White House mocks Newsom address, accuses governor of hiring Harris', Biden's campaign manager
The White House took several jabs at California Gov. Gavin Newsom's address to the nation on Tuesday night as his state navigates massive immigration protests in Los Angeles.
Newsom, a Democrat, said in the address that "Democracy is under assault" as he sparred with President Donald Trump over the administration's decision to dispatch thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines to address the riots.
In response, White House assistant to the president and director of communications Steven Cheung accused 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."
Additionally, Cheung suggested that Newsom had brought on former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign manager, who both repeatedly warned during the 2024 campaign cycle that a second Trump term would pose a "threat to democracy."
"NewScum must've hired Kamala and Biden's loser campaign team because he saying this is a 'threat to democracy,'" Cheung said.
A spokesperson for Newsom did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.
Other White House officials also weighed in on Newsom's address to defend the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration.
"American voters elected President Donald Trump to carry out his agenda, which includes enforcing the immigration laws passed by their elected representatives," deputy assistant to the president and principal deputy communications director Alex Pfieffer said in a post on X on Tuesday. "California is trying to subvert democracy."
Newsom said in the address that more than 200 people have been arrested in connection to the protests and labeled Trump's decision to deploy troops to Los Angeles a "brazen abuse of power."
"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."
White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller also responded to one of Newsom's posts on X late Tuesday evening after the governor said the Founding Fathers did not "live and die to see this moment," and urged for peaceful protests. Meanwhile, Miller shared a photo of a shirtless man standing on a vehicle and waving a California flag in front of fumes with the comment: "According to Governor Newsom, this is what the Founders were fighting for."
Trump has gone head-to-head with Newsom over the deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles following protests sparked by ICE arrests in the city on Friday.
While Trump has argued the National Guard troops are necessary to prevent destruction in Los Angeles, Newsom said most of the troops "are sitting, unused, in federal buildings without orders."
Additionally, Newsom argued that the move violates state sovereignty because governors typically oversee National Guard troops. Trump invoked a law to place the troops under federal command in order to bypass Newsom.
"This isn't about public safety," Newsom said in a post on X on Monday. "It's about stroking a dangerous President's ego."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
California will do anything to protect immigrants — except build them housing
Over the past several weeks, hundreds of thousands of Californians have taken to the streets to protest the Trump administration's increasingly authoritarian efforts to deport the state's undocumented population. There's a moral imperative behind these protests; the vast majority of the people being targeted by federal agents are law-abiding workers with no criminal records. There's a practical one, too: This state cannot function without its migrant workers, particularly our agricultural sector. It isn't just that undocumented workers will accept lower wages than their American counterparts. Farming is hard, skilled labor. Absent changes to federal immigration policy that would allow and incentivize more migrants to come here legally, California doesn't have the trained workforce it needs to feed itself and the nation. (We accounted for 41% of the country's vegetable sales in 2022.) And so, Californians and our politicians have rightly gone to battle with President Donald Trump. Yet as supportive as this editorial board is of these efforts, we'd be remiss if we didn't call something out: This state needs to become as passionate about housing our essential workers as it is about fighting Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It's been just over two and a half years since the deadly shootings in Half Moon Bay put the Dickensian living conditions of California's farmworkers — the vast majority of whom are undocumented — on the national radar. For decades, California had allowed its migrant workers to live in overcrowded, mold-filled housing with bacteria-ridden drinking water. That's if it housed them at all. What's changed? Not nearly enough, according to San Mateo County Supervisor Ray Mueller, whose district includes the site of the 2023 massacre. Building housing on farmland in his district has proven to be a logistical challenge amid drainage issues, sewage concerns and access to drinkable water. Yet trying to build worker housing off-site hits an even more intractable roadblock. 'The coastal community is, by a large majority, supportive of farmworkers,' he said. 'The opposition you run into is around density.' San Mateo County is hardly unique in this regard. In Marin County, for instance, an effort to build housing for the workers, many undocumented, being displaced by the closure of ranches in the Point Reyes National Seashore has been met with a lawsuit by NIMBY groups. This is, of course, unacceptable. And yet, state and local rules still too often empower obstructionism. Mueller said the arduous progress San Mateo County has made in building farmworker housing was mostly achieved using emergency powers that streamlined the usual permitting processes. 'The state was wonderful in getting our project moving,' Mueller said. 'We just need to do that at scale across the state.' We're nowhere close. In 2024, California lawmakers passed a measure to exempt farmworker housing up to 150 units from review under the California Environmental Quality Act. However, this streamlining applied to only two counties: Santa Clara and Santa Cruz. A bill in the state Legislature, AB457 from Assembly Member Esmerelda Soria, D-Merced, would expand those streamlining measures to Fresno, Madera and Merced counties. Over 40% of the state's land is used for agriculture. We're never going to get anywhere with a drip-drop of county-by-county CEQA carve-outs. Assembly Member Damon Connolly, D-San Rafael, told the editorial board he'd be supportive of an effort to expand CEQA streamlining to his district and perhaps even statewide. But even that wouldn't be enough, Mueller said. For many Bay Area farming communities, the California Coastal Commission has its own separate and arduous permitting process. Without streamlining bills to cover this and CEQA, little progress will be made. And now an even greater challenge comes from the Trump administration. Farmworker-specific housing makes easy pickings for federal raids. Mueller says he fears his efforts to build new farmworker housing may have inadvertently 'put a target on the back' of the people he's spent years trying to help. This fear isn't theoretical. Gov. Gavin Newsom's office recently issued a press release saying that federal deportation authorities requested and received the addresses and immigration status of Medi-Cal recipients after the state expanded health insurance benefits to low-income undocumented workers. Tailored government efforts for the undocumented risk creating a paper trail that puts them in danger. 'It is clear that we must reassess our programs to ensure we are doing all we can to protect the personal information of our community,' incoming state Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, D-Santa Barbara, told the editorial board. We don't have the answer to this quandary on the health care front. But California can do something for migrant workers as it relates to housing — something Limón and too many other California politicians have been reluctant to do. Make it easier to build. AB457 is an admission from legislators that CEQA creates onerous and unnecessary impediments to development. Yet housing streamlining bills such as SB79 from San Francisco state Sen. Scott Wiener, which would exempt developments near transit from CEQA review, provided they comply with local affordable housing mandates and other criteria, are receiving immense political pushback. Undocumented renters in California have virtually the same rights as everyone else in the private rental market under the Immigrant Tenant Protection Act. And landlords are prohibited from disclosing, or typically even asking about, immigration status. But without an adequate housing supply, those protections go to waste. Can most undocumented workers afford to buy a shiny new condo? Almost certainly not. But they could potentially move into older units that open up when other renters decide to buy. And they certainly could benefit from the development of new mother-in-law units — such as those that might have been built had cities like San Diego not just rolled back their accessory dwelling unit laws in the face of community opposition. If California is willing to fight the federal government to keep its undocumented residents here, it should also be willing to fight to ensure they don't live in squalor.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Zohran Mamdani taps progressive playbook for Gen Z rebound
Zohran Mamdani, the surging young progressive in New York City's mayoral race, is showing what it looks like when a Democrat taps into the energy, language and anxieties of Gen Z. Why it matters: As national Democrats pour millions into polling and research to try towin back young voters, Mamdani is offering a real-time playbook for how to actually reach them. The party establishment is deeply skeptical of the 33-year-old New York State Assemblyman, a proud democratic socialist who's second in polls behind former Gov. Andrew Cuomo ahead of Tuesday's crowded primary. But Mamdani's digitally native, culturally fluent campaign is undoubtedly resonating with Gen Z: A recent poll suggested he could win 60% of first-choice votes among 18- to 34-year-olds. What's happening: Mamdani is running on a left-wing populist agenda — rent freezes, city-run grocery stores, free public transit — with a campaign strategy built for TikTok, not television. His videos are fast, emotional, and unmistakably Gen Z: They don't explain policy so much as channel frustration with a system that so many young people feel is rigged against them. They can also be funny: Mamdani has mocked his scandal-ridden opponents, Cuomo and Mayor Eric Adams, with the kind of dry, internet-savvy humor that travels fast on TikTok. And besides his massive grassroots army, Mamdani has become a hot commodity in New York's influencer scene — tapping into an online ecosystem where political content doubles as entertainment. Reality check: New York is not the rest of the country. Mamdani — who may very well lose — is running in one of the most progressive cities in America, and there's little evidence he has crossover appeal with the kinds of Gen Z men who swung to Trump in 2024. "Red pill" culture and social conservatism, which helped power some of Trump's gains among young men, aren't necessarily receptive to Mamdani's brand of democratic socialism. The big picture: Still, Mamdani's campaign offers a rare glimpse of what it might look like if Democrats actually tried to compete for Gen Z's attention on cultural terrain — not just political ground. Even if his model doesn't scale nationally, it challenges the party to rethink how it communicates in an era in which identity, aesthetics and authenticity often matter more than ideology. Political identities developed during formative years tend to stick — and a generation of young men has come of age knowing only two brands: Trump's Republicans and Biden's Democrats.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump can keep control of National Guard in L.A., court rules
President Donald Trump appears to have acted legally in taking control of the California National Guard and sending thousands of its soldiers to the streets in Los Angeles to combat immigration protesters and protect government property, a federal appeals court ruled, allowing the troops to remain in action. Under legal standards that require 'deference' to the president's decisions, it is 'likely' that Trump 'lawfully exercised his statutory authority' based on a law that 'authorizes federalization of the National Guard when the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,' the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 3-0 ruling late Thursday. The panel consisted of two Trump appointees, Judges Mark Bennett and Eric Miller, plus Judge Jennifer Sung, appointed by President Joe Biden. The ruling extends an order the court issued June 12 blocking a decision earlier that day by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco that found Trump had acted illegally and ordered removal of 4,000 National Guard troops from Los Angeles streets. Trump said he took action after violent protests against workplace raids by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents injured officers and destroyed federal property. A lawsuit by Gov. Gavin Newsom contended, and Breyer agreed, that local and state police had conditions under control. But the appeals court said there was enough evidence of violence to support Trump's decision, under the deferential standards of federal law. The day before the president issued his order, 'there is evidence that … protesters threw objects at ICE vehicles trying to complete a law enforcement operation, pinned down several (federal) officers defending federal property by throwing 'concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects,' and used 'large rolling commercial dumpsters as a battering ram' in an attempt to breach the parking garage of a federal building,'' the panel said, quoting court filings by the Trump administration. 'Federal property has been damaged and federal employees have been injured,' the court said. 'The Constitution assigns the power to 'call forth the Militia' to Congress, and Congress has delegated portions of that power to the President.' Federal law also requires a president who wants to take control of a state's National Guard to issue any such orders 'through' the state's governor. California's lawsuit contended the law gives Newsom authority to decide whether to federalize the guard, and that Trump had failed to consult with the governor or seek his approval. But the appeals court said the president had complied with the law by notifying California's adjutant general, the guard's commanding officer, who reports to Newsom. The panel rejected one of the Trump administration's arguments — that courts had no authority to determine the legality of the president's orders because the case raised political questions that are immune from judicial review. But the court said the administration's overall position was supported by an 1827 Supreme Court case, Martin v. Mott, that said a member of the New York state militia could be prosecuted for refusing President James Madison's order to join U.S. troops in the War of 1812. Under that ruling and subsequent cases that followed it, the panel said, 'we must give a great level of deference to the President's determination' that conditions in Los Angeles justified calling up National Guard troops. Breyer held a brief hearing Friday and told lawyers for the state and the federal government to file arguments by Monday on an issue not addressed by the appeals court: the possible application of the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 federal law that generally forbids the use of military troops for civilian law enforcement. It could be used to challenge the Trump administration's decision to send 700 U.S. Marines to join the National Guard troops in Los Angeles. While Breyer acknowledged that the 9th Circuit panel had rejected his order to remove the National Guard from the city streets, he said those commissions are normally limited to 60 days, and asked the opposing lawyers for arguments on whether and how that time period could be extended. 'The President is not a king and is not above the law,' the governor said. 'We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.' Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office represents Newsom in the suit, said the ruling was disappointing, but 'this case is far from over.' In Los Angeles, 'our state and local law enforcement officers responded effectively to isolated episodes of violence at otherwise peaceful protests and the President deliberately sought to create the very chaos and crises he claimed to be addressing,' Bonta said in a statement. 'While the court did not provide immediate relief for Angelenos today, we remain confident in our arguments and will continue the fight.' The court's decision was criticized by the leader of a religious advocacy group, People Improving Communities through Organizing, which is taking part in protests against immigration raids. 'Regardless of what three judges say about the legality of unleashing the National Guard on peaceful protestors, its immorality was affirmed the moment President Trump made this decision,' said Joseph Tomás McKellar, executive director of PICO in California, in a statement. 'While we respect the rule of law, we'll keep fighting until these inhumane immigration raids stop.'
