Trump ally Ric Grenell says he'd ‘look at' California bid if Kamala Harris runs
Donald Trump loyalist Ric Grenell says he would 'have to' strongly consider running for California governor in 2026 if former vice-president Kamala Harris signs up to campaign for the position.
Grenell – a foreign policy adviser to the president and the interim director of Washington DC's John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts – made the remark during an interview airing Sunday on the Politico podcast The Conversation with Dasha Burns.
'If Kamala runs, I think there's a whole bunch of Republicans who are going to have to look at it – not just me,' Grenell said to Burns in preview materials published ahead of the interview. 'If she runs, it is going to make me have to take a look at it.'
Grenell told Burns, 'Right now, I'm not running for governor' – but he did say he had recently spoken to Trump about entering the race. He declined to share details about the conversation, which he brought up as Trump vocally criticized California governor Gavin Newsom's response to anti-immigration and customs enforcement (Ice) protests in Los Angeles.
Newsom, who is not running for re-election because of term limits, has since sued Trump over his decision to send in military personnel to LA amid the Ice protests.
Politico reported in March that Harris was weighing a run to succeed Newsom, her fellow Democrat, after she lost the presidential election in November to Trump. Citing sources close to her, the outlet added that Harris – a former US senator for California – was giving herself until the end of the summer to make a final decision.
California's Republicans 'would love' Harris to run for governor because they believe it might vault the race into the national conversation and 'create a fundraising bonanza' that could benefit them in what is otherwise a staunchly Democratic state, Politico has also written.
Grenell has a home in the LA area. He has previously been an ambassador to Germany, acting director of national intelligence and Trump's envoy for special missions. He was more recently involved in securing the release of Americans detained in Venezuela. And, in February, Trump made him the interim director of the Kennedy Center.
In his talk with Burns, Grenell also addressed the mixed reaction that greeted Trump Wednesday when he attended a performance of Les Misérables at the Kennedy Center.
Grenell maintained that the Kennedy Center is 'much more tolerant' nowadays despite boos being directed at Trump on Wednesday, when he also got some cheers.
'We want people here who sit next to each other, who voted for somebody completely different for president,' Grenell, the first openly gay person to lead the US intelligence community, said to Burns. 'No one gets vocal and no one gets into an argument because we're watching Les Mis.
'You know – that's the whole idea of tolerance.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
I thought I knew what Keir Starmer believed – now, it's anyone's guess
Harriet Harman once described a politician's waking nightmare. As social security secretary in the New Labour government, she was delivering her first speech to the party conference in October 1997. 'All these unfamiliar words started coming up on the autocue. I couldn't go back to my notes, and just had to carry on. I realised that Gordon Brown had made the changes to delete all my references to spending plans.' Something similar happened to Keir Starmer in May, as he read a speech on immigration from the prompter in Downing Street. He told Tom Baldwin, his biographer, in an interview published on Friday, that when the unfamiliar phrase 'an island of strangers' scrolled up on the glass screens, he just read it out. 'I wouldn't have used those words if I had known they were, or even would be interpreted as an echo of [Enoch] Powell,' he told Baldwin. 'I had no idea – and my speechwriters didn't know either.' Starmer had arrived back from a three-day trip to Ukraine the night before, and learned that morning that his former home in Kentish Town had been firebombed in the small hours. His sister-in-law was living there and called the fire brigade: no one was hurt, but Starmer was 'really shaken up'. He said, 'It's fair to say I wasn't in the best state to make a big speech,' and that he almost cancelled it. Baldwin wrote: 'Emphasising he is not using the firebomb attack as an excuse and doesn't blame his advisers or anyone else except himself for these mistakes, Starmer says he should have read through the speech properly and 'held it up to the light a bit more'.' Now, a month and a half later, he said: 'That particular phrase – no – it wasn't right. I'll give you the honest truth: I deeply regret using it.' Both parts of his confession to Baldwin were unwise in the extreme. It was unwise to admit that he doesn't always read his speeches before he delivers them – or that he doesn't always read them 'properly', which is the same thing. The pressures on a prime minister's time are intense, and any prime minister has to rely on speechwriters they can trust to produce most of the words that have to be pumped out. But a politician should never admit that their words are not their own, or blame their speechwriters while insisting that they are not blaming them. Especially not one, such as Starmer, who already has a reputation for being the puppet of Morgan McSweeney, his chief of staff, who saw him as the figurehead for his bid to take the Labour Party back from the Corbynites five years ago. But this confession was particularly unwise because it suggests that Starmer's critics were right to detect the echo of Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech in the prime minister's words. The message of the speech was entirely different. Powell complained that the effect of immigration was that the existing population 'found themselves made strangers in their own country'. Starmer's speechwriters, by contrast, were making the point that 'fair rules' hold a country together. 'In a diverse nation like ours – and I celebrate that – these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.' The sentiment is worthy and uncontroversial, even if the phrasing is a bit poetic. But the meaning was completely clear in the next paragraph: 'So when you have an immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse … you're actually contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart.' I don't know who would actually disagree with that – apart from Enoch Powell, who didn't want any immigration at all. Some of Starmer's critics have also seized on his comment – in the foreword to the immigration white paper, so he presumably did hold these words 'up to the light' – that the 'damage done to our country' by the Conservative 'experiment in open borders' is 'incalculable'. But again, it is hard to disagree: the writer of Starmer's foreword is not saying that immigration is damaging, but that quadrupling it when you promised to reduce it is. Even those who think the UK can easily absorb a net immigration of 906,000 in a 12-month period have to accept that the Tory failure to control immigration has, as the foreword's author said, opened a wound in 'trust in politics'. So Starmer should have defended 'his' words to Baldwin. The message was the right message: that there should be fair rules for immigration, and that immigration has been too high. Now we just do not know what the prime minister thinks. Is the real Starmer the liberal lefty human rights lawyer who implied to Baldwin that he thinks that any attempt to control immigration is Powellism? Or is it the man reading McSweeney's words off the autocue, saying, as he did just before he got to the 'island of strangers' paragraph: 'I know, on a day like today, people who like politics will try to make this all about politics, about this or that strategy, targeting these voters, responding to that party. No. I am doing this because it is right, because it is fair, and because it is what I believe in.' What does he believe in? I thought I knew, but now that he has given that self-pitying interview to his biographer, I am not so sure.
The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
Pam Bondi fires three DOJ prosecutors who were involved in prosecuting January 6 rioters, report says
The Department of Justice has reportedly fired at least three career prosecutors who worked on cases against January 6 rioters. The prosecutors included two supervisors who oversaw the sweeping DOJ case against the pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol in early 2021, as well as a third attorney, the Associated Press reports. The attorneys were fired on Friday in a letter signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi informing them they were 'removed from federal service effective immediately,' NBC News reports. The Independent has contacted the Justice Department for comment. The reported firings come after the administration axed about a dozen lower-level DOJ officials who worked on the January 6 cases, and pardoned more than 1,500 people convicted in Capitol riot cases, including violent offenders. Separately, earlier this year, the administration removed more than a dozen prosecutors involved in prior criminal investigations into Donald Trump, including several who worked for Jack Smith, the special counsel bringing a now-dismissed election subversion case against the Republican. 'You played a significant role in prosecuting President Trump,' a letter to these officials, obtained by CNN, said. The White House has also sought to penalize law firms tied to perceived opponents of the president, including Smith and prominent Democrats, attempting to strip their security clearances and punish federal contractors that did business with them. On the campaign trail, Trump referred to the mob that stormed the Capitol to overturn the certification of his 2020 election loss, injuring about 150 police officers in a riot that ultimately led to at least seven deaths, as ' hostages.' The January 6 case was the largest in Justice Department history, netting over 1,500 convictions and requiring scores of federal attorneys, many of whom remain with the government. Despite erasing this prosecution against mass disturbance from the books, since taking office, the Trump administration has sought a firm response to civil unrest targeting his policies, deploying federal agents, Marines, and the National Guard for a nearly unprecedented civil law enforcement role in response to Los Angeles protests against immigration raids.
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
At least 60 killed in Israeli strikes in Gaza as ceasefire prospects inch closer
The strikes began late on Friday and continued into Saturday morning, among others killing 12 people near the Palestine Stadium in Gaza City, which was sheltering displaced people, and eight more living in apartments, according to staff at Shifa hospital where the bodies were brought. Six others were killed in southern Gaza when a strike hit their tent in Muwasi, according to the hospital. The strikes come as US President Donald Trump said there could be a ceasefire agreement within the next week. Taking questions from reporters in the Oval Office on Friday, the president said: 'We're working on Gaza and trying to get it taken care of.' An official with knowledge of the situation told The Associated Press that Israel's minister for strategic affairs, Ron Dermer, will arrive in Washington next week for talks on Gaza's ceasefire, Iran and other subjects. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to speak to the media. Talks have been on and since Israel broke the latest ceasefire in March, continuing its military campaign in Gaza and furthering the dire humanitarian crisis. Some 50 hostages remain in Gaza, fewer than half of them believed to be still alive. They were among some 250 hostages taken when Hamas attacked Israel on October 7 2023, sparking the 21-month-long war. The war has killed more than 56,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. It says more than half of the dead were women and children. There is hope among hostage families that Mr Trump's involvement in securing the recent ceasefire between Israel and Iran might exert more pressure for a deal in Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is riding a wave of public support for the Iran war and its achievements, and he could feel he has more space to move toward ending the war in Gaza, something his far-right governing partners oppose. Hamas has repeatedly said it is prepared to free all the hostages in exchange for an end to the war in Gaza. Mr Netanyahu says he will end the war only once Hamas is disarmed and exiled, something the group has rejected. Meanwhile, hungry Palestinians are enduring a catastrophic situation in Gaza. After blocking all food for more than two months, Israel has allowed only a trickle of supplies into the territory since mid-May. Efforts by the United Nations to distribute the food have been plagued by armed gangs looting trucks and by crowds of desperate people offloading supplies from convoys. Palestinians have also been shot and wounded while on their way to get food at newly formed aid sites, run by the American and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, according to Gaza's health officials and witnesses. Palestinian witnesses say Israeli troops have opened fire at crowds on the roads heading toward the sites. Israel's military said it was investigating incidents in which civilians had been harmed while approaching the sites.
