logo
Has Newsom got what it takes to challenge Trump?

Has Newsom got what it takes to challenge Trump?

Gulf Todaya day ago

Sixty years is a very, very long time in fast-moving US politics. But that is how long ago it is since a US president ordered the national guard into a state without a request from the state governor. The line between federal and state-level law enforcement is one of the many very clear demarcations of authority in the US federal system. It is another hallowed line that Donald Trump has crossed. From a purely public order standpoint, Trump's dispatch to Los Angeles of a 4,000-strong contingent from the national guard, bolstered by 700 US marines, appears to be having the intended effect.
The violent protests that erupted in response to the efforts of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to detain and deport people with no legal right to be in the United States have died down. Order has mostly been restored, and thousands are under arrest — whether for immigration violations, for violence, or for defying the city-imposed curfew.
Smaller protests that subsequently broke out in other cities also appear to have been discouraged by Trump's characteristically unsubtle — and constitutionally contestable — application of presidential power. If the short-term effect looks close to being an unqualified success from the perspective of the White House and Trump's political base, there has to be a question, indeed several questions, about the longer term.
How likely is it that the president's actions are storing up liabilities, either for him or his political heirs? One immediate effect has undoubtedly been to propel California's governor, Gavin Newsom, into the limelight again as a leader of the state-level opposition to Trump, as he became in Trump's first term. And it has to be said that the Democrats are in sore need of such leadership.
Far from being energised by Kamala Harris's defeat, to refresh their party and rally around a new leader, Democrats have seemed at a complete loss as to how to combat the second-term Trump.
Could the Democrats now find a new champion in Gavin Newsom - and is he equal to the task? Might he even be able to exploit his stand-off with Trump to become a plausible presidential contender for 2028? He certainly seems up for the challenge.
Having said after Trump's victory — to the distress of some supporters — that he would work with the second-term president, Newsom has come out fighting over the ICE raids on illegal migrants and has threatened to sue through the courts over the deployment of the national guard. And whereas the last time the national guard was sent into a state without the governor's say-so - to protect civil rights protesters in Alabama — there was an element of covert politicking, there is nothing of that this time around.
An argument can — and doubtless will - be made that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility; that the ICE agents met violent resistance and that they required protection that the city of Los Angeles and the state of California either would not (or could not) give. Whether that justifies federal intervention, however, is a matter that may well be decided in court.
So long as the national guard operate within their lawful parameters, which appears to be the case - and so long as the marines are not used to keep civil order, but only to protect the national guard - there may be no case for Trump to answer.
What's more, however much Trump's opponents might like to present him as riding roughshod over states' rights to assert federal control, this is not entirely true either. The Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v Wade on abortion rights, which was lauded by Trump, was as much of a reassertion of states' rights as a rolling back of the rights of women.
A win on the issue of states' rights would undoubtedly project Newsom on to the national stage. Even then there could still be a question about his prospects of rising to lead a coherent Democratic Party opposition to Trump more broadly. Yes, he was a contender to become Kamala Harris's running mate - had an all-California ticket not been judged a potential liability (which, of course, it was). Yes, he became a thorn in the side of the first-term Trump on a host of issues. And yes, Ronald Reagan made the governorship of California a stepping stone to the presidency. But that might not be enough.
Newsom has provoked vocal opposition within his own majority Democrat state, and there is little doubt that Trump would be up for a fierce rhetorical and political fight in defence of his programme. He has shown little but contempt for Newsom hitherto, whom he sees as left, liberal and weak, with an insatiable appetite for high taxes. He is to the great detriment, as he sees it, of California's wellbeing (a one-person equivalent, in a way, of Trump's other object of hatred, the EU). Many of Trump's loyal base will be of like mind.
Then again, even if Newsom were to emerge as a politician capable of arguing the Democrat cause on the national stage, there are compelling reasons why this particular stand-off might not work in his favour in the bigger scheme of things.
The problem for Newsom is that, even as Trump has been losing support nationally on other issues, support remains strong for his tough stance on migration. Appearing to support illegal aliens to remain in the US is probably not a hill Democrats will want to die on, either now, in the run-up to next year's midterm congressional elections, or in 2028.
Trump may also be less vulnerable than many previous presidents to party political opposition. There is some new talk of impeachment (already), but he saw off two attempts before, and anyway, electorally, as a second-term president, he has little to lose, for all the loose talk he might try to change the constitution to make possible a third term.
The awkward reality is that Republicans running for office are more dependent on him, than he is on them. Added to which, Trump is not a party creature. He is a one-off deal-maker turned president, who is testing constitutional power to its limits.
His Republican badge is a flag of convenience, required by the political system. Traditional Republicans may be counting the days until their party can nominate a real, more predictable, Republican for the highest office. In the meantime, their political fortunes are tied to his, and his sights are set on what he will bequeath, which includes a country with fewer illegal migrants, where America - in his definition - comes first. Gavin Newsom may have a national future; but he might do well to rein in his fury and bide his time.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's 2024 Disclosure Reveals $600 Million Income Surge
Trump's 2024 Disclosure Reveals $600 Million Income Surge

Arabian Post

time19 minutes ago

  • Arabian Post

Trump's 2024 Disclosure Reveals $600 Million Income Surge

Donald Trump's financial disclosure for the 2024 calendar year reveals more than $600 million in gross income and at least $1.6 billion in assets, offering a detailed window into the former president's expansive business empire and the diversification of his revenue streams. The filing, submitted on 13 June 2025, highlights a sharp rise in earnings derived from cryptocurrency ventures, numerous golf and hospitality properties, global licensing agreements, and an array of branded merchandise deals. Income from crypto alone was staggering: $320 million in fees from the $TRUMP meme coin and $57.35 million from token sales tied to World Liberty Financial, a DeFi enterprise in which Trump holds 15.75 billion governance tokens. Golf-related revenues accounted for a significant portion of the total, with Trump's Florida-based resorts—including Jupiter, Doral, West Palm Beach—and the Mar‑a‑Lago club bringing in at least $217.7 million. Trump National Doral generated $110.4 million alone. International properties in Ireland and Scotland added approximately €19 million and £28.7 million respectively. ADVERTISEMENT Royalties and licensing across Trump's branded merchandise further bulged into the tax disclosure. Revenues included $1.3 million from the Greenwood Bible, $2.8 million from Trump Watches, $2.5 million from Trump Sneakers and Fragrances, and $1.16 million from NFT trading cards. Foreign branding deals yielded over $36 million, emanating from projects in Vietnam, India, and Dubai. Passive income from investments—comprising interest, dividends and bond yields—totalled at least $12 million, sourced from holdings of about $211 million. The most notable fund positions were in Blue Owl Capital, Charles Schwab and Invesco government bond strategies. The disclosure confirms the minimal asset estimate of $1.6 billion, calculated using the lowest bounds in declared valuations. However, asset values may be considerably higher, given ranges presented in the filing. Despite assertions that Trump placed his businesses in a blind trust managed by his children, the disclosure underlines that the associated earnings continue to funnel to him directly. Critics argue this arrangement poses ethical concerns and potential conflicts of interest, especially where government policy intersects with crypto or development sectors potentially benefiting his enterprises. First Lady Melania Trump was listed as earning $216,700 from licensing her NFT collection. The disclosure notes Trump Media & Technology—including Truth Social—remains a key asset, though its precise contribution to the total remains unspecified. The financial filing, examined by Reuters and the Washington Post, runs through 2024 and follows extensive public and media scrutiny regarding Trump's financial transparency. He faces ongoing legal challenges—including potential liabilities amounting to nearly $440 million stemming from defamation and state litigation—but those were recorded as pending appeal. Trump's earnings from crypto and golf underscore an evolving business strategy where new digital ventures coexist alongside traditional real estate and leisure interests. The disclosure offers a snapshot of an economic footprint that spans DeFi, luxury goods, hospitality, passive investments and global licensing—reflecting a sophisticated, multi-channel revenue model.

Ted Cruz's Fed new plan is a massive distraction
Ted Cruz's Fed new plan is a massive distraction

Gulf Today

time2 hours ago

  • Gulf Today

Ted Cruz's Fed new plan is a massive distraction

You can count on Senate Republicans to find pointless budgetary gimmicks to avoid talking about serious deficit reduction. In an interview last week with CNBC, Senator Ted Cruz floated the idea that the Federal Reserve should just stop paying interest to banks to save taxpayers money. Budget squeeze solved, easy peasy! Here's Cruz: The Federal Reserve pays banks interest on reserves. For most of the history of the Fed, they never did that. But for a little over a decade they have. Just eliminating that saves $1 trillion... While Cruz wouldn't handicap the odds that such a proposal would make any headway, he went on to say that he and his colleagues had a serious discussion about the matter just a day earlier. He told Bloomberg News that he had made the case directly to the president as well. It's alarming that the senators would entertain such a reckless proposal. Much like Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, the idea comes from the belief that there are simple and painless ways to rein in the budget and curb interest payments. The premise of the Musk boondoggle was that there were large and obvious savings to be had if only the dumb Democrats had known where to look. Also in the category of magical budgetary panaceas are several of the proposals put forth last year by then-forthcoming Council of Economic Advisers Chair Stephen Miran, including the notion that the US could basically bully other nations into helping it term out its debt. Elon Musk A third example of this phenomenon is Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's idea that we can grow our way out of all our problems: We can just make economic output expand faster than most economists think possible and shrink debt-to-GDP that way! Enter Cruz with the latest distraction from the serious business of the budget. Of course, it's true that the Fed pays interest on bank reserves and that it's a relatively modern development. But how it affects taxpayers is rather complicated, since the Fed is generally self-funding. In normal times, it makes money from its asset portfolio and remits the excess to the Treasury. Since it expanded its portfolio when rates were low and is now paying out interest at relatively high rates, the Fed has been posting operating losses. It isn't remitting profits to the Treasury, and it won't resume doing so until it's generating profits again and has made up for past shortfalls. But that should rectify itself with time and lower short-term borrowing costs. A version of this arrangement has existed since 2008 (except it was previously known as interest on required reserves, or IORR, and some of the particulars are slightly different). But the Interest on Reserve Balance, or IORB, isn't some sort of sketchy corporate charity to banks, as Cruz has hinted. It's a tool to exercise control over short-term interest rates to achieve Fed policy goals. Prior to the financial crisis, the Fed would buy and sell securities to increase or decrease bank reserves with the goal of manipulating interest rates — a so-called corridor system. But that system only really worked in a world of scarce reserves. The Fed's response to the financial crisis included injecting a large amount of money into the system and bank reserves became abundant to the point that the old system wouldn't really work anymore. To maintain control over rates in this new world, the Fed started paying interest on reserves, essentially setting a benchmark for market interest rates — an arrangement known as a floor system. Banks knew that they could always, at a minimum, earn whatever the Fed was paying.

Trump says if Iran attacks, 'full strength' of US military will 'come down'
Trump says if Iran attacks, 'full strength' of US military will 'come down'

Khaleej Times

time3 hours ago

  • Khaleej Times

Trump says if Iran attacks, 'full strength' of US military will 'come down'

[Editor's Note: Follow the KT live blog for live updates on the Israel-Iran conflict.] Donald Trump warned Iran on Sunday that it would experience "the full strength" of the US military if it attacks the United States, reiterating that Washington "had nothing to do" with Israel's strikes on Tehran's nuclear and intelligence facilities. "The US had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight. If we are attacked in any way, shape or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the US Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before," he said Earlier the US President said "this war in Israel-Iran should end," with his comments coming in a social media post about his call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "The call (between Trump and Putin) lasted approximately 1 hour. He feels, as do I, this war in Israel-Iran should end, to which I explained, his war should also end," Trump said on Truth Social.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store