Democrats anoint Gavin Newsom as new party leader
Democrats are lining up to throw their support behind Gavin Newsom and anoint him as the new leader of the party in the wake of the LA riots.
Donald Trump called for the arrest of the California governor earlier this week, prompting Mr Newsom to call his bluff – which attracted widespread praise from Democrats.
A former Los Angeles mayor commended him for 'standing up to a bully', while other Democrat figures said he had gone 'toe-to-toe' with Mr Trump and was 'fighting' for the state.
Commentators now think arresting Mr Newsom would turn him into a 'martyr' and cement his status as Mr Trump's most effective critic.
The 57-year-old governor, who on Tuesday night accused the US president of using the unrest to mount an illegal power grab in his state, has emerged as the figurehead of a party struggling to stand up for itself following last year's crushing election defeat.
Some Democrats are frustrated by the lack of 'resistance' from current party leadership, who fear isolating voters that flipped for Mr Trump by attacking the president.
Until his face-off with Mr Trump, Mr Newsom had been no exception to the problems gripping the party, with his poll ratings declining and a diminishing reputation as what Mr Trump would describe as a 'radical Left lunatic'.
'I've criticised him in the past… but I commend him for what he's doing,' Antonio Villaraigosa, a former mayor of Los Angeles, told Politico.
'You stand up to a bully. You don't let a bully take away our First Amendment rights.'
'We've been waiting to feel like the governor is standing up and fighting for California and every Californian, and he seems to be doing that,' said Lorena Gonzalez, the California Labour Federation leader.
'Democrats are looking for leadership'
Larry Ceisler, a Democrat strategist, told The Telegraph Mr Newsom was 'the first governor who has been given the opportunity to go toe-to-toe with President Trump and his advisers'.
'Democrats are just looking for leadership… Newsom becomes top of mind because his slot is based on real-time substantive and consequential stepping-up to confront a true crisis,' he said.
'He gave a kick-off to his 2028 campaign,' Steve Bannon, Mr Trump's former chief strategist, told The New York Times. Mr Newsom is often spoken of as a frontrunner to claim the Democrats' presidential nomination ahead of the next election.
Mike Madrid, a California-based Republican strategist, said he believed the protests were helping Mr Newsom, adding: 'Especially if he gets arrested.'
The Wall Street Journal, the centrist newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch, said this week that the governor had emerged as 'leader of the opposition'.
Before Mr Trump sent the National Guard into Los Angeles last weekend, Mr Newsom was thought to have tarnished his brand among party allies by attempting to broaden his appeal ahead of a potential presidential run.
He has hosted a number of figures aligned with Mr Trump's Maga movement on his new podcast, including Mr Bannon and Right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, and labelled biological men participating in women's sports 'deeply unfair'.
Mr Newsom labelled Mr Trump a threat to democracy in a presidential-style address on Tuesday evening, where he spoke straight into a camera for around nine minutes.
'This is about all of us. This is about you. California may be first, but it clearly will not end here. Other states are next,' he said.
'Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault right before our eyes, this moment we have feared has arrived.'
Mr Newsom's administration filed an emergency motion with the courts on Tuesday, arguing Mr Trump overstepped his legal authority by mobilising the National Guard and US marines in California in response to the protests.
'Thanks to our law enforcement officers and the majority of Angelenos who protested peacefully, this situation was winding down and was concentrated in just a few square blocks downtown,' he said.
'But that's not what Donald Trump wanted. He again chose escalation, he chose more force. He chose theatrics over public safety,' Mr Newsom continued, labelling the president a 'failed dictator'
He claimed Congress had failed to stand up to Mr Trump as he took a 'wrecking ball' to the Constitution and 'our founding fathers' historic project'.
'There are no longer any checks and balances… The rule of law has increasingly been given way to the rule of Don,' he said.
Mr Newsom concluded with a call to arms for his party and disaffected voters: 'What Donald Trump wants most is your fealty, your silence, to be complicit in this moment. Do not give into him.'
Mr Trump and his 'border tsar', Tom Homan, have previously suggested Mr Newsom should be arrested – something the governor has quickly embraced.
'He's a tough guy. Why doesn't he do that? He knows where to find me,' he said of Mr Homan on Sunday. 'That kind of bloviating is exhausting. So, Tom, arrest me. Let's go.'
Mr Trump made political capital out of his own legal problems two years ago, when he returned from the political wilderness following a series of criminal indictments he blamed on a 'weaponised' justice system.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Israel is just getting started, but can a weakened Iran respond?
Israel's warplanes were in the air barely two hours after Donald Trump, the US president, had laid out the case for continuing talks with Iran at the weekend. 'We remain committed to a Diplomatic Resolution to the Iran Nuclear Issue,' he posted on his Truth Social site. 'My entire Administration has been directed to negotiate with Iran.' Had Benjamin Netanyahu, the headstrong prime minister of Israel, not got the memo? Or was he sending a clear signal to Washington that he was not going to take orders from anyone. As ever in the Middle East's quagmire of religious strife and decades of power struggles, it was all a lot more complicated than that. The Americans had been forewarned that Israel had run out of patience with Iran and its deadly pursuit of nuclear weapons. Just a day earlier, the State Department had announced it was reducing its diplomatic footprint in Baghdad and other regional facilities, Mr Trump warning the Middle East 'could be a dangerous place'. The US president was asked directly whether Israeli strikes were imminent. 'Well, I don't want to say imminent,' he told reporters in the East Room of the White House, 'but it looks like it's something that could very well happen'. Strikes, he said, could upset delicately poised negotiations. Or, maybe, he mused, it 'might help it actually'. So when explosions echoed across Iran early on Friday morning, Mr Trump and Mr Netanyahu were settling into rather familiar roles. The American president had spent the day as good cop – talking up the idea of a negotiated settlement and trying to keep his people in the region from becoming targets. However, while officials said negotiators were on their way to Oman for a sixth round of talks on Sunday – he was happy to let the Israeli prime minister play the bad cop, pulling the trigger. 'In my assessment, the timing of an Israeli strike on Iran reflects a convergence of interests between Trump and Netanyahu,' said Avi Melamed, a former Israeli intelligence official. 'From Trump's perspective, as long as the US is not directly militarily involved, there is an advantage to a situation in which Israel takes military action aimed at forcing the Iranian regime back to negotiations from a significantly weaker position. 'The one who will pay the price for this move is Israel.' As he announced Operation Rising Lion to his nation, Mr Netanyahu set out the scale of the threat just a few hundred miles away. For decades, the tyrants of Tehran have 'brazenly, openly called for Israel's destruction,' he said, describing how their weapons programme had produced enough highly enriched uranium for nine nuclear bombs. The strikes, said Gabriel Noronha, president of POLARIS National Security and a former adviser to the State Department, were simply the first in maybe a week of attacks, starting with command and control centres, top leadership, and aerospace headquarters that would have launched drone and missile retaliation. The question now is whether Iran will have the ability or the intent to strike US facilities or at any of the 40,000 military personnel in the Persian Gulf and the rest of the Middle East. 'They've threatened the US for a long time,' Mr Noronha said. 'The question is whether they will have the munitions and the capability to strike US bases or they say, 'We barely have enough to inflict damage on Israel. We're going to keep it at that.'' Either way, it is just the start.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
EUROPE Friday 13th brings explosions in Tehran, race to safe havens
A look at the day ahead in European and global markets from Rocky Swift It had to be Friday the 13th, right? The morning began with explosions in Tehran that appeared to be much more serious than tit-for-tat strikes between Israel and Iran last year. Though a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran's budding nuclear capability had been suspected, the timing and severity still took markets by surprise, with oil prices jumping over 11% at one point. What remains unclear is what role or knowledge the United States had about the offensive and what will Washington do if Iran retaliates. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. was not involved, while Israel's state broadcaster said Washington had been notified before the strikes. Steve Witkoff, President Donald Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, had been expected to meet Iran's foreign minister in Oman on Sunday. Oil's jump, opens new tab put it on course for the sharpest daily gain in more than five years. Gold and Treasuries surged in Asian trading, while stock futures pointed to roughly 1.5% declines in Europe and U.S. Britain's FTSE was down less than 0.5% in the futures market. With rubber bullets flying in Los Angeles and missiles dropping in Tehran, global economies are clearly prioritising guns over butter. Major defence contractors in Europe such as Britain's BAE Systems, France's Dassault Aviation, and Sweden's Saab AB may be active today. Key developments that could influence markets on Friday: - German, French final CPI readings for May - Euro zone trade balance, industrial production data for April Trying to keep up with the latest tariff news? Our new daily news digest offers a rundown of the top market-moving headlines impacting global trade. Sign up for Tariff Watch here.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Global nuclear arms spending up 11% in 2024, campaign group says
GENEVA, June 13 (Reuters) - Spending on nuclear weapons by the world's nine nuclear-armed nations rose by 11% in 2024, a report by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons said on Friday. The $10 billion annual increase to $100.2 billion went towards modernising and in some cases expanding nuclear arsenals, according to ICAN, a global civil society coalition that seeks the total elimination of atomic weapons. "Nuclear-armed countries could have paid the United Nations' budget 28 times with what they spent to build and maintain nuclear weapons in 2024," the report said. The U.S. recorded the largest annual increase in nuclear spending in 2024, rising by $5.3 billion, the report said. Its total expenditure of $56.8 billion exceeded the combined spending of all other nuclear-armed states, it said. China spent $12.5 billion, followed by Britain at $10.4 billion, which was an increase of $2.2 billion, ICAN said. It said the other nuclear-armed states were France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and Russia. 'In terms of kind of the increase in spending in the UK and France, I think we certainly have seen, at least in the rhetoric of political leaders, a reference to the ongoing war in Ukraine, to the tensions, and that could be playing a role,' Alicia Sanders-Zakre, a policy and research coordinator at ICAN, told reporters at a briefing in Geneva. Britain and other allies in NATO now regard Russia as the main security threat to Europe and some have rolled out plans to devote a higher percentage of GDP to defence spending. However, Sanders-Zakre said the increase in nuclear expenditure has been more driven by the costs of servicing long-term contracts and the growing expense of developing nuclear delivery systems than by current security concerns.
