Liberals torch ‘trash' Gavin Newsom for launching podcast with Charlie Kirk interview

Gavin Newsom, the California governor who is seen as a likely 2028 presidential hopeful, is under fire from liberals and progressives for his friendly interview with Charlie Kirk, which featured Newsom agreeing with the MAGA provocateur on trans athlete bans and other culture war issues.
'Gavin Newsom is trash and always has been,' one Bluesky user noted about the Newsom-Kirk sitdown.
In the aftermath of Republicans taking control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, Newsom announced last month that he was launching a new podcast that would feature prominent Trump world figures for spirited discussions. The governor pointed to his high-profile appearances on Fox News, including a 2023 debate against Ron DeSantis moderated by Sean Hannity, as proof the project could work.
'We already know what our disagreements are with the MAGA movement. I want to understand what the motivations are, the legitimacy of those motivations, and just really understand where people are coming from,' he said about the launch of This Is Gavin Newsom. 'They are influential — they are. They explain more things in more ways on more days about what's going on and if we're not trying to understand their motivations, we will be victims of their motivations.'
At the time, Newsom declined to reveal who his first few guests would be on the podcast, but hinted that they would be fairly well-known figures in Trump world. 'I don't want to lose these folks by letting their names out there,' he said, adding: 'Look at the lineup at CPAC. It's that crew.'
Ahead of the first episode of the podcast dropping on Thursday, Newsom posted a photo of him and Kirk — the founder of MAGA youth advocacy group Turning Point USA — standing together and smiling. The revelation that the governor had made the far-right activist and Trump acolyte his first podcast guest was enough to spark outrage among many on the left, even before the episode went live.
''The first guest on Gavin Newsom's podcast was Charlie Kirk' is more than enough for me to say 'absolutely not' to any suggestion Newsom play any role in the future of the Democratic Party,' attorney Max Kennerly wrote on Bluesky. 'People like him are the past, the failures, the ones who got us here.'
'Sometimes you see something that makes you realize that another person's mind is just always going to be a locked door to you, a total mystery,' games journalist Ian Boudreau stated. 'Impenetrable. For me that was Gavin Newsom making his debut podcast episode a talk with Charlie Kirk.'
Center for International Policy chief editor Kelsey Atherton snarked that Newsom 'would have put down the Bell Riots with tanks and napalm I can tell you that much,' referencing a 1995 Deep Space Nine episode about a fictional civil disturbance that took place in 2024 San Francisco.
The criticism of Newsom only escalated after his interview with Kirk aired. During the episode, the governor asked Kirk to give him 'advice' for his party while also agreeing with the ultra-conservative activist that Democrats were in the wrong when it came to protecting trans athletes in sports.
'I think it's an issue of fairness, I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness — it's deeply unfair,' Newsom, who has long touted his LGBTQ advocacy, declared. 'I am not wrestling with the fairness issue. I totally agree with you.'
Additionally, after Newsom said that Republicans 'were able to weaponize that issue at another level,' Kirk challenged him over the use of the term 'weaponize,' prompting the governor to demur and change it to 'highlight.' The exceedingly friendly chat with Kirk and his agreement on trans athletes and other hot-button social issues only drew more backlash from the left.
'If you want to understand the DNC's relationship with trans people you have to ask yourself why Montana, Nebraska, and Oklahoma had openly trans legislators before California and New York (which still have never had any),' ACLU communications strategist Gillian Branstetter reacted.
'Who do Democrats think is the audience for 'Gavin Newsom in a podcast with Charlie Kirk,'' former Washington Post reporter Christopher Ingraham wondered, while podcast host Andy Levy flatly said it was 'utterly contemptible' how Newsom readily embraced Kirk's viewpoints.
'I know we all know this absolute toad of a man is scum but it truly cannot be overstated just how much he sucks and looks like you threw a Bond villain and the rich property developer who wants to close the Community Center in an 80s kid movie in the Fly machine,' comics writer Zoe Tunnell shared in a post. 'This is Dem leadership.'
While progressives torched the Democratic governor for his congenial sitdown with the TPUSA founder, Kirk was busy gleefully retweeting clips of Newsom proclaiming that his 13-year-old son was a massive fan of Kirk's.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The National

41 minutes ago

• The National

Donald Trump's ultimatum is a threat to Iran and the Middle East

What this means, one assumes, is that the Iranian government must – within the next 12 days – open all areas of its nuclear enrichment facility at Fordo to ­investigators from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), thereby proving that it is not developing a ­nuclear bomb. Failure to do so will risk the site ­being hit with a US 'bunker buster' bomb – or a GBU-57 Massive Ordnance ­Penetrator, to give this particular weapon of mass destruction its proper name. The dangers of such a development are, obviously, grave, not only for the ­environment and people of Iran (who would likely suffer catastrophic ­radioactive contamination), but also for the geopolitics of an already deeply ­unstable Middle East. The world recoils from the prospect. Even Keir Starmer – who has made himself Trump's sycophant-in-chief – has urged restraint. There is, however, one ­regime which greets the possibility of such a reckless escalation with the glee of an excited toddler in a sweetie shop. That regime is, of course, the ­Benjamin Netanyahu administration in Israel. Ever since the attacks of October 7, 2023 – in which Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and, I suspect, self-organised groups of young Palestinians killed 300 Israeli ­military personnel and 900 ­civilians – ­Israel has sought opportunistically to ­extinguish, not only the Palestinian ­people of Gaza but all of the Zionist state's many enemies across the region. The US is, needless to say, deeply ­involved in Israel's regional war efforts, which have – over the last 20 months – involved military action against Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iran. Without American weapons, ­intelligence and finance, it is ­unimaginable that Netanyahu could have been able to conduct war on so many fronts. Nevertheless, the Israeli prime ­minister would prefer that the US was already ­engaged directly, alongside Israel, in ­military action against Iran. He has been urging US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites for well over a decade. Trump's two-week deadline ­expresses tensions within the US security ­establishment and within the president's own MAGA movement. The property ­developer-turned-politician was re-elected to the White House on the promise that he would keep the US out of foreign wars. READ MORE: Labour blasted as 'deeply authoritarian' over plans to proscribe Palestine Action Much of the MAGA base rallies ­enthusiastically to Trump's promise that, on his watch, the US will not suffer the ignominy of seeing one of its diplomatic missions overrun and its ambassador killed (as was the case with John Stevens, the US ambassador to Libya, in 2012). Never again, the president has vowed, will US forces be seen withdrawing from a foreign country in disarray (as occurred in Afghanistan in 2021). Many of Trump's supporters – ­including the ultra-conservative journalist Tucker Carlson – are pushing back against the prospect of US attacks on Iran. Trump is caught between presenting himself as the 'peace president' and – to use his own words – being 'very, very pro-Israel' (so 'pro-Israel', indeed, that he has openly advocated the mass expulsion of the Palestinians in Gaza who have, thus far, survived Israel's genocide of more than 56,000 people). There are, however, a series of ­problems with the insistence by both Trump and Netanyahu that Iran is on the ­immediate brink of having a nuclear bomb. As ­recently as March of this year, Trump's now director of national intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard testified to US ­lawmakers that Iran had not restarted its nuclear weapons programme. Indeed, in June, Gabbard tweeted a video in which she warned against the 'political elite and warmongers' who are 'carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers'. Referring, perhaps, to the war in Ukraine, tensions between India and ­Pakistan and/or the Middle East crisis, she opined that the world is 'on the brink of nuclear annihilation'. However, Gabbard's March testimony – made when she was Trump's trusted nominee for DNI – is now proving so inconvenient to the president that, on Friday, he felt it necessary to reject her comments of less than three months ago. Trump has averred that he 'doesn't care' what Gabbard said in March, and that her testimony on Capitol Hill was simply 'wrong'. For her part, Gabbard has sought to save her job by resorting to the MAGA playbook. Blaming 'the dishonest ­media', she accused journalists of 'intentionally taking my testimony out of context and spreading fake news'. Gabbard's testimony in March was a reflection of the analysis of the US ­intelligence establishment. It was entirely at odds with Netanyahu's claims. Speaking at the UN, the Israeli prime minister said that Iran was 'months away' from having nukes. At another meeting of the UN, he insisted that the Tehran administration was just 'weeks away' from having 'an entire arsenal of nuclear bombs'. The problem with these pronouncements – as was pointed out last week by American satirist Jon Stewart on his ­always well-researched Daily Show – is that they were made in 2012 and 2015, respectively. When it comes to Israeli claims regarding the supposed Iranian nuclear weapons programme, Netanyahu has less credibility than Liz Truss denying that she crashed the UK economy. There are, in all of this, more than a few shades of Tony Blair's 2003 'dodgy dossier', the entirely discredited file with which the UK government sought to prove that the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq had 'weapons of mass destruction'. Back then, the Labour prime ­minister claimed that Saddam could deploy ­chemical or biological weapons against UK military installations in Cyprus in just '45 minutes'. Blair's later claim that he fell victim to erroneous intelligence would struggle to convince an unusually naïve ­five-year-old. The Iraq debacle exposed the leader of 'New Labour' as a lying warmonger. If the Blair dossier was dodgy, the ­Israeli claims about Iran (claims which are now backed by the US) amount to a ­multi-volume ­encyclopaedia of malevolent falsehoods. Yet, if – as Trump told journalists on Friday – 'my intelligence ­community is wrong', one can only assume that the US president's source of ­supposed '­intelligence' on Iran's nuclear ­programme is the Netanyahu regime. READ MORE: Owen Jones: Opposing Israeli violence is 'extremist'? The world's upside down The irony in all this is that the ­governments in West Jerusalem and ­Washington insist that Iran cannot ­become a nuclear weapons state because its government is untrustworthy and unstable. This from an Israeli coalition government that comprises: Netanyahu's far-right, ultra-nationalist Likud party; the fascist Jewish Power party of national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir (who is a lifelong supporter of the late leader of fascist Zionism Meir Kahane); and the fascist-theocrats of the Religious ­Zionism party (which is led by Israeli finance ­minister Bezalel Smotrich). The idea that this ragtag collection of genocidal fanatics should be considered a trustworthy custodian of the 90 to 400 nuclear warheads Israel has sitting in the Negev Desert is beyond laughable. ­Likewise the notion that Trump – who is ­currently at war with much of the ­population of Los Angeles – is a ­statesman with whom the nuclear codes of the world's most ­powerful military should be ­considered safe. On the issue of Iran's nuclear ­programme – as on so many other ­geopolitical questions – US policy is characterised by flagrant hypocrisy. The demand that Iran open up its facility at Fordo to IAEA examiners can only be made because the Tehran government is a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Israel, by stark contrast, has never signed the NPT. Mordechai Vanunu – the former nuclear technician who blew the whistle on Israel's secret nuclear weapons programme in 1986 – spent 18 years (11 of them in solitary confinement) in Israeli jails for his brave and principled actions. As Marwan Bishara – Al Jazeera's ­excellent chief political analyst – said ­recently, Israel's influence over the White House is a case of 'the tail wagging the dog'. This influence is not down to the clout in Washington DC of the much-vaunted 'Israel lobby', much less to the conspiratorial power of a supposed '­Jewish lobby' (an antisemitic trope that insults every Jewish person who speaks out against the Israeli genocide in Gaza). Rather it is explained by the crucial role Israel plays – and has always played – for Western, particularly US, imperialism in the oil-rich Middle East. In 1943 – five years before Zionist forces visited the Nakba (Catastrophe) of mass murder and 'ethnic cleansing' upon the Palestinian people – Sir Ronald Storrs (former British administrator in Jerusalem) expressed his hope and belief that a future Israeli state would be a 'little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism'. In 1953 the Israeli newspaper Haaretz described the Zionist state as the Middle Eastern 'watchdog' for the Western powers, and the US in particular. The State of Israel's highly militarised, belligerent role in the Middle East makes it an extremely valuable asset for Western imperialism. That was true during the Suez Crisis in 1956, in which – against the urging of an unconvinced US – Israel joined its ­patrons France and the UK in the ­disastrous ­invasion of Nasser's Egypt ­(following the Egyptian leader's ­nationalisation of the Franco-British-owned Suez Canal). It was also the case in the Six-Day War in 1967, in which US president Lyndon Johnson's administration assisted Israel in its ­victory over Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Jordan, and in its consequent illegal occupations of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Ever since then, Israel has been relied upon to use military force, or the threat of it, to keep Arab states and Iran in line. That is why the US finances Israel to the tune of $3.8 billion annually. Israel is the number one recipient of US foreign aid, accounting for 5% of the total US international aid budget (and rising, given Trump's cuts to aid spending). This to a country which – with a population of around 9.7 million – accounts for just 0.1% of the world's population. Israel's watchdog role makes it indispensable to US interests in the Middle East. However, its interests and US interests are not identical, and, from time to time, the watchdog slips its leash and acts in ways that make life difficult for Washington. Trump is currently caught on the horns of this dilemma. His MAGA base is split between 'no more foreign wars' isolationism and 'very, very pro-Israel' militarism. He has given himself 12 days to decide whether to set light to the tinderbox of the Middle East by involving US forces in direct attacks on Iran or simply continue to 'green light' Israel's bombardment in ­Persia. His choice will come down to his estimate – in his own extremely right-wing, nationalistic terms – of what best serves the economic and political ­interests of the US imperium.

Daily Mail​

an hour ago

• Daily Mail​

Trump's right-hand MAGA ally who correctly predicted Iran strikes now has a chilling warning about World War III

Longtime Donald Trump ally Steve Bannon who was spot-on with his prediction that the president would strike Iran on Saturday is now warning that it could spark World War III. Bannon, who served as Trump's chief White House strategist during his first term and continues to be an influential voice in the MAGA movement, referenced the looming attack on his 'War Room Pandemic' podcast hours before U.S. bombers carried out the strike. 'I'm just reporting what I'm hearing from pretty good sources. The party is on,' Bannon said on his podcast. 'So another big weekend in this unfolding aspect of the Third World War – and no, anyone that's telling you that the Third World War is not here, is absolutely, does not understand the development and evolution of kinetic energy,' he said. Hours later, Trump surprised the world a little before 8 p.m. ET Saturday by announcing on Truth Social that he had given the go-ahead to attack Iran. Trump used six massive 30,000-pound 'bunker buster' bombs and 30 Tomahawk missiles to destroy Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan. Trump addressed the nation, calling the strikes on a trio of Iranian nuclear sites a 'spectacular military success.' 'Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.' He also gave a stark warning to Tehran that more attacks would be coming if the regime didn't make peace. But his ally Bannon lunched with Trump at the White House on Thursday, and reportedly argued against the U.S. joining in Israel 's attacks on Iran. Bannon connected the dots on his 'party is on' comment, clarifying that it meant the operation was set to go. 'I will tell you, remember in 'A Bridge Too Far,' in the movie about Market Garden and the last bridge at Arnhem. The phrase there was, "The party is on,"' he said, referencing the 1977 film about the failed Allied operation in Europe near the end of World War II. He also took a swipe at former George W. Bush White House Press Secretary Kayleith McEnany, now a host of 'the Five' on Fox News Channel. 'And so that is our analysis this morning. Is the party on? Is this thing, are we inexorably drawn into this, and maybe today's the day of action? You know, just the one swoop of a jet that Keyleigh McEnany wants, just one swoop of a jet, just going across,' he said. His comments came before a top House Republican turned on Trump and called the U.S. attack on Iran 'unconstitutional.' Bannon spent time on his Saturday show arguing about the risks and losses associated with an attack on Iran. He said the country needed to remain 'focused on the mass deportations' of illegal immigrants. 'I still argue that as important as this as high a priority it is to stop the nuclear program at whatever stage it is for the Iranians, for us yo've got to rank order of strategic concerns. The vital national security interests of this country lie with us making sure that the 10-12 million illegal alien invaders that came here ... have to be deported,' he said. 'This is a central front of what we call the third World War.' 'This is all costing a vast amount of money. Who's paying for that?' he asked. 'Is Israel paying for that? No, they would not be ... You know who's paying for it? You,' he told his listeners.

NBC News

an hour ago

• NBC News

MAGA influencers fall in line behind Trump after U.S. airstrikes hit Iran

The MAGA movement's top influencers were divided over bombing Iran until President Donald Trump did just that Saturday night. Now, at least for the time being, the lay leaders in the president's base appear to be rallying around a position that spares Trump criticism: direct attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities are justified, as long as American troops aren't sent into a third full war halfway around the world in the last quarter of a century. "People don't want an escalation where ground troops are sent in, but this is not Iraq,' said Ryan Girdusky, a Republican consultant who worked for a super PAC that backed Vice President JD Vance's 2022 Senate campaign in Ohio. Girdusky predicted the MAGA base will swing in line behind the president. There is little appetite at the White House or anywhere else in Washington for a ground invasion of Iran, a mountainous nation in the Middle East that would be extraordinarily difficult to conquer in a conventional war. But it's hardly unusual for the start of hostilities — the airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear-enrichment facilities were the first direct American intervention in a week-old war between Israel and Iran — to create a rally-around-the-flag effect within a president's party. What's notable is just how dramatic and speedy the turn has been away from dissent to full-throated support. "Heavy smear campaign going on right now attacking America First Patriots as 'Isolationists,'" Jack Posobiec, a leading voice in the MAGA movement, posted earlier Saturday, before the bombings. "I hope everyone using this bad persuasion knows that it associate them with the worst Bush-era neocons," a slang for the so-called neoconservative George W. Bush administration officials who pushed for war in Iraq. He had previously warned that direct attacks on Iran would "disastrously split the Trump coalition." But after the airstrikes, Posobiec posted what looked like a sentiment of approval. "President Trump has clearly signaled, as he has all along, that he opposes a regime change war in Iran," he wrote. "This is about the nuclear program of Iran which he promised he would end from day one." He was hardly alone among anti-interventionist MAGA figures in holding off on criticizing the president after what Trump described as a highly successful mission that "completely and totally obliterated" Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons. Steve Bannon, a top adviser in Trump's first White House and host of the War Room podcast, made clear in a special broadcast Saturday night that he would have preferred for Israel to take the lead in striking Iran's nuclear facilities. But he stopped short of condemning Trump for sending U.S. forces to do the job. Instead he gave voice to the doubts some MAGA voters would have about the mission. "A big question is going to be why Israel did not take the lead and do this. Because right now this is back to the United States," he said. "Why are we engaging in combat operations in a war that's a war of choice?" But he ultimately concluded that Trump would bring the MAGA movement to his own position — perhaps an indication that influencers have more to lose by opposing Trump than he does by using force in Iran. "There are a lot of MAGA that are not happy about this," Bannon said. "I believe he will get MAGA on board for all of it. But he's got to explain exactly and go through this." An hour after Trump addressed the nation from the White House, Tucker Carlson, the most prominent anti-strike Trump ally, had said nothing to his 16.4 million followers on X. But Charlie Kirk, co-founder of Turning Point USA, a pro-Trump coalition of younger conservatives, had abandoned his long-running skepticism about the wisdom of hitting Iran. "America stands with President Trump," Kirk wrote on X. While Democrats pushed back on Trump, both on the wisdom of the strikes and the constitutionality of attacking another sovereign country without either congressional authorization or an imminent threat to the United States, most Republicans voiced approval or met the decision with silence. One anomaly: Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who had been , D-Calif., on a measure designed to prohibit Trump from using force against Iran.