By Nicholas Nehamas, Michael H. Keller, Alexandra Ostasiewicz, James Surdam, Joey Sendaydiego, Karen Hanley, Alexandra Berzon, Hamed Aleaziz, Zach Wood and Zolan Kanno-Youngs

November 16, 2025

The 2028 presidential election is more than 1,000 days away, but you’d hardly know it from all the speculation and anticipation that’s swirling from Sacramento to the Washington Beltway.

Standing at the center of attention is California Gov. Gavin Newsom, fresh off his big victory on Proposition 50, the backatcha ballot measure that gerrymandered the state’s congressional map to boost Democrats and offset a power grab by Texas Republicans.

Newsom is bidding for the White House, and has been doing so for the better part of a year, though he won’t say so out loud. Is Newsom the Democratic front-runner or a mere flash in the pan?

Times columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak disagree on Newsom’s presidential prospects, and more. Here the two hash out some of their differences.

Barabak: So is the presidential race over, Anita? Should I just spend the next few years backpacking and snowboarding in the Sierra and return in January 2029 to watch Newsom iterate, meet the moment and, with intentionality, be sworn in as our nation’s 48th president?

Chabria: You should definitely spend as much time in the Sierra as possible, but I have no idea if Newsom will be elected president in 2028 or not. That’s about a million light-years away in political terms. But I think he has a shot, and is the front-runner for the nomination right now. He’s set himself up as the quick-to-punch foil to President Trump, and increasingly as the leader of the Democratic Party. Last week, he visited Brazil for a climate summit that Trump ghosted, making Newsom the American presence.

And in a recent (albeit small) poll, in a hypothetical race against JD Vance, the current Republican favorite, Newsom lead by three points. Though, unexpectedly, respondents still picked Kamala Harris as their choice for the nomination.

To me, that shows he’s popular across the country. But you’ve warned that Californians have a tough time pulling voters in other states. Do you think his Golden State roots will kill off his contender status?

Barabak: I make no predictions. I’m smart enough to know that I’m not smart enough to know. And, after 2016 and the election of Trump, the words “can’t,” “not,” “won’t,” “never ever” are permanently stricken from my political vocabulary.

That said, I wouldn’t stake more than a penny — which may eventually be worth something, as they’re phased out of our currency — on Newsom’s chances.

Look, I yield to no one in my love of California. (And I’ve got the Golden State tats to prove it.) But I’m mindful of how the rest of the country views the state and those politicians who bear a California return address. You can be sure whoever runs against Newsom — and I’m talking about his fellow Democrats, not just Republicans — will have a great deal to say about the state’s much-higher-than-elsewhere housing, grocery and gas prices and our shameful rates of poverty and homelessness.

Not a great look for Newsom, especially when affordability is all the political rage these days.

And while I understand the governor’s appeal — Fight! Fight! Fight! — I liken it to the fleeting fancy that, for a time, made attorney, convicted swindler and rhetorical battering ram Michael Avenatti seriously discussed as a Democratic presidential contender. At a certain point — and we’re still years away — people will assess the candidates with their head, not viscera.

As for the polling, ask Edmund Muskie, Gary Hart or Hillary Clinton how much those soundings matter at this exceedingly early stage of a presidential race. Well, you can’t ask Muskie, because the former Maine senator is dead. But all three were early front-runners who failed to win the Democratic nomination.

Chabria: I don’t argue the historical case against the Golden State, but I will argue that these are different days. People don’t vote with their heads. Fight me on that.

They vote on charisma, tribalism, and maybe some hope and fear. They vote on issues as social media explains them. They vote on memes.

There no reality in which our next president is rationally evaluated on their record — our current president has a criminal one and that didn’t make a difference.

But I do think, as we’ve talked about ad nauseam, that democracy is in peril. Trump has threatened to run for a third term and recently lamented that his Cabinet doesn’t show him the same kind of fear that Chinese President Xi Jinping gets from his top advisers. And Vance, should he get the chance to run, has made it clear he’s a Christian nationalist who would like to deport nearly every immigrant he can catch, legal or not.

Being a Californian may not be the drawback it’s historically been, especially if Trump’s authoritarianism continues and this state remains the symbol of resistance.

But our governor does have an immediate scandal to contend with. His former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, was just arrested on federal corruption charges. Do you think that hurts him?

Barabak: It shouldn’t.

There’s no evidence of wrongdoing on Newsom’s part. His opponents will try the guilt-by-association thing. Some already have. But unless something damning surfaces, there’s no reason the governor should be punished for the alleged wrongdoing of Williamson or others charged in the case.

But let’s go back to 2028 and the presidential race. I think one of our fundamental disagreements is that I believe people do very much evaluate a candidate’s ideas and records. Not in granular fashion, or the way some chin-stroking political scientist might. But voters do want to know how and whether a candidate can materially improve their lives.

There are, of course, a great many who’d reflexively support Donald Trump, or Donald Duck for that matter, if he’s the Republican nominee. Same goes for Democrats who’d vote for Gavin Newsom or Gavin Floyd, if either were the party’s nominee. (While Newsom played baseball in college, Floyd pitched 13 seasons in the major leagues, so he’s got that advantage over the governor.)

But I’m talking about those voters who are up for grabs — the ones who decide competitive races — who make a very rational decision based on their lives and livelihoods and which candidate they believe will benefit them most.

Granted, the dynamic is a bit different in a primary contest. But even then, we’ve seen time and again the whole dated/married phenomenon. As in 2004, when a lot of Democrats “dated” Howard Dean early in the primary season but “married” John Kerry. I see electability — as in the perception of which Democrat can win the general election — being right up there alongside affordability when it comes time for primary voters to make their 2028 pick.

Chabria: No doubt affordability will be a huge issue, especially if consumer confidence continues to plummet. And we are sure to hear criticisms of California, many of which are fair, as you point out. Housing costs too much, homelessness remains intractable.

But these are also problems across the United States, and require deeper fixes than even this economically powerful state can handle alone. More than past record, future vision is going to matter. What’s the plan?

It can’t be vague tax credits or even student loan forgiveness. We need a concrete vision for an economy that brings not just more of the basics like homes, but the kind of long-term economic stability — higher wages, good schools, living-wage jobs — that makes the middle class stronger and attainable.

The Democrat who can lay out that vision while simultaneously continuing to battle the authoritarian creep currently eating our democracy will, in my humble opinion, be the one voters choose, regardless of origin story. After all, it was that message of change with hope that gave us President Obama, another candidate many considered a long shot at first.

Mark, are there any 2028 prospects you’re keeping a particularly close eye on?

Barabak: I’m taking things one election at a time, starting with the 2026 midterms, which include an open-seat race for governor here in California. The results in November 2026 will go a long way toward shaping the dynamic in November 2028. That said, there’s no shortage of Democrats eyeing the race — too many to list here. Will the number surpass the 29 major Democrats who ran in 2020? We’ll see.

I do agree with you that, to stand any chance of winning in 2028, whomever Democrats nominate will have to offer some serious and substantive ideas on how to make people’s lives materially better. Imperiled democracy and scary authoritarianism aside, it’s still the economy, stupid.

Which brings us full circle, back to our gallivanting governor. He may be winning fans and building his national fundraising base with his snippy memes and zippy Trump put-downs. But even if he gets past the built-in anti-California bias among so many voters outside our blessed state, he’s not going to snark his way to the White House.

I’d wager more than a penny on that.

President Donald Trump has granted fresh pardons to two Jan. 6 defendants facing charges on other issues. 

Suzanne Kaye, a Jan. 6 defendant, was also sentenced to 18 months in prison for allegedly threatening to shoot FBI agents in social media posts. 

The Biden administration’s Department of Justice stated that on Jan. 31, 2021, the day before Kaye was set to meet with FBI agents regarding a tip that she was at the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot, she posted videos on social media in which she said she would “shoot” FBI agents if they came to her house. The FBI learned of Kaye’s social media posts on Feb. 8, 2021, and arrested Kaye at her Florida home on Feb. 17, 2021.

A White House official told Fox News Digital that Kaye is prone to stress-induced seizures and suffered one while the jury read its verdict in 2023. The official said that the case was one of disfavored political speech, which is protected under the First Amendment.

TRUMP PARDONS NEARLY ALL JAN. 6 DEFENDANTS ON INAUGURATION DAY

U.S. Special Attorney Ed Martin posted about the pardon on Saturday, thanking Trump in a post on X. 

“The Biden DOJ targeted Suzanne Kaye for social media posts — and she was sentenced to 18 months in federal lock up. President Trump is unwinding the damage done by Biden’s DOJ weaponization, so the healing can begin,” Martin wrote.

Jan. 6 defendant Daniel Wilson remained incarcerated after Trump pardoned convicted rioters because he pleaded guilty to firearms charges. A White House official told Fox News Digital that the president made the decision to grant Wilson an additional pardon because the firearms were discovered during a search of Wilson’s home related to the Capitol riot.

Despite being included in the sweeping pardon granted to Jan. 6 defendants by Trump on Jan. 20, 2025, Wilson remained incarcerated due to the firearms charge and was set to be released in 2028. Prior to his sentencing on Jan. 6-related charges, for which he received five years in prison, Wilson pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and possession of an unregistered firearm.

While the Trump administration Justice Department initially said that the firearm charge should not count under the Jan. 6 pardon, it later reversed course, citing “further clarity,” without going into details about what caused the shift.

TRUMP ISSUES SWEEPING PARDONS FOR 2020 ELECTION ALLIES — WHAT THE MOVE REALLY MEANS

In his original pardon, Trump declared that pursuant to his authority under Article II, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, he was commuting the sentences of those “convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” That pardon included Wilson’s Jan. 6 charges, but not the firearms-related ones.

U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee involved in Wilson’s case, rejected the expanded definition of what exactly Trump was pardoning, saying it stretched the bounds of the order too far. In her opinion, Friedrich criticized the use of the phrase “related to” from Trump’s original pardon to expand its meaning.

“The surrounding text of the pardon makes clear that ‘related to’ denotes a specific factual relationship between the conduct underlying a given offense and what took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021,” Friedrich wrote in her opinion.

An appeals court later supported her objections, saying that Wilson had to remain behind bars during the appeal process.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Wilson previously identified himself as a member of the Oath Keepers and the Gray Ghost Partisan Rangers militia, according to Politico.

“Dan Wilson is a good man. After more than 7 months of unjustified imprisonment, he is relieved to be home with his loved ones,” Wilson’s attorneys, George Pallas and Carol Stewart, told Politico in a statement. “This act of mercy not only restores his freedom but also shines a light on the overreach that has divided this nation.”

Fox News Digital reached out to the Justice Department and Wilson’s legal team for comment.