Trump taunts Newsom to visit 'Alligator Alcatraz' and 'learn something' about immigration
"Mr. President. Mr. Governor, what's your message to Governor Gavin Newsom inside of this facility?" a reporter asked Trump as he toured the detention facility for illegal aliens while accompanied by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem.
"Well, the first thing he should do is come here and learn something because they don't do this," he said. "They wouldn't know where to begin. And if they did, it would cost them a 100 times more. So I would say he should call the governor, Kristi … his state is a disaster."
DeSantis added that California is home to the original Alcatraz that could be outfitted as a migrant detention center.
"They have the original Alcatraz, so you guys could approve him being able to set one of these up over there. I'm sure the secretary would be happy to do that," DeSantis said, adding he doubts Newsom would "bite on that."
Fox News Digital reached out to Newsom's office for a response to Trump's remarks, but did not immediately receive a reply.
Trump visited "Alligator Alcatraz" Tuesday ahead of its official Wednesday grand opening, when it is expected to begin receiving violent illegal immigrants for deportation. The detention center earned its name due to its location in the heart of the Everglades, which is home to massive reptiles such as alligators and pythons.
DeSantis authorized the construction of an illegal immigrant detention center on a 30-square-mile property in the Everglades' swamplands of Miami–Dade County under an emergency order. The property is a former airport that has been outfitted with sturdy tent structures to house 5,000 illegal immigrants amid the Trump administration's deportation blitz to remove the millions of illegal migrants who flooded the nation during the Biden administration.
Trump, as well as DeSantis, has long traded barbs with the California governor over his leaders of the liberal West Coast state, including in June when anti-ICE riots spiraled in Los Angeles.
Los Angeles descended into violent riots June 6, when federal immigration officials converged on the city to carry out raids targeting illegal immigrants. Local leaders such as Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Newsom, however, quickly denounced the raids in public statements while offering words of support for illegal immigrants in the state.
Protests over the raids soon devolved into violence as rioters targeted and launched attacks on federal law enforcement officials, while Newsom and other Democrats attempted to pin blame on Trump's immigration policies for the violence.
Trump also was asked during his tour to describe his relationship with DeSantis after the pair traded campaign barbs during the 2024 presidential election cycle. DeSantis ran as a Republican candidate in the race, bowing out in January 2024.
"I would say its a 10," Trump said, assessing his relationship status with DeSantis. "I think it's a 10, maybe 9.9, because there might be a couple of little wounds. … I think we have a 10."
"We get along great," Trump added.
DeSantis also added that he immediately endorsed Trump in the 2024 race after bowing out.
"I endorsed him immediately in January 2024. I raised, his — one of his PACs — millions and millions of dollars. And obviously, we saved him a lot of money in Florida because Florida was a deep red state. He didn't even have to do a rally in Florida," DeSantis said, remarking how Florida has shifted to the right.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
35 minutes ago
- Washington Post
As U.S. retreats, the world fights an uphill battle against inequality
You're reading an excerpt from the WorldView newsletter. Sign up to get the rest, including news from around the globe and interesting ideas and opinions to know, sent to your inbox on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. While about 50 world leaders attended an international summit in Spain on alleviating global poverty, President Donald Trump had other priorities. On Tuesday, he opened a new migrant detention center surrounded by swamp in the Everglades that he dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz.' His Republican allies in the Senate narrowly pushed through major legislation that would devote many more billions of dollars to fund immigration enforcement and Trump's mass deportation campaign. The bill would also gut various social spending programs, pushing about 17 million Americans off health care, while extending significant tax relief to the ultrarich.
Fox News
36 minutes ago
- Fox News
Paramount, CBS forced to pay eight-figures, change editorial policy in settlement with President Trump
Paramount Global and CBS agreed on Tuesday to pay President Donald Trump a sum that could reach north of $30 million to settle the president's election interference lawsuit against the network. Trump will receive $16 million upfront. This will cover legal fees, costs of the case, and contributions to his library or charitable causes, to be determined at Trump's discretion. There is an expectation that there will be another allocation in the mid-eight figures set aside for advertisements, public service announcements, or other similar transmissions, in support of conservative causes by the network, Fox News Digital has learned. Sources close to the situation told Fox News Digital that CBS has agreed to update its editorial standards to install a mandatory new rule. Going forward, the network will promptly release full, unedited transcripts of future presidential candidates' interviews. People involved in the settlement talks have referred to this as the "Trump Rule." Trump was seeking $20 billion in his lawsuit against CBS over its handling of a "60 Minutes" interview last year with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, accusing the network of election interference leading up to the 2024 contest. CBS is not acknowledging any journalistic wrongdoing with the settlement. The lawsuit alleged CBS News deceitfully edited an exchange Harris had with "60 Minutes" correspondent Bill Whitaker, who asked her why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't "listening" to the Biden administration. Harris was widely mocked for the "word salad" answer that aired in a preview clip of the interview on CBS' "Face the Nation." However, when the same question aired during a primetime special on the network, Harris had a different, more concise response. Critics at the time accused CBS News of deceitfully editing Harris' "word salad" answer to shield the Democratic nominee from further backlash leading up to Election Day. The raw transcript and footage released earlier this year by the FCC showed that both sets of Harris' comments came from the same response, but CBS News had aired only the first half of her response in the "Face the Nation" preview clip and aired the second half during the primetime special. CBS News had long denied any wrongdoing and stood by the broadcast and its reporting. Paramount and Trump's legal team had agreed to mediation designed to help the sides reach a settlement. It was widely believed that Paramount Global controlling shareholder Shari Redstone wanted to settle the suit ahead of a planned multi-billion-dollar merger with Skydance Media in hopes of preventing potential retribution by Trump's FCC, which has the authority to halt the transaction. Trump confidently declared the case against CBS a "winner" in April. "They cheated and defrauded the American People at levels never seen before in the Political Arena. Kamala Harris, during Early Voting and, immediately before Election Day, was asked a question, and gave an answer, that was so bad and incompetent that it would have cost her many of the Votes that she ended up getting," Trump posted on Truth Social ahead of mediation, going on to accuse the newsmagazine of perpetrating a fraud on the American people. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and eight Democratic colleagues sent a letter to Redstone in May asking her not to settle the lawsuit against CBS News, which they called an "attack on the First Amendment." They called the potential settlement a "grave mistake" and "a blatant attempt to intimidate the media and those who speak out against him, President Trump." The letter also stated "presidents do not get to punish or censor the media for criticizing them" in the United States. Earlier this year, FCC Chair Brendan Carr ordered CBS News to hand over the unedited transcript as part of its probe into whether the network violated the FCC's "news distortion" policy after a complaint was filed. CBS had refused to release the unedited transcript until the FCC got involved. Trump's attorneys amended their lawsuit to include multiple excerpts from the unedited transcript in hopes of bolstering their case that CBS News withheld unflattering exchanges in order to help the Democratic nominee. The saga emerged as a distraction inside CBS News and longtime "60 Minutes" executive producer Bill Owens walked away from the job in April because he wasn't able to make the "independent decisions" needed for the program to thrive. Owens, who had insisted CBS did nothing wrong with the Harris edit, was vehemently against offering any sort of apology to the president. CBS News President and CEO Wendy McMahon, who is believed to have been against settling with Trump, announced on May 19 that she was stepping down in another stunning move for the embattled company. "It's become clear that the company and I do not agree on the path forward. It's time for me to move on and for this organization to move forward with new leadership," McMahon told staffers in a memo that was obtained by Fox News Digital. ABC also settled a defamation lawsuit in December with then-President-elect Trump for $15 million, after anchor George Stephanopoulos repeatedly and incorrectly asserted Trump had been found "liable for rape" in a civil trial last year.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Gov. Newsom signs housing legislation overhauling California's landmark environmental law
California lawmakers have approved two new bills that are expected to lead to a significant overhaul of the state's landmark environmental protection law and jump-start the stagnated housing market that has long stymied residents and would-be employers. The major changes to the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA, were attached to two bills in a larger $321 billion state budget bill that eventually passed with ease. California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the legislation on June 30, which received rare bipartisan support. "This is the most consequential housing reform in modern history in the state of California. Long overdue? Absolutely," Newsom said at a news conference as he signed the legislation. Supporters said the reforms to CEQA's strenuous review process will help improve the state's ongoing housing shortage and chronic homelessness crisis. Some environmental advocates call the move back-door dealmaking. Assembly Bill 130, created by California Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, exempts most urban housing projects from environmental review. Another bill, Senate Bill 131, by California state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, waives the environmental restrictions for other buildings, including health clinics, child care, and food banks. Newsom on legislation: 'Too urgent, too important' California has long been considered a national pioneer for environmental action, as changes to its signature impact review law come at a time that may change the landscape within the nation's most populous state. California is estimated to need 3.5 million more housing units than it has. The shortage is one reason people and businesses have fled as housing in popular cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles is unaffordable to the vast majority who want to live and work there. The changes are meant to jump-start housing construction, which has often been strangled by the use of the state's signature 1970 environmental law. Critics say the law is used by groups whose goal is more intent on stopping buildings than sparing the environment. The bills became law after Newsom threatened to reject the state budget passed last week unless there was an overhaul of CEQA, which requires strict reviews of any new development built and its impact on the environment. That process could take months to years, adding expense and uncertainty to projects. For years, these environmental impact studies have often been known to delay and even halt new development due to CEQA, regarded as among the strictest laws of its kind in the United States. During a news conference after signing the laws, Newsom said the matter was "too urgent, too important, to allow the process to unfold as it has for the last generation, invariably falling prey to all kinds of pratfall." Behind the bills Under the two new laws, nine types of projects are exempted from environmental impact reviews. They include child care centers, health clinics, food banks, as well as farmworker housing, broadband, wildfire prevention, water infrastructure, public parks or trails, and advanced manufacturing. "It's aligned with what I know about the history and the reform measures," Mark Baldassare, survey director for the Public Policy Institute of California, a nonpartisan research organization, told USA TODAY. "We'll see what takes place. Stay tuned." Possible changes have been under intense debate for at least a decade, Baldassare said. Newsom and other state legislators are now aware that voters nationwide during last year's elections blamed politicians, especially Democrats, for not curbing rising cost-of-living prices, Baldassare added. Baldassare said PPIC statewide polling of California voters in both 2023 and June 2025 revealed that the cost of living and affordable housing are their top two concerns, calling last year's election "a wake-up call." "The idea of reforming CEQA has been around for a long time," Baldassare said. "Our polling indicated that despite the state's strong environmental attributes, they were supportive of reforming CEQA across party lines, and that doesn't happen too often, especially given today's polarization." California budget breakdown: How it impacts your life, from Medi-Cal and education to fires California's environmental law The 54-year-old California statute, signed by then-governor Ronald Reagan, was intended to protect wildlife and natural resources of forests, mountains, and coastal spaces. The law requires state and local governments to study and publicize the likely environmental impact of any decisions they make, including the permitting of new housing, as California home values and rents are among the most expensive in the nation, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. The requirement is called an Environmental Impact Report, which can take up to a year to complete. Aiming to streamline and lower the cost of construction in California, the new laws also restrict legal challenges under CEQA by narrowing the documents courts can consider. It also allows limited environmental reviews of projects that are not considered to have a litany of impacts. California state Senator Scott Wiener, who wrote one of the two bills, told reporters on June 30 that the changes won't happen in the next year or three years, but in decades to come. He called the changes a bold step forward toward tackling the root causes of California's affordability crisis. "The high costs devastating our communities stem directly from our extreme shortage of housing, childcare, affordable healthcare, and so many of the other things families need to thrive," Wiener, a Democrat, said in a statement. "These bills get red tape and major process hurdles out of the way, allowing us to finally start addressing these shortages and securing an affordable California and a brighter future." Weiner added that when the economic conditions are right, the state will be prepared "to build a ton of housing," and the structure is in place to facilitate it. 'Connect people to shelter, housing': California Gov. Gavin Newsom unveils homelessness plan to clear street camps 'Bills were passed in the most undemocratic way possible' Asha Sharma, a state policy manager with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, described the changes as a "back-room, last-minute deal" that left the state budget hanging in the balance and the opposition little time for public scrutiny. "The bills were passed in the most undemocratic way possible. It made the entire state budget contingent on it," Sharma told USA TODAY. "We really couldn't make our voices heard. There was very little public process with this." She wasn't alone. Raquel Mason, a senior legislative manager with the California Environmental Justice Alliance, said her group opposes Weiner's bill. Sharma and Mason said there have been 23 Superfund sites in Santa Clara County, where tech-rich Silicon Valley is located. They say many of those sites are tied to semiconductor manufacturing. "By advancing this bill, the legislature sent a clear message: our health, our safety, and our right to participate in decisions that impact our lives are disposable," Mason said in a statement to USA TODAY. "This bill will usher industrial development without any opportunity for our communities to advocate for needed mitigations to protect ourselves." Newsom forced California legislators' hands While Weiner wrote a bill to exempt several types of projects from environmental review, Newsom forced the changes to overhaul the state's environmental law. The governor told lawmakers that he wouldn't approve California's $321 billion budget without them. Last week, a provision in the approved budget act said the spending plan would be repealed if changes to the state's environmental review process were not finalized by June 30. On June 30, Newsom said on social media that he enacted "the most game-changing housing reforms" in recent California history. "We're urgently embracing an abundance agenda by tearing down the barriers that have delayed new affordable housing and infrastructure for decades," Newsom wrote. The governor later mentioned to reporters during a June 30 news conference that his administration's goal is to build 2.5 million homes by 2030. Newsom said it's up to leaders across the state to use this new tool to help make the goal a reality. "If we can't address this issue, we're going to lose trust, and that's just the truth," Newsom said. "And so this is so much bigger in many ways than the issue itself. It is about the reputation of not just Sacramento and the legislative leadership and executive leadership, but the reputation of the state of California." Contributing: Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY
