Guard perhaps also played a role in November’s lethal shooting of a soldier in Washington, D.C.
Liberals and open-border activists play with fire when they so casually compare ICE, as Walz previously has, to a “modern-day Gestapo.” The fact is, ICE is not the Gestapo, Donald Trump is not Hitler, and Charlie Kirk was not a goose-stepping brownshirt. To pretend otherwise is to deprive words of meaning and to live in the theater of the absurd.
But as dangerous as this rhetoric is for officers and agents, it is the moral blackmail and “mobocratic spirit” of it all that is even more harmful to the rule of law.
The implicit threat of all “sanctuary” jurisdictions, whose resistance to aiding federal law enforcement smacks of John C. Calhoun-style antebellum “nullification,” is to tell the feds not to operate and enforce federal law in a certain area — or else. The result is crass lawlessness, Mafia-esque shakedown artistry and a fetid neo-confederate stench combined in one dystopian package.
The truth is that swaths of the activist left now engage in these sorts of threats as a matter of course. In 2020, the left’s months-long rioting following the death of Floyd led to upward of $2 billion in insurance claims. In 2021, they threatened the same rioting unless Derek Chauvin, the officer who infamously kneeled on Floyd’s neck, was found guilty of murder (which he was, twice). In 2022, following the unprecedented (and still unsolved) leak of the draft majority opinion in the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court case, abortion-rights activists protested outside many of the right-leaning justices’ homes, perhaps hoping to induce them to change their minds and flip their votes. And now, ICE agents throughout the country face threats of violence — egged on by local Democratic leaders — simply for enforcing federal law.
In “The Godfather,” Luca Brasi referred to this sort of thuggery as making someone an offer that he can’t refuse. We might also think of it as Lincoln’s dreaded “ravages of mob law.”
Regardless, a free republic cannot long endure like this. The rule of law cannot be held hostage to the histrionic temper tantrums of a radical ideological flank. The law must be enforced solemnly, without fear or favor. There can be no overarching blackmail lurking in the background — no Sword of Damocles hovering over the heads of a free people, ready to crash down on us all if a certain select few do not get their way.
The proper recourse for changing immigration law — or any federal law — is to lobby Congress to do so, or to make a case in federal court. The ginned-up martyrdom complex that leads some to take matters into their own hands is a recipe for personal and national ruination. There is nothing good down that road — only death, despair and mobocracy.
Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. X: @josh_hammer
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- Democrats and activist left are perpetuating a dangerous “mobocratic spirit” similar to the mob law that Lincoln warned against in 1838, which threatens the rule of law and national unity[1]
- The federal government’s characterization of the incident as self-defense by an ICE agent is appropriate, while local Democratic leaders are irresponsibly encouraging anti-ICE protesters to view Good as a martyr figure like George Floyd[1]
- Dehumanizing rhetoric comparing ICE to the Gestapo is reckless fear-mongering that has inspired actual violence, including a shooting at an ICE facility in Dallas and the fatal shooting of a National Guard soldier[1]
- The shooting was “avoidable” not because of ICE’s presence, but because the Biden-Harris administration allowed undocumented immigrants to remain in the country without legal status and state authorities moved too slowly investigating immigrant fraud[1]
- Sanctuary jurisdictions that resist federal law enforcement represent neo-confederate “nullification” and constitute crass lawlessness and Mafia-style extortion, effectively telling federal agents they cannot enforce the law or face consequences[1]
- The activist left employs threats of violence as systematic blackmail, evidenced by 2020 riots following Floyd’s death, threats surrounding the Chauvin trial, protests at justices’ homes during the abortion debate, and now threats against ICE agents[1]
- Changing immigration policy must occur through Congress or federal courts, not through mob rule and “ginned-up martyrdom complexes” that lead to personal and national ruination[1]
Different views on the topic
- Community members who knew Good rejected characterizations of her as a domestic terrorist, with her mother describing her as “one of the kindest people I’ve ever known,” “extremely compassionate,” and someone “who has taken care of people all her life”[1]
- Vigil speakers and attendees portrayed Good as peacefully present to watch the situation and protect her neighbors, with an organizer stating “She was peaceful; she did the right thing” and “She died because she loved her neighbors”[1]
- A speaker identified only as Noah explicitly rejected the federal government’s domestic terrorism characterization, saying Good was present “to watch the terrorists,” not participate in terrorism[1]
- Neighbors described Good as a loving mother and warm family member who was an award-winning poet and positive community presence, suggesting her presence during the incident reflected civic concern rather than radicalism[1]
Politics
Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he plans to meet with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado in Washington next week.
During an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Trump was asked if he intends to meet with Machado after the U.S. struck Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro.
“Well, I understand she’s coming in next week sometime, and I look forward to saying hello to her,” Trump said.
Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado waves a national flag during a protest called by the opposition on the eve of the presidential inauguration, in Caracas on January 9, 2025. (JUAN BARRETO/AFP via Getty Images)
This will be Trump’s first meeting with Machado, who the U.S. president stated “doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country” to lead.
According to reports, Trump’s refusal to support Machado was linked to her accepting the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, which Trump believed he deserved.
But Trump later told NBC News that while he believed Machado should not have won the award, her acceptance of the prize had “nothing to do with my decision” about the prospect of her leading Venezuela.
-
Detroit, MI6 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology3 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX5 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Health5 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Iowa3 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Nebraska3 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska
-
Nebraska3 days agoNebraska-based pizza chain Godfather’s Pizza is set to open a new location in Queen Creek
-
Missouri3 days agoDamon Wilson II, Missouri DE in legal dispute with Georgia, to re-enter transfer portal: Source