Gavin Newsom mocked for tech issues during anti-Trump address to Californians: ‘Absolute fail'

California Governor Gavin Newsom is being mocked online for an "embarrassing" televised address Tuesday night that experienced several technology meltdowns, resulting in the governor not being audible for parts of his speech.
In a prerecorded message, Newsom, a Democrat rumored to have presidential aspirations, harshly condemned President Donald Trump's "brazen abuse of power" by using the military to respond to the ongoing anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles. He also said that those who engage in violence will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
"This isn't just about protests here in Los Angeles," Newsom said in the video. "This is about all of us. This is about you. California may be first, but it clearly will not end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault before our eyes."
His address, however, was inhibited by several technical issues, which resulted in his audio being cut off and distorted several times.
Newsom Compared To Infamous Dem Governor Who Also Tried To Block National Guard
Noting the meltdown on X, David Freeman, a conservative political commentator, mocked "Gavin Newsom's staff can't even set up a stream properly as his 'Major Announcement' has NO AUDIO."
Read On The Fox News App
"If they can't do this correct, what makes anyone believe they can run California at all? EMBARRASSING!" said Freeman.
"UTTER CALAMITY," commented Link Lauren, a political commentator and former senior advisor to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Kevin Dalton, a popular conservative influencer, commented, "Gavin Newsom's 'Major Address to Californians' was a prerecorded video that was initially streamed without audio. After several minutes, a new color corrected version of the same video with actual audio was started. What an absolute fail."
Now And Then: How Trump's Response To La Riots Has Changed From 2020 Black Lives Matter And Antifa
Another popular conservative social media account, The Washington Observer, commented: "Sean Hannity is desperately trying to play Gavin Newsom's speech — but he can't, because Newsom's audio is melting down for the third time tonight."
Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., who observed the audio issues in real time on the Sean Hannity Show, also chimed in, saying, "So, I went on Sean Hannity to react to Gavin Newsom's speech. Turns out, it was a total mess. Disorganized. Bad audio."
Mullin quipped, "But, what else should we expect from this poor excuse for a leader?"
White House assistant to the president and director of communications Steven Cheung also piled onto the criticism, accusing Newsom of spending time creating the video rather than serving as governor. Likewise, Cheung took a swipe at the video's audio, claiming the production quality was akin to Newsom's leadership.
"Gavin NewScum spent all this time--instead of doing his actual job-- preparing for a webinar just for the audio to not work," Cheung said in a post on X late Tuesday evening. "The production quality is just like his leadership quality-- sh***y."
White House Mocks Newsom Address, Accuses Governor Of Hiring Harris', Biden's Campaign Manager
Deputy assistant to the president and principal deputy communications director Alex Pfieffer responded to Newsom's speech by saying that rather than Trump, "California is trying to subvert democracy."
"American voters elected President Donald Trump to carry out his agenda, which includes enforcing the immigration laws passed by their elected representatives," said Pfeiffer.
In response, Newsom's press office referred Fox News Digital to a Tuesday night X post which acknowledged the issues by saying, "Sorry for the momentary silence earlier — our stream briefly went under Trump-era transparency rules."Original article source: Gavin Newsom mocked for tech issues during anti-Trump address to Californians: 'Absolute fail'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

USA Today

26 minutes ago

• USA Today

Trump to decide on US role in Israel-Iran conflict within 2 weeks

Trump to decide on US role in Israel-Iran conflict within 2 weeks | The Excerpt On Friday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: President Donald Trump will decide on the U.S. role in the Israel-Iran conflict within two weeks. USA TODAY White House Reporter Davis Winkie discusses how the Trump administration's National Guard immigration enforcement could divide states. Plus, a court lets Trump keep control of California's National Guard for now. The Los Angeles Dodgers say they denied federal agents access to Dodger Stadium parking lots. Trump signs an executive order delaying a ban on TikTok - again. USA TODAY National Correspondent Marco della Cava looks back on the phenomenon that was 'Jaws' on its 50th anniversary. Plus, how locals made up much of the film's cast. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending an email to podcasts@ Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text. Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here Taylor Wilson: Good morning. I'm Taylor Wilson. And today is Friday, June 20th, 2025. This is USA TODAY's The Excerpt. Today, when might we get a decision on the US approach to Iran and Israel? Plus, how Trump's National Guard immigration enforcement could divide states. And it's been 50 years since the release of Jaws. ♦ President Donald Trump will decide in the next two weeks whether the US will get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran. That's what the White House said yesterday. Trump continues to keep the world guessing on his plans. He had proposed a diplomatic solution, but has also suggested the US might join the fighting on Israel's side. Iran has said it won't negotiate under duress. The conflict has killed at least 240 Iranians and 24 Israelis in a week. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declined to say if Trump would seek congressional authorization for strikes on Iran. ♦ The possibility of the Trump administration sending National Guard troops on immigration raids outside their own state could cause a legal clash between states and with the federal government. I spoke with USA TODAY White House reporter Davis Winkie for more. Davis, thanks for joining me today. Davis Winkie: It's good to be back. Taylor Wilson: Davis, starting here, the Pentagon is weighing a request from the Department of Homeland Security to call up members of the National Guard under state authority. What did you find taking a closer look at this memo? Davis Winkie: The way that the administration wants to bring the National Guard into immigration enforcement really diverges from the ways in which the National Guard has previously been used on this front. There have been border efforts that have really sparked professionalization and even reforms of the National Guard when necessary. But each of those missions to include ones under Obama, Biden, and Trump were focused on border security rather than interior immigration enforcement. And that's what stands out, is that now the Trump administration wants 20,000 guardsmen to participate in interior immigration enforcement rather than just border security as they have in the past. Taylor Wilson: Well, putting just slightly a tighter lens here, Davis, what is the 287(g) program and how would it be used here? Davis Winkie: It's named after a section in the federal law that authorizes a lot of immigration enforcement. It's a vehicle by which local and state law enforcement agencies can enter formal partnerships with ICE and DHS. One of the ways in which this can be done is by serving warrants or by doing jailhouse cooperation, where if somebody that a local sheriff's office brings in, for example, has an ICE detainer, then they will coordinate with ICE to give that person over to them when it's appropriate to do so. But the Trump administration has revived a old version of 287(g) called the task force model that actually involves taking law enforcement officers from local and now even state agencies and deputizing them with immigration enforcement powers that lets them go forth and detain people on suspicion of not being lawfully in the United States for example. What it also does is it allows these individuals from participating agencies to go out and about as part of ICE-led task forces or other federal law enforcement task forces that seek to enforce immigration laws. It's basically a way for the immigration enforcement apparatus to widen its reach around the country. Taylor Wilson: Well, I know a big question here is what this means for crossing state lines and the differences from one state to the next. I mean, can task force participants under 287(g) operate across state lines? Davis Winkie: Well, Taylor, that's the big question, and it's one that, according to CNN, officials in the administration and DHS and in the Pentagon are asking. The reason why the administration is likely exploring this possibility is that National Guard troops under state authority are not subject to the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act, which is a law that forbids active-duty US military personnel from directly enforcing civilian laws. That's a law that has limited exceptions, but the biggest one is those guard troops on state duty can enforce laws. And by bringing guard troops on state duty onto immigration task forces, you've theoretically then expanded those task forces with a lot more manpower. But the question remains, can those troops go across state lines? The experts that I talked to for this story, Taylor, just don't know. Taylor Wilson: And as you outlined in this piece, Davis, this could potentially mean just broader clashes between red states and blue states. Is that a fair way to look at this? Davis Winkie: I think so. There's been, in recent years, a increasing pattern of clashes between states and the federal government over control and use of the National Guard. The modern examples start with more recently in the first Trump administration when the news of family separations came to light. A lot of democratic governors withdrew their consent for their personnel who were on state duty at the border under a federally-organized task force. So there have been concepts like this before that haven't been doing direct interior immigration enforcement that have had political issues rend the working relationships there. You also saw during the COVID pandemic some red state governors fight against the Biden administration trying to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine for troops in their National Guard. And then what we're seeing right now out in California with the administration federalizing the 4,000 members of the California National Guard against the consent of Governor Gavin Newsom out there. It's a different legal authority than the one that would be in play for the DHS request, but it just goes to show that there are a lot of traditional limits and boundaries with this relationship over the guard between states and the federal government that's taken it from a largely cooperative one in the modern era to one where now you've got people looking to score political points on each other. Taylor Wilson: All right. Another great piece from you, Davis. Folks can find the full version with the link in today's show notes. Davis Winkie covers the White House for USA TODAY. Thank you, Davis. Davis Winkie: Thanks for having me. Taylor Wilson: The US appeals Court let President Trump retain control yesterday of California's National Guard, while the state's Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit, challenging Trump's use of the troops amid protests and riots in Los Angeles. ♦ Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Dodgers said yesterday that immigration and customs enforcement agents were denied entry to the stadium grounds. While ICE says the agency was never there. And the Department of Homeland Security claims, the masked agents were with Customs and Border patrol. You can read more about that with a link in today's show notes. ♦ President Trump has again extended the deadline for a TikTok ban to go into effect, allowing the Chinese-owned social media platform to continue operating for the next 90 days. Trump had said earlier in the week that he planned to give TikTok a third extension and signed an executive order yesterday making it official. It was the third time that Trump authorized a delay. The social media app's parent company, ByteDance, now has until September 17th to secure a deal that satisfies a legal requirement. Lawmakers ordered TikTok to divest from its Chinese ownership or face a ban in the United States over national security concerns. Former President Joe Biden signed the bipartisan legislation into law and the Supreme Court held the ban. But since returning to office, Trump has directed the Department of Justice not to enforce it. ♦ It's been 50 years since an iconic movie and theme song kept beachgoers out of the water for a summer and even longer. I spoke with USA TODAY national correspondent Marco della Cava on the anniversary of Jaws. Marco, I always appreciate you stopping by. How are you today? Marco della Cava: I am great. Thanks for having me. Taylor Wilson: Thanks for having on. Really fun story. I cannot believe it's the 50th anniversary of Jaws. So let's just first go back to 1975. How big of a phenomenon was Jaws that summer? Marco della Cava: One way to answer that is one of the gentlemen I interviewed said he finally got to see it in 1979 because he was old enough, four years later, and the line was still around the block in 1979. So you can imagine 1975. Taylor Wilson: Wow. And I know you hear stories about folks not wanting to go into the water for that entire summer. In some cases, years. In some cases, an entire lifetime, right Marco, after seeing this movie. How badly did it scare people? Marco della Cava: Yeah, I mean it terrified folks, young and old. And I was happy to learn interviewing people that I was not alone in not wanting to go in the water and being very scared for years. In fact, I was even scared of going into a pool. And apparently, that phenomenon affected other people as well. As crazy as it sounds, there's no sharks in pools, but any kind of situation where you're in water and you're not sure what's out there, your mind can get ahead of yourself quickly. And Spielberg did an amazing job because as you remember in the opening scene in the first shark attack, you don't see a shark. And that sort of stayed with people, that, here I am bobbing in the water and yet who knows what's beneath me. Taylor Wilson: Well, you mentioned Spielberg. He went on to have this massive career, but this was early on in his career. And you're right that Jaws was both his origin story and almost his career killer. How so? Marco della Cava: Absolutely. He was under pressure to deliver a blockbuster, ideally, under budget. This was a very, very popular novel at the time, and they wanted it out for summer. And he was having massive problems with the mechanical shark. Obviously, he had insisted on shooting it, as you know, in Martha's Vineyard and also with a real mechanical shark out in the ocean. And that caused all sorts of problems that he felt were just going to be his undoing. He felt he might get kicked off the project. And in the end of course it was, as he said in a documentary I watched, the movie that gave him final cut for the rest of his life. So it made him in a huge way. Taylor Wilson: So many of the iconic scenes were filmed off the coast of Massachusetts around the island of Martha's Vineyard, a place I know well and have spent a lot of time. Most Jaws cast members were locals from the island, Marco. Tell us about some of these folks and also their memories from the Jaws production. Marco della Cava: Yeah, that's quite the amazing thing. They came to Martha's Vineyard with, I think, it was eight professional actors. And everyone else was cast locally. And that is what gives the movie its real genuine flavor. And a lot of these folks have since turned up at Jaws festivals that are happening. Different years they've happened, but they're going to happen this summer at the 50th anniversary on Martha's Vineyard. And those who are still alive, who were probably in their 20s, I think the gentleman who plays the college kid at the opening scene, he's often spotted talking to Jaws fans on the island. So that's a big part of the success of the movie, was the fact that it felt real because it really kind of was real in many ways. Taylor Wilson: And Martha's Vineyard local, Jeff Voorhees, played one of the Jaws victims as a kid. He spoke to the Cape Cod Times part of the USA TODAY network. Let's hear what he had to say. Jeff Voorhees: The third victim to get eaten by the shark in that movie back 50 years ago. Day two, we tried. Your leg came out of the water. Day three, your arm came out of the water. And then day five, Spielberg finally goes, "This is taking too long." He goes, "This time we got a different plan." He goes, "We got two guys in wetsuits. They're going to be underwater. When that thing explodes, each going to grab one of your legs, lift you in and out of the water a few times, and then pull you under and give you air." Taylor Wilson: It's the 50th anniversary of this summer. How are fans, how are former, you mentioned part of this, but former cast members and members of this production marking the 50th anniversary? Marco della Cava: In terms of how the cast is marking it, it's a good question. I mean, Richard Dreyfus famously doesn't like talking about Jaws. Spielberg rarely talks about Jaws. It was a long time ago, but I think it's mostly the fans, young and old, and therefore you're going to see Jaws on television quite often over the next few months. There's going to be a re-release of the actual movie, I believe in August. And there are lots of documentaries as well coming out. So anyone who likes the movie is going to be able to learn a lot more about it. Taylor Wilson: And Mark, are you still staying away from the ocean all these years after seeing Jaws? Marco della Cava: I don't stay away from it, but as one of the people I interviewed said, "I don't turn my back to the horizon." Taylor Wilson: Fair enough. Marco della Cava is a national correspondent with USA TODAY joining us here on the 50th anniversary of Jaws. Thanks, Marco. Marco della Cava: Thank you. ♦ Taylor Wilson: Thanks for listening to The Excerpt. We're produced by Shannon Rae Greene and Kelly Monahan, and our executive producer is Laura Beatty. You can get to podcast wherever you get your audio. And if you're on a smart speaker, just ask for The Excerpt. As always, you can email us at podcasts@ I'm Taylor Wilson and I'll be back tomorrow with more of The Excerpt from USA TODAY.

Fox News

32 minutes ago

• Fox News

Vance to meet with federal law enforcement, Marines in LA amid anti-ICE riots

EXCLUSIVE: Vice President JD Vance will travel to Los Angeles Friday morning to visit the city amid anti-ICE riots, Fox News Digital has learned. Upon arrival, the vice president is expected to tour a multiagency Federal Joint Operations Center and a Federal Mobile Command Center. There, the vice president is expected to meet with leadership and U.S. Marines. An official familiar with the plans told Fox News Digital that the vice president is expected to deliver brief remarks. Vance's trip comes in the midst of anti-ICE riots in the city. The vice president is expected to discuss how Los Angeles was destroyed in the midst of the violent protests against the Trump administration's immigration enforcement. Vance also is expected to discuss how California politicians had a choice, and chose to disregard federal laws and turn their backs on law enforcement. President Donald Trump ordered the National Guard to Los Angeles earlier in June to aid law enforcement amid the violent protests. The Trump administration also sent hundreds of Marines to support law enforcement. California Gov. Gavin Newsom sued the Trump administration for taking command of the National Guard, but a unanimous ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday said Trump is allowed to keep control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles. The ruling stays the lower court order that ordered command of the troops back to California Gov. Gavin Newsom. A president hasn't made a decision about the deployment of a National Guard without the permission of the state's governor since 1965. Trump, in a Thursday night post to Truth Social, praised the Court of Appeals for its decision and said the decision was a win. "BIG WIN in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the President's core power to call in the National Guard! The Judges obviously realized that Gavin Newscum is incompetent and ill prepared, but this is much bigger than Gavin, because all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done. This is a Great Decision for our Country, and we will continue to protect and defend Law abiding Americans. Congratulations to the Ninth Circuit, America is proud of you tonight!," he posted.

Wall Street Journal

34 minutes ago

• Wall Street Journal

Newsom Still Wrong About the National Guard

No surprise to readers of this column, a unanimous three-judge panel has ruled against the state of California and Gov. Gavin Newsom, who seems to believe he enjoys some sort of veto over presidential powers. Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall report for the Journal: