Letters to the Editor: The Achilles' heel that might work against Gavin Newsom's presidential prospects
To the editor: Mark Z. Barabak's excellent column about Gov. Gavin Newsom's presidential prospects nonetheless neglects his most vulnerable Achilles' heel: the twin blades of homelessness and housing costs ('If Gavin Newsom wants to be president, he's got work to do — starting at home,' May 8). He's had six years and a legislative supermajority to boot and I can't, for the life of me, see any progress on either front. Sen. Adam Schiff recently urged Democrats to be the party that solves the nation's housing shortage, an exhortation of which I approve wholeheartedly. But if Newsom couldn't do it here, why in the world would anyone think he can at the national level?
Jordan Sollitto, San Marino
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
27 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Weighs In on 'Civil War' Concerns
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. On Monday, President Donald Trump was asked about Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom's remarks that his Republican administration wants "civil war on the streets" amid ongoing protests against raids by Los Angeles Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The president was asked by a reporter, "What do you make of the fact that [Newsom] says you want a civil war?" Trump responded, "No, it's the opposite. I don't want a civil war. Civil war would happen if you left it to people like him." REPORTER: Gavin Newsom says you want a Civil War. TRUMP: "It's just the opposite, I don't want a Civil War. Civil War would happen if you left it to people like him." — Breaking911 (@Breaking911) June 9, 2025 This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump isn't done with Musk yet, Michael Cohen says
President Trump's ex-personal attorney Michael Cohen on Saturday said that Trump isn't done with tech billionaire Elon Musk yet, after tensions between the two men became incredibly heated in a public social media spat last week. 'They're going to really go after Elon Musk like nobody has seen, ever, in this country, because they can,' Cohen told MSNBC's Ali Velshi. 'And one thing Elon doesn't understand is this political guerilla warfare that they're going to conduct against him,' he added. On Thursday, a fight between Musk and Trump over the president's 'big, beautiful bill' earlier in the week escalated rapidly on Musk's X platform and Trump's Truth Social platform. The president said the tech billionaire 'just went CRAZY!' and threatened Musk's government contracts. Musk alleged that Trump had ties to convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein on X. The public spat followed the end of Musk's recent service in the Trump administration and an alliance with the president that appeared to start off strong. Musk endorsed Trump in July 2024 in the wake of Trump surviving an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania. Musk's administration service was marked by intense backlash from those on the left and Democrats over actions taken by Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on the federal government. 'He doesn't care about Elon Musk,' Cohen said in his MSNBC appearance, talking about Trump. 'He used Elon Musk for what he needed. Initially it was the money, so that he didn't have to lay out any of his own, and also, more importantly, for his access with X.' The Hill has reached out to the White House and X for comment.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Can the President Activate a State's National Guard?
President Donald Trump's mobilization of the National Guard to quell immigration-related protests in Los Angeles marks a rare—and controversial—exercise of presidential power. Trump's decision to make the deployment against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom is especially unusual. The move marks the first time in 60 years that a President has called up National Guard troops to a state without a request from its governor. Newsom confirmed he didn't ask for the mobilization, saying in a post on X on Sunday that he had formally requested that the Trump Administration rescind what he called an 'unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles county and return them to my command.' The Democratic governor called the move 'a serious breach of state sovereignty,' and told MSNBC that he plans to file a lawsuit against the Administration. The decision to activate the National Guard came as thousands of demonstrators across Los Angeles county over the weekend protested Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids that targeted undocumented immigrants. While the protests had been largely peaceful, some of the demonstrations escalated: Rocks and Molotov cocktails were thrown, cars were vandalized, and law enforcement officials deployed crowd control agents including tear gas, 'flash bang' grenades, and rubber bullets. Read More: Gavin Newsom Says Trump 'Manufactured' Crisis in California, Announces Legal Challenge Over National Guard Order Though National Guard troops are typically controlled by state governors, the President does have the authority to deploy them in certain circumstances, including in response to civil unrest. It's a power that has existed in some form almost as long as the country itself, dating back to 1792, though it has been used only sparingly in the centuries since. The deployment of the National Guard in those instances has usually come at the request of state officials—thought not always. The last time a President mobilized the troops without the governor's consent was in 1965, when then-President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed National Guard troops to Alabama, without a request from the state's governor, in order to protect civil rights activists who were marching from Selma to Montgomery, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Alabama's governor at the time, Democrat George Wallace, didn't want to use state funds to protect the demonstrators. Johnson invoked the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the President to deploy military forces domestically to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or in certain other situations. The Insurrection Act 'is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities,' according to the Brennan Center for Justice. The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in 1992, when then-President George H.W. Bush called up National Guard troops to quell riots in Los Angeles that were sparked by the acquittal of the four white police officers charged in the beating of Rodney King, an unarmed Black man. Then-California Gov. Pete Wilson had requested the federal aid. Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, but he didn't rule out the possibility of doing so in the future. 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection,' Trump said, responding to a reporter's question about whether he was prepared to invoke the law. 'We're not going to let them get away with it.' To mobilize the National Guard troops this weekend, he instead invoked Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which allows for the federal deployment of National Guard forces in limited circumstances, including if 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' The provision states that the President may call the troops 'in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws.' But it also states, 'Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.' The Trump Administration's move sparked controversy, with many Democratic politicians and advocacy organizations blasting the decision. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said in a post on X that deploying National Guard troops 'over the objection of California leaders is an abuse of power and a dangerous escalation.' 'It's what you would see in authoritarian states and it must stop,' she continued. Legal experts also expressed concern over the Trump Administration's actions. 'For the federal government to take over the California National Guard, without the request of the governor, to put down protests is truly chilling,' Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, told the New York Times. Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown University Law Center professor specializing in military justice and national security law, called the move 'alarming' in a post on his website, saying there is a possibility that putting federal authorities on the ground 'will only raise the risk of escalating violence' and that the National Guard's mobilization could be intended as a 'precursor' to justify a more aggressive deployment in the future if it fails. 'The law may well allow President Trump to do what he did Saturday night,' Vladeck wrote. 'But just because something is legal does not mean that it is wise—for the present or future of our Republic.' Contact us at letters@
