Looking Back at Gavin Newsom's Career—and National Ambitions
California Gov. Gavin Newsom attends a press conference about President Donald Trump's tariffs, at an almond farm in Ceres, Calif., on April 16, 2025. Credit - Noah Berger—AP
President Donald Trump and California Gov. Gavin Newsom's clash over the deployment of federal troops in Los Angeles has escalated a longstanding feud between the two to new heights—and may be setting the stage for a bigger political battle come 2028.
The recent standoff has brightened the spotlight on Newsom, who was already considered a leading contender for the Democratic nomination in the next presidential election after building up his national profile with major policy moves and confrontations with Republicans.
Since becoming Governor in 2019, Newsom has embraced his role as the top official of the most populous U.S. state, which often leads the country in implementing progressive policies.
The 57-year-old has been assertive in his opposition to the Trump Administration, most recently challenging federal 'border czar' Tom Homan to arrest him after Homan indicated he would detain anybody who interferes with federal immigration actions.
'Democracy is under assault before our eyes,' Newsom said in an emphatic public address Tuesday evening. 'This moment we have feared has arrived.'
Here's what to know about the Governor's political career so far and what it could signal about a potential future campaign for the White House.
Newsom garnered national attention shortly after becoming San Francisco's mayor—the city's youngest in more than a century—when he gave the green light to issue municipal marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Feb. 12, 2004, more than a decade before same-sex marriage was legalized across the country.
Newsom had been mayor for just one month at the time, after previously serving on the city's Parking and Traffic Commission and Board of Supervisors. He first entered government in 1996 after beginning his career as a well-connected businessman.
His order at City Hall defied both the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act—a federal law that defined marriage as between a woman and a man—and a state law approved by voters in 2000 that did the same thing.
Newsom's attempt to bring marriage equality to San Francisco came after Massachusetts became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriage after its Supreme Judicial Court's November 2003 decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.
The move drew controversy, however, including from Democratic Party leadership, as well as legal challenges, as public support at the time was still divided. After more than 4,000 same-sex couples were married, the California Supreme Court ruled the licenses void. The legal battle over marriage equality in the state was not resolved until the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling.
Near the end of his second term as mayor, in April 2009, Newsom announced on Twitter that he planned to run for Governor. But he pulled out of the race just six months later as it became clear former Gov. Jerry Brown was the clear frontrunner.
In March 2010, Newsom announced that he would instead seek the office of lieutenant governor, and he beat his Republican challenger by more than 10% of the vote in the November election.
The California politician continued to prove his boundary-pushing progressive bona fides in his support of Proposition 64, a state ballot measure to legalize recreational marijuana that passed in 2016. When the first-term Trump Administration later threatened to potentially crack down on such laws, Newsom issued a letter urging the federal government to work with states like his. 'We can't continue to keep doing what we've done and expect a different result,' he wrote to the President. 'The government must not strip the legal and publicly supported industry of its business, and hand it back to drug cartels and criminals.'
In addition to marijuana legalization, Newsom staked out progressive positions on issues including capital punishment, supporting an unsuccessful proposition to ban it, and gun control, supporting a successful proposition to require background checks for purchasers of ammunition and to prohibit possession of high-capacity magazines.
But throughout and even before Newsom's first tenure in Sacramento, he made clear his frustration with the limits of the lieutenant governorship. And as early as 2015, just after his reelection in the role, he announced his intention to run for the state's top job in 2018, to succeed Brown who was in his final term.
'I've never been a fan of pretense or procrastination. After all, our state is defined by its independent, outspoken spirit. When Californians see something we truly believe in, we say so and act accordingly—without evasiveness or equivocation,' he posted on Facebook. 'I make this promise—this won't be an ordinary campaign—but, then again, California has always been an extraordinary place.'
Newsom was elected in a landslide and took office in January 2019.
In his first year as Governor, he signed a flurry of laws, from requiring public colleges to offer abortion medication to banning smoking on state parks and beaches.
He also increasingly put the Golden State on a collision course with Trump, who was well into his first term as President. Newsom called Trump's plans to build a border wall as part of a national emergency a 'national disgrace,' accusing the President of 'manufacturing a crisis' at the border. And he lashed out at the Administration for trying to reverse the state's strict auto emissions standards.
Tensions escalated in 2019 following the Administration's attempt to alter existing pumping regulations to increase the supply and delivery of water to Central Valley farmers, which Newsom criticized on environmental grounds.
In 2020, Newsom tackled a record-setting wildfire season that saw nearly 9,000 fires burn that year, according to Cal Fire. A state of emergency request for disaster relief aid was initially rejected by the Trump Administration because it 'was not supported by the relevant data that States must provide for approval,' White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere wrote in an October 2020 statement, but it was approved hours after the rejection following a phone call between Trump and Newsom.
Despite their historic hostility, Trump and Newsom praised each other at times in relation to cooperation on the fires and the Covid-19 pandemic—during the latter, in March 2020, Trump called Newsom 'terrific' and said 'We're getting along really well.'
But the friendship wouldn't last long.
A special recall election put Newsom's position at risk in 2021 as voters expressed ire over his policies on immigration, homelessness, and the death penalty. Newsom eventually survived that election with 62% of the vote, though Republicans, including Trump, called the results 'rigged.' Newsom was reelected by a 59% margin in November 2022.
But despite his popularity in the heavily Democratic state, Newsom's governorship has continued to hit snags. The state's crime rate rose in 2023 compared to nationwide figures, though it went down last year; homelessness in the state reached a record-high in 2024; and in 2025, by one measure, California was ranked the most expensive state to live in.
Further recall efforts have been initiated, including a campaign launched earlier this year by the organization Saving California, whose leader Randy Economy was the spokesperson and organizer of the failed 'People's Recall' campaign in 2021. The new effort has until Sept. 4 to collect more than 1.3 million signatures to trigger a special election.
Newsom silenced talk of a presidential run in 2024 and instead threw his support behind President Joe Biden's reelection and later the campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris.
Still, Newsom didn't shy from the national spotlight.
In November 2023, he debated Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Fox News, an event that felt to many like a preview of 2028.
'I'm not there running for reelection as Governor. I'm not running for President, either,' said Newsom shortly before the debate. 'I'm going to defend Biden, for better or worse, rich or poor, 'til death do me part.'
In February 2024, the California Governor ran a television ad in Tennessee in a fight against abortion travel bans. 'Don't let them hold Tennessee women hostage,' the voiceover in the advertisement says, referring to 'Trump Republicans.' The campaign highlighted Democrats' key promise that they would defend abortion rights.
Following Biden's troubling debate performance against Trump in June 2024, as calls for the then-President to drop out of the race mounted, Newsom was floated as a potential replacement candidate, but he again shot down any entertainment of the idea and publicly stood by Biden before ultimately endorsing fellow Californian Harris after Biden withdrew himself.
Despite his decision not to run for president in 2024, Newsom is widely believed to be setting the stage for a potential 2028 campaign.
The Governor, who is term-limited and set to leave office in January 2027, has taken steps, observers have noticed, to try to appeal to a broader base while also seeking to raise his profile as a foil to the current President.
In February, he launched a podcast, 'This is Gavin Newsom,' on which he has hosted high-profile figures in the MAGA world, including former Trump White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and right-wing activist and media personality Charlie Kirk.
On policy, he has diverged from other Democrats by pushing for the clearing of homeless encampments and proposing limits on healthcare benefits for undocumented immigrants. He also broke with his history of progressive stances on LGBTQ+ issues when he announced that he thought the presence of transgender athletes in women's sports was 'deeply unfair.'
At the same time, building on his past battles with the Trump Administration, Newsom has positioned himself as a leading opponent of the Republican President. Following Trump's reelection, Newsom convened a special session of the California legislature with the stated goal of safeguarding the state against potential 'federal overreach' from the incoming Administration.
He and Trump locked horns again not long after the President returned to office when Trump blamed California's water management practices for deadly wildfires in Los Angeles.
And their contentious relationship has broken out into even more open conflict in the past week as Trump has deployed National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles in response to protests over immigration raids despite Newsom's opposition to the federal intervention. Newsom has condemned the President as 'dictatorial' and filed a lawsuit against the Administration over the military mobilization.
In his address Tuesday, Newsom warned the nation that the situation in Southern California is 'about all of us.'
'This isn't just about protests here in Los Angeles. When Donald Trump sought blanket authority to commandeer the National Guard, he made that order apply to every state,' he said.
'California may be first, but it clearly will not end here,' Newsom added. 'Other states are next. Democracy is next.'
Contact us at letters@time.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
10 minutes ago
- Axios
Focus groups: North Carolina swing voters mostly OK with Trump's LA response
A majority of North Carolina swing voters in our latest Engagious / Sago focus groups supported President Trump's deportations and activation of the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles, despite some concerns about civil rights and government overreach. The big picture: These Biden-to-Trump voters' desire to eject undocumented migrants from the U.S. — and their critical views of California and Democrats — shape how they see this massive test of executive power playing out far from their own hometowns. Seven of 12 panelists said they support the president's activation of the National Guard and Marines in L.A. despite Gov. Gavin Newsom's and local officials' objections. Three disapproved; two didn't have an opinion. Eight of the 12 said they believe Democrats prioritize illegal immigrants over American citizens. Why it matters: "Democrats who doubt their party remains out of touch with swing voters will be stunned by what these North Carolinians told us about immigration," said Rich Thau, President of Engagious, who moderated the focus groups. How it works: Axios observed two Engagious / Sago online focus groups Tuesday night with North Carolinians who said they voted for Joe Biden in 2020 and Donald Trump in 2024. The panelists included nine independents and three Republicans. While a focus group is not a statistically significant sample like a poll, the responses show how some voters are thinking and talking about current events. What they're saying: "The stance California has on illegal immigration only enables all these people, and they're not going to stop it," said Gregory D., 43, of Greensboro. "So we need to bring it up another level. It needs to stop. California doesn't want to stop it." "It's in the best interest of the nation that we call this, I don't know, uprising, call it what you want, but yeah, that needs to get nipped in the bud, just like George Floyd and all that sh*t should have," said Alex H., 44, of Charlotte. Butch F., 58, of Mebane, said he believes illegal immigrants got government assistance that reduced North Carolinians' access to disaster funds. Gerius J., 33, of Charlotte, said he's for diversity but wants to "do it the right way. Get the right paperwork, the right documentation." He said Democrats "have always wanted illegals to come here," and if anyone objects, "you're the bad guy. And as a U.S. citizen, I'm not the bad guy. I just want things to be done the right way." The other side: Karen L., 61, of Wilmington, said of Trump's immigration actions, "When he first started out, it seemed like he was really going after the criminals — like, the ones committing murder and rape — and he was getting all of them. And we don't want them here if they're [here] illegally, especially. But now ... it's way too extreme, and he's violating civil rights, and he's causing more chaos than anything." Rachid O., 46, of Raleigh, said the administration should prioritize arresting and deporting criminals, above all undocumented immigrants. Many undocumented immigrants pay taxes "so they contribute to the country," he said. Between the lines: Shifting the focus to combating illegal immigration may help him with some voters who have cooled on his performance in other areas. Several panelists voiced concerns about the economy, tariffs and political corruption and objected to Trump's moves to cut university research, or possible Medicaid cuts in the spending and tax-cut bill before Congress. "It's getting harder and harder to afford things," said Kimberly S., 37, of Sanford. "We are just kind of told, 'Hey, you just got to bear with us just a little bit more,' and it doesn't feel like it's getting any easier." Shauna S., 54, of Harrisburg, said when it comes to tariffs, "There's no plan, and it's been erratic. It appears to be an opportunity to manipulate the markets, and I really want someone to investigate where and who's actually gaining financially every time these tariffs are being threatened and then removed. I'm just curious what's really happening."


Axios
10 minutes ago
- Axios
Padilla episode triggers five-alarm fire for Democrats
Democrats spooked by President Trump's state-sanctioned shows of force have shifted into five-alarm fire mode, warning he's pushing American democracy to the brink. Why it matters: They're pointing to what happened yesterday to Alex Padilla, California's senior senator, as a crossing-the-Rubicon moment. Driving the news: The jarring scene of Padilla, a Democrat, being forcefully removed from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's press conference after interrupting it — and then being dragged to the ground and handcuffed — felt like kerosene on the nation's political fire. To Trump's most loyal allies, Padilla's actions were merely an exercise in political theater. Back in D.C., House Speaker Mike Johnson was among the Republicans blaming Padilla, saying that "at a minimum," the senator should be censured. To Democrats, the episode crystallized fears about Trump's willingness to crush dissent, and shatter democratic norms and institutions. "This is the stuff of dictatorships. It is actually happening," said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii). A few Republicans were just as alarmed. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who's repeatedly proved her independent streak, told reporters the incident was "shocking at every level. It's not the America I know." Padilla wasn't arrested, but the fallout from the incident promises to endure as Congress continues to wrestle with Trump's giant tax and spending bill. Zoom in: To fully understand the alarm that's gripping Democrats over the Padilla incident, consider two factors: 1. It took place in a mostly Democratic city where Trump's immigration agents are using military-style tactics to conduct raids and make arrests in mostly Hispanic communities and workplaces. Padilla is one of the nation's highest-ranking Hispanic public officials, and is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee's immigration panel. 2. Trump's over-the-top-enforcement seems to be about more than immigration. When Padilla interrupted Noem during her press conference to try to ask a question, the DHS secretary had just said that her agents were in Los Angeles "to liberate this city from the socialist and the burdensome leadership that this governor and this mayor have placed on this country."
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court delays order that would have blocked Trump from continuing to deploy National Guard in California
A federal appeals court Thursday delayed an order requiring the Trump administration to return control of the California National Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom. A panel of three judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay of the lower court's order and set a hearing for June 17. Two of the judges on the panel were nominated by President Donald Trump, and one was nominated by former President Joe Biden. Earlier Thursday, a federal judge in California issued a temporary restraining order that would have blocked Trump's move to deploy California National Guard troops during protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles and returned control of the California National Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom. Calling the judge's order "unprecedented" and an "extraordinary intrusion on the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief," lawyers for the Trump administration filed an emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Before being paused by the appeals court, the lower court judge's order, which did not limit Trump's use of the Marines, was set to take effect at noon on Friday. "At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not," U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said in his order granting the temporary restraining order sought by Newsom. "His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith." MORE: Trump's deployment of troops to LA prompts host of legal questions -- and a challenge from California In a press conference after the earlier order, Newsom said he was "gratified" by the judge's ruling, saying he would return the National Guard "to what they were doing before Donald Trump commandeered them," Newsom said. "The National Guard will go back to border security, working on counter drug enforcement and fentanyl enforcement, which they were taken off by Donald Trump. The National Guard will go back to working on what we refer to as the rattlesnake teams, doing vegetation and forest management, which Donald Trump took them off in preparation for wildfire season. The National Guard men and women will go back to their day jobs, which include law enforcement," Newsom's speech continued. Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta had filed an emergency request on Tuesday to block what they called Trump and the Department of Defense's "unnecessary" and "unlawful militarization" after Trump issued a memorandum over the weekend deploying more than 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles amid the protests -- over objections from Newsom and other state and local officials. In his order, Breyer pointed to protesters' First Amendment rights and said, "Just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone. The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and 'rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States' is untenable and dangerous," he wrote. Breyer wrote that the protests in Los Angeles "fall far short" of the legal requirements of a "rebellion" to justify a federal deployment. Rebellions need to be armed, violent, organized, open, and aim to overturn a government, he wrote. The protests in California meet none of those conditions, he found. "Plaintiffs and the citizens of Los Angeles face a greater harm from the continued unlawful militarization of their city, which not only inflames tensions with protesters, threatening increased hostilities and loss of life, but deprives the state for two months of its own use of thousands of National Guard members to fight fires, combat the fentanyl trade, and perform other critical functions," the judge wrote in his order. "Regardless of the outcome of this case or any other, that alone threatens serious injury to the constitutional balance of power between the federal and state governments, and it sets a dangerous precedent for future domestic military activity," the judge wrote. Some 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines were ordered to the Los Angeles area following protests over immigration raids. California leaders claim Trump inflamed the protests by sending in the military when it was not necessary. Protests have since spread to other cities, including Boston, Chicago and Seattle. To send thousands of National Guardsmen to Los Angeles, Trump invoked Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services, which allows a federal deployment in response to a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States." In his order, Trump said the troops would protect federal property and federal personnel who are performing their functions. The judge did not decide whether the military's possible involvement in immigration enforcement -- by being present with ICE agents during raids -- violates the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the military from performing civilian law enforcement. The judge said he would hear additional arguments on that point at a hearing next week. During a court hearing earlier Thursday, Breyer said during Thursday's 70-minute hearing that the main issue before him was whether the president complied with the Title 10 statute and that the National Guard was "properly federalized." The federal government maintained that the president did comply while also arguing that the statute is not justiciable and the president has complete discretion. The judge was asked not to issue an injunction that would "countermand the president's military judgments." Meanwhile, the attorney on behalf of the state of California and Newsom said their position is that the National Guard was not lawfully federalized, and that the president deploying troops in the streets of a civilian city in response to perceived disobedience was an "expansive, dangerous conception of federal executive power." MORE: Protests live updates: Americans split over support of LA protests, poll finds Bonta additionally argued in the emergency filing that Trump failed to meet the legal requirements for such a federal deployment. "To put it bluntly, there is no invasion or rebellion in Los Angeles; there is civil unrest that is no different from episodes that regularly occur in communities throughout the country, and that is capable of being contained by state and local authorities working together," Bonta wrote. Breyer had earlier declined California's request to issue a temporary restraining order immediately and instead set the hearing for Thursday afternoon in San Francisco and gave the Trump administration the time they requested to file a response. In their response, Department of Justice lawyers asked the judge to deny Newsom's request for a temporary restraining order that would limit the military to protecting federal buildings, arguing such an order would amount to a "rioters' veto to enforcement of federal law." "The extraordinary relief Plaintiffs request would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief's military directives -- and would do so in the posture of a temporary restraining order, no less. That would be unprecedented. It would be constitutionally anathema. And it would be dangerous," they wrote. They also argued California should not "second-guess the President's judgment that federal reinforcements were necessary" and that a federal court should defer to the president's discretion on military matters. MORE: How the immigration protests in Los Angeles started Trump on Tuesday defended his decision to send in the National Guard and Marines, saying the situation in LA was "out of control." "All I want is safety. I just want a safe area," he told reporters. "Los Angeles was under siege until we got there. The police were unable to handle it." Trump went on to suggest that he sent in the National Guard and the Marines to send a message to other cities not to interfere with ICE operations or they will be met with equal or greater force. "If we didn't attack this one very strongly, you'd have them all over the country," he said. "But I can inform the rest of the country that when they do it, if they do it, they're going to be met with equal or greater force than we met right here." ABC News' Jeffrey Cook and Peter Charalambous, Alyssa Pone and Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report. Appeals court delays order that would have blocked Trump from continuing to deploy National Guard in California originally appeared on