Frustrated Gavin Newsom Calls Out Trump's Ultimate ‘Weakness'
California Governor Gavin Newsom has attacked Donald Trump for 'sowing chaos' in Los Angeles and creating a 'theater of the absurdity' as immigration protests continue.
During an interview with Pod Saves America on Monday, Newsom highlighted one of Trump's political flaws after a phone call with the president late Friday night which the 57-year-old had earlier described as 'decent.'
Newsom was asked about Trump's polite call versus the attacks against him online by the president.
'They're just weakness masquerading as strength, they're cosplaying. I pray sanity can take shape here, I pray that they do not incite the kind of violence that they claim they seek to avoid,' Newsom said.
Also speaking on the Meidas Touch podcast on Monday, Newsom spoke more about the call, revealing he had had a collaborative conversation with Trump on Friday, but added the president then lied about their discussion.
'It was unbelievably cordial, he never brought up the National Guard, he didn't want to talk about what was going on in L.A.,' Newsom said of the phone call.
'Then a few hours later he federalizes the National Guard, he lays claim that somehow it had solved all the problems and the Guard hadn't even officially been deployed. (He) completely lied about that, lied about our conversation, said he discussed the National Guard with me specifically.'
Newsom also attacked Trump's deployment of troops to L.A. and blamed him for a 'manufactured crisis.' It comes as an additional deployment of 2,000 troops was authorized by the president on Monday night, on top of an earlier contingency sent by the president. The latest batch was confirmed by Sean Parnell, chief Pentagon spokesman and assistant to the secretary of defense for public affairs.
The governor said among the troops, California's 79th Infantry had been pulled from working on forest management to prepare for wildfire season.
'These are the folks that are currently being deployed now, they are being sent here for this theater of the absurdity.
'They were working on fentanyl interdiction and doing task force work... all of these extraordinary efforts that can no longer be done, or at least are disrupted because of this 'show'. And that's all this is,' Newsom said.
'There are 1,700 of these young men and women that are sitting around waiting for something and another 2,000 have been nationalized again just so Donald Trump can pound his chest and act like he is in control. He is creating chaos, he is sowing chaos.'
Meidas Touch host Ben Meiselas pressed Newsom on being threatened with arrest.
'I don't want to be hyperbolic and act like a victim but honestly, I literally never thought in my life I'd hear those words uttered by the President of the United States. Directing the arrest of a political opponent that won an election and happens to be the governor of the largest state in our country. It's really about having the audacity to call him out on his unconstitutional actions.'
Newman told Pod Save America he had put a plan in place in case he was arrested.
'We've already processed what that may look like that if they do get a federal warrant to arrest me. That the very act if I chose to fly back to Sacramento from L.A. could be grounds then for them actually having cause to arrest. The fact that we have had that conversation with our folks, in the United States in 2025, says everything you need to know about who's in the White House right now.'
Speaking on CNN Monday night, Trump's border czar Tom Homan said that while Newsom had not done anything to warrant an arrest, he would not hesitate if that changed.
The governor also said he first heard the nickname Trump has for him, 'Newscum', when he was a child.
'It's the President of the United States calling (me) what an eighth grade bully called me when I was a kid. Rather pathetic.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
27 minutes ago
- USA Today
Few thought airstrikes could ‘obliterate' Iran's nuclear program. Then Trump said they did.
Experts long argued that airstrikes alone would not be capable of permanently ending Iran's nuclear program absent negotiations. WASHINGTON — A highly politicized debate is unfolding over the impact of June 21 U.S. airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, raising questions over the attack's goal and projected impact. President Donald Trump quickly claimed total victory in the strikes' wake, claiming that Iran's 'key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.' Subsequent scrutiny of that claim amid early assessments from intelligence agencies has led Trump and his allies to double down on and even expand on his declarations of success. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed to CNN that the strikes 'obliterated Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons.' Iran itself has acknowledged the impact of the U.S. and Israeli attacks. But in the years since Washington's withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran, experts and analysts have emphasized that airstrikes alone would merely delay Iran's nuclear ambitions rather than permanently derail them. Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Illinois, reiterated that long-held understanding in a June 26 interview. 'The targets are hard targets, deep targets, mobile targets. So it was never meant to eliminate the program,' Quigley told USA TODAY. 'It was never meant to do anything but slow the program.' The congressman, who is on the House's intelligence committee and has regularly received briefings on Iran, added, 'We've always been told . . . the only way to end this (nuclear) program is with a lot of troops on the ground for a long time. A war.' The former head of the National Nuclear Security Agency's nonproliferation programs, Corey Hinderstein, struck a similar tone. 'The conventional wisdom that you can't destroy the Iranian (nuclear) program through air attack alone has actually held,' said Hinderstein, now a vice president at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'While some are saying that the airstrikes were tactically and strategically successful, I think that the jury is still out on that, and we don't actually have the information that we need to believe that this program is gone.' Third nuclear site, hidden centrifuges, missing uranium Iran may have another nuclear site that, if equipped with enrichment centrifuges and conversion equipment, could continue the process of preparing uranium for use in a nuclear bomb, if the regime wishes to pursue one. Shortly before Israel began its air campaign against Iran, the regime told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had a third nuclear enrichment site but did not reveal details. Analysts believe an undisclosed underground facility at Pickaxe Mountain near the Natanz nuclear plant may be even deeper under the surface than the Fordow enrichment plant that was severely damaged in the U.S. strikes. The Pickaxe Mountain facility was first publicly revealed in 2023 by experts who spoke with the Associated Press. And it's unclear how much of Tehran's approximately 880 pounds of highly enriched uranium was destroyed or buried during the strikes — satellite images show cargo trucks parked outside the Fordow enrichment plant in the days before the U.S. attack. U.S. lawmakers briefed June 26 and June 27 on intelligence assessments of the strikes acknowledged the missing uranium and called for a full accounting of the material, according to CNN. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, told the news agency that the question of the uranium's whereabouts underscores the importance of Iran negotiating 'directly with us, so the (IAEA) can account for every ounce of enriched uranium that's there.' More: Where is Iran's enriched uranium? Questions loom after Trump claims victory. But whether Iran wants to negotiate is another question. Despite the country's obligations as a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran's Guardian Council approved a law June 25 halting the country's cooperation with the IAEA and its inspections of Tehran's nuclear sites 'until the safety and security of our nuclear activities can be guaranteed,' the country's foreign minister said on social media. Contributing: Tom Vanden Brook and Cybele Mayes-Osterman, USA TODAY Davis Winkie's role covering nuclear threats and national security at USA TODAY is supported by a partnership with Outrider Foundation and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
USA Today
27 minutes ago
- USA Today
Michelle Obama won't run for office, but her podcast may guide Democrats
As Democrats search to counter Trump it may not be Barack Obama, the party's most popular figure, that they should turn to, but Michelle. Michelle Obama is back – just not on the political stage. At a time when the Democratic faithful are hungry for dynamic leadership, the former first lady is getting cozy and personal in a podcast called "IMO," a breezy hour-long celebrity chat co-hosted by her brother, basketball executive Craig Robinson. "I feel like at 60, this is the first time where all my decisions are for me," Obama said on her June 19 episode with radio show host Angie Martinez. With her daughters Sasha and Malia launched in their own young adult lives, "this is a period of freedom." Each week, Obama and Robinson are joined by celebrities like comedians Damon and Marlon Wayans, producer Issa Rae or actress Keke Palmer – with just a glint of politics. It's her space to talk with friends. References to her husband, former President Barack Obama, or the eight years they spent raising young children in the White House are matters of fact, but the political wildfire of the second Trump administration is barely noted, except as a launching point to talk about how people are impacted by Trump's new policies. As recently as last July, an Ipsos poll revealed that only Michelle Obama stood a chance of besting Donald Trump in the presidential election. Even before leaving the White House in early 2017, a corner of the Democratic Party clamored for her to run. She has repeatedly slammed the door on that. But as Democrats search for a liberal counter to the right-wing media ecosystem that helped Trump win back the White House by reaching millions who don't pay attention to mainstream media, the online show of a relatable and popular Democrat could be what they are looking for. Regardless of what Democrats want her podcast to be, Michelle Obama has demonstrated she'll do her show her way. For now, she's using a platform that reflects the former first lady's larger, and perhaps more effective, cultural strategy that mirrors how Black women voters - part of the party's loyalist base - are coping after former Vice President Kamala Harris' loss in the 2024 election, said Democratic strategist Nina Smith. "So this is the best way that she can create space and show the multi-dimensional nature of Black women: our thinking; how we engage friends; how we engage with people across racial lines; how we engage with our siblings; and the fullness of us, while also allowing her to speak to the issues of the moment," Smith said. IMO (short for "in my opinion"), is largely devoid of juicy gossip, let alone talk about any current or former White House occupants. The Father's Day episode, which featured Bruce Springsteen and watched by roughly 216,000 viewers on YouTube, came just days after Trump berated the rock music icon for calling the administration "corrupt, incompetent and treasonous." While Trump's name never came up, they both chuckled when Michelle Obama made a joke about some people being president who need therapy. Instead, they talked about going to therapy, building relationships with absentee parents and being present for their children during formative years "I realized that parenting is pennies in the bank," Springsteen said. "It's that time when you were working and you didn't want to stop, but you did. That made a huge difference to me. I always felt that if I had failed with my kids I would have failed tremendously at life." More: Pop stars, massive crowds and history: How the Obama and Harris campaigns compare Michelle Obama responded with a story from her childhood about what it meant when her father, who worked long hours as a city worker in Chicago, turned his full attention to her and her brother. "When he was present he was present in very small but meaningful ways," she said. 'She hates politics' Michelle Obama, a corporate lawyer specializing in marketing and intellectual property law, was carried into the national spotlight when a skinny senator with a Muslim middle name beat the old guards in both parties with a message of a new America founded upon hope. For most of that time she had to be more mindful of her husband's agenda and image. Since Trump took office, she's been openly critical of him, but on her terms, such as at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in her hometown of Chicago, rather than on her podcast. Speaking up and what she considers the right moment will likely continue, said Democratic strategist Lynda Tran. "I would not be surprised to see her using her voice to rally Democrats in the future assuming the appropriate venues and strategic value. And I would expect an overwhelmingly positive response from Democrats when she does," Tran, who worked in the Obama administration, told USA TODAY. But her participation in politics might be through raising money and giving speeches, rather than a central role in the party's future. Her focus in the last few years has been on outside projects, her family and now the new podcast she co-hosts with her brother. Demands to do more from either Barack or Michelle Obama are often met with scoffs by longtime supporters, such as Natalie Graves, a clinical social worker who was at Chicago's Grant Park when the couple took the victory stage in November 2008. More: Obama warns Trump administration has 'weak commitment' to democracy in Connecticut speech "My first response is an eye roll," Graves, a 55-year-old registered Democrat, said of ongoing efforts to recruit the former first lady to run for president. "If a person says that they don't want to run, what are we talking about? They're ignoring the fact that she has made it very clear that she hates politics." 'Served their time' The former first lady firmly shut the door on running for president in March, saying her daughters, who are both in their 20s, had "served their time" in the limelight and should get to be private young adults. "I wanted them to have the freedom of not having the eyes of the world on them. So when people ask me would I ever run, the answer is no," Obama said on Kyle Kelcie's 'Not Gonna Lie' podcast. "If you ask me that, then you have absolutely no idea the sacrifice your kids make when your parents are in that role." Democrats are casting about for trusted voices to better connect with different voters and help create a left-wing media ecosystem to match that of the right. Some liberal strategists are asking donors to contribute to finding voices and influencers on the left to counter people like Steve Bannon and Joe Rogan who helped propel Trump to office, the New York Times reported last month. Democrats statistically have more trust in mainstream media than Republicans, said Texas Christian University political science professor Adam Schiffer. The Democratic brain trust is asking 'who is the Democratic Joe Rogan?' he said, but 'it's not necessarily clear that there could be one because Democrats don't necessarily find that gratifying and entertaining.' More: Town halls, f-bombs and Elon Musk: How Democrats are waging a new messaging war Younger people have a radically different media consumption than their parents, Schiffer said, and it "could become a critical problem for Democrats" if they don't figure out how to get in front of them. No matter how popular, a former first lady in her sixties might not be the best emissary to young people, he said. Influencers played a large role in Harris' abridged presidential campaign last summer and fall, but they couldn't compete with a Republican online juggernaut that has been building for over a decade. And not everyone is an "IMO" fan. Some are calling out the former first lady's complaints about living in the White House. For example, former Fox News host Megyn Kelly mocked the podcast in a June 26 video posted to X, later saying Michelle Obama was "trashing her children and husband again." When Michelle Obama does talk about politics in her podcast, it mostly orbits around the future for Americans in her daughters' generation and how political decisions impact ordinary people. She's often echoing the kind of kitchen table politicking that only voters in swing states get to hear about every four years from presidential candidates. "I'm talking to so many young people who are deathly afraid of their futures in this climate," she said in the May 21 episode. "They're not just worried about jobs, they're worried about being able to become the next entrepreneur, they're wondering whether, you know, they'll have healthcare and housing [and] whether they'll be able to pay off their student loans." In that episode, Obama and her brother spoke with Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky about the future of businesses under the Trump' administration's new tariffs. They talked about how the taxes on goods brought into the country are being passed on to consumers and hindering the ability of younger Americans trying to make it to reach their goals in the current economy. More: Will TikTok be banned? Donald Trump says he has a 'warm spot' for app as it faces January deadline "I mean, some people can hold on, but other people are not only losing their businesses, but they're losing their homes in the process," she said. "It's kind of scary." Michelle Obama did use the podcast to defend her decision not to attend Trump's January inauguration, which sparked rounds of criticism and speculation about her marriage. She insisted she was simply "making the choice that was right" for her. "Whatever the backlash was, I had to sit in it and own it. But I didn't regret it, you know? It's my life now, and I can say that, now," the mom of two said on a June 26 NPR podcast. Dems in a ditch Michelle Obama's show also arrives at a time when the Democratic brand remains in the ditch with progressive voters. About one-third of Democrats said they are optimistic about their party's future, a May poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found. Though several Democrats are starting to make moves toward 2028, liberals have struggled with the lack of a main character to match Trump's political moxie the way then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi did in his first term. Lately, Democratic officeholders have clashed with federal agents at press conferences, immigration hearings and ICE facilities, creating viral moments that have been cheered by mainstream and more left-leaning progressives. More: Vance defends using military to quell protests, refers to Sen. Alex Padilla as 'José' Such actions have never been in either of the Obamas' style, and some Black political activists and artists have been emphasizing the need for "self-care" over political action in the aftermath of the 2024 election. "It's important for her to stay within the public space, so it's good that she wants to be active. She endorses candidates and stuff of that nature. I have no problem with that," said Steven Uzoukwu, a 33, a cybersecurity analyst from Baltimore, Maryland. "I just think we shouldn't rely on the Obamas to save America."
New York Times
34 minutes ago
- New York Times
With Supreme Court Ruling, Another Check on Trump's Power Fades
The Supreme Court ruling barring judges from swiftly blocking government actions, even when they may be illegal, is yet another way that checks on executive authority have eroded as President Trump pushes to amass more power. The decision on Friday, by a vote of 6 to 3, will allow Mr. Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country — even though every court that has looked at the directive has ruled it unconstitutional. That means some infants born to undocumented immigrants or foreign visitors without green cards can be denied citizenship-affirming documentation like Social Security numbers. But the diminishing of judicial authority as a potential counterweight to exercises of presidential power carries implications far beyond the issue of citizenship. The Supreme Court is effectively tying the hands of lower-court judges at a time when they are trying to respond to a steady geyser of aggressive executive branch orders and policies. The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that already took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the 'imperial presidency.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
