Liberals torch ‘trash' Gavin Newsom for launching podcast with Charlie Kirk interview
Gavin Newsom, the California governor who is seen as a likely 2028 presidential hopeful, is under fire from liberals and progressives for his friendly interview with Charlie Kirk, which featured Newsom agreeing with the MAGA provocateur on trans athlete bans and other culture war issues.
'Gavin Newsom is trash and always has been,' one Bluesky user noted about the Newsom-Kirk sitdown.
In the aftermath of Republicans taking control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, Newsom announced last month that he was launching a new podcast that would feature prominent Trump world figures for spirited discussions. The governor pointed to his high-profile appearances on Fox News, including a 2023 debate against Ron DeSantis moderated by Sean Hannity, as proof the project could work.
'We already know what our disagreements are with the MAGA movement. I want to understand what the motivations are, the legitimacy of those motivations, and just really understand where people are coming from,' he said about the launch of This Is Gavin Newsom. 'They are influential — they are. They explain more things in more ways on more days about what's going on and if we're not trying to understand their motivations, we will be victims of their motivations.'
At the time, Newsom declined to reveal who his first few guests would be on the podcast, but hinted that they would be fairly well-known figures in Trump world. 'I don't want to lose these folks by letting their names out there,' he said, adding: 'Look at the lineup at CPAC. It's that crew.'
Ahead of the first episode of the podcast dropping on Thursday, Newsom posted a photo of him and Kirk — the founder of MAGA youth advocacy group Turning Point USA — standing together and smiling. The revelation that the governor had made the far-right activist and Trump acolyte his first podcast guest was enough to spark outrage among many on the left, even before the episode went live.
''The first guest on Gavin Newsom's podcast was Charlie Kirk' is more than enough for me to say 'absolutely not' to any suggestion Newsom play any role in the future of the Democratic Party,' attorney Max Kennerly wrote on Bluesky. 'People like him are the past, the failures, the ones who got us here.'
'Sometimes you see something that makes you realize that another person's mind is just always going to be a locked door to you, a total mystery,' games journalist Ian Boudreau stated. 'Impenetrable. For me that was Gavin Newsom making his debut podcast episode a talk with Charlie Kirk.'
Center for International Policy chief editor Kelsey Atherton snarked that Newsom 'would have put down the Bell Riots with tanks and napalm I can tell you that much,' referencing a 1995 Deep Space Nine episode about a fictional civil disturbance that took place in 2024 San Francisco.
The criticism of Newsom only escalated after his interview with Kirk aired. During the episode, the governor asked Kirk to give him 'advice' for his party while also agreeing with the ultra-conservative activist that Democrats were in the wrong when it came to protecting trans athletes in sports.
'I think it's an issue of fairness, I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness — it's deeply unfair,' Newsom, who has long touted his LGBTQ advocacy, declared. 'I am not wrestling with the fairness issue. I totally agree with you.'
Additionally, after Newsom said that Republicans 'were able to weaponize that issue at another level,' Kirk challenged him over the use of the term 'weaponize,' prompting the governor to demur and change it to 'highlight.' The exceedingly friendly chat with Kirk and his agreement on trans athletes and other hot-button social issues only drew more backlash from the left.
'If you want to understand the DNC's relationship with trans people you have to ask yourself why Montana, Nebraska, and Oklahoma had openly trans legislators before California and New York (which still have never had any),' ACLU communications strategist Gillian Branstetter reacted.
'Who do Democrats think is the audience for 'Gavin Newsom in a podcast with Charlie Kirk,'' former Washington Post reporter Christopher Ingraham wondered, while podcast host Andy Levy flatly said it was 'utterly contemptible' how Newsom readily embraced Kirk's viewpoints.
'I know we all know this absolute toad of a man is scum but it truly cannot be overstated just how much he sucks and looks like you threw a Bond villain and the rich property developer who wants to close the Community Center in an 80s kid movie in the Fly machine,' comics writer Zoe Tunnell shared in a post. 'This is Dem leadership.'
While progressives torched the Democratic governor for his congenial sitdown with the TPUSA founder, Kirk was busy gleefully retweeting clips of Newsom proclaiming that his 13-year-old son was a massive fan of Kirk's.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
20 minutes ago
- Axios
MAGA's blue-collar base waits patiently for populist payoff
President Trump 's second term has been a payday for the powerful, exposing a disconnect in his promise to deliver for "the forgotten man" of America's working class. Why it matters: The populist paradox at the heart of MAGA — a movement fueled by economic grievance and championed by a New York billionaire — has never been more pronounced. Trump's blue-collar base remains fiercely loyal, energized by his hardline stances on immigration, trade and culture — and patient that his economic "Golden Age" will materialize. But so far, the clearest financial rewards of Trump's tenure are flowing upward — to wealthy donors, family members, insiders and the president himself. The big picture: Trump's inner circle has shattered norms around profiting from the presidency, dulling public outrage to the point where even the most brazen access schemes draw only fleeting scrutiny. Take crypto: The top holders of Trump's meme coin were granted an exclusive dinner last month at the president's Virginia golf club, where some paid millions for access. The White House refused to release the guest list, but wealthy foreigners — including a Chinese billionaire who faced SEC charges under the Biden administration — were among those revealed to be in attendance. Trump's sons, meanwhile, are spearheading a family crypto venture that has raked in hundreds of millions of dollars. Trump Media, the parent company of Truth Social, is raising $2.5 billion to buy Bitcoin. All of this — plus a flurry of lucrative real estate deals overseas — is playing out as Trump presides over U.S. foreign policy and the fate of crypto regulation. Zoom in: Now take Trump's relationship with his donors. His Cabinet is the wealthiest in American history, stocked with mega-donors whose combined net worth reaches well into the billions — even discounting estranged former adviser Elon Musk. Trump has granted pardons or clemency to a stream of white-collar criminals and wealthy tax cheats, many of whom hired lobbyists, donated to the president or raised money on his behalf. The Wall Street Journal found that the biggest corporate and individual donors to Trump's inauguration later received relief from investigations, U.S. market access and plum postings in the administration. The other side: Trump officials wholly reject the premise that the administration's policies don't benefit the working-class Americans who voted for the president en masse. The White House points to cooling inflation, plummeting border crossings, and the tariff-driven re-shoring of manufacturing as evidence of Trump delivering on his core promises. They frame his crypto push, AI acceleration and deregulatory agenda as driving forces behind a pro-growth tide that will lift all boats — including for middle- and working-class Americans. Reality check: Inflation may remain benign for now, but there are growing signs businesses are experiencing higher prices and passing some or all of those costs directly through to consumers, Axios managing editor for business Ben Berkowitz notes. While companies have made encouraging public statements about re-shoring, in almost all of those cases it's too soon for any shovels to be in the ground. What to watch: Trump's "One, Big, Beautiful Bill" is packed with populist red meat, including the extension of his first-term tax cuts, the elimination of taxes on tips and overtime, and $1,000 " Trump Accounts" for newborns. "All his hopes and dreams on that front are pinned to that reconciliation bill," one MAGA operative told Axios, characterizing it as "the bulk" of Trump's legislative agenda for the middle class. "The president expects the Senate to quickly pass the One, Big, Beautiful Bill, codifying huge tax cuts that will mean permanent savings for hardworking Americans," White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said. Between the lines: Several independent analyses project that the wealthiest Americans would benefit most from the bill. A Penn Wharton study that found the top 10% of earners would reap 70% of the legislation's total value. The Congressional Budget Office projects that Medicaid work requirements and other health care cuts would leave about 11 million people uninsured by 2034. Millions could also be forced off of food stamps. "Medicaid, you gotta be careful," former Trump adviser Steve Bannon said on his "War Room" podcast in February. "Because a lot of MAGAs are on Medicaid, I'm telling you. If you don't think so, you are dead wrong." Factory investments in red districts are expected to suffer most from the bill's rollback of clean energy credits included in President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. The bottom line: Inside the MAGA movement, there's little concern about who's getting rich as long as Trump keeps fighting the culture wars, deporting immigrants and tearing down liberal institutions.
Axios
20 minutes ago
- Axios
San Antonio City Council election results show changing politics
San Antonio City Council District 1 incumbent Sukh Kaur held on to her seat in Saturday's runoff election, in which three new city councilmembers were also elected in a political shakeup. Why it matters: A new generation of councilmembers can help shape a range of transformative city plans as they work with new mayor Gina Ortiz Jones over the next four years — but they'll also have to contend with a possible budget deficit and cuts to services. By the numbers: Kaur beat out conservative neighborhood leader Patty Gibbons 65% to 35% in the downtown area district, which now also includes some neighborhoods north of Loop 410. The big picture: The San Antonio City Council could have a starker political divide. It'sgaining one more progressive and one more conservative member, who are taking over seats previously held by business-friendly and moderate Democrats. Ortiz Jones is expected to lead as a progressive. The latest: In District 6 on the Far West Side, Ric Galvan (50.1%) beat Kelly Ann Gonzalez (49.9%) by just 25 votes. Both have progressive backgrounds running in a district that has previously elected Republicans and business-friendly Democrats. In District 8 on the Northwest Side, Ivalis Meza Gonzalez (57%) beat Paula McGee (43%). Meza Gonzalez is the former chief of staff to Mayor Ron Nirenberg, while McGee had experience on city boards and support from the Republican Party of Bexar County. In District 9 on the North Side, Misty Spears (57%) beat Angi Taylor Aramburu (43%), putting this more conservative district back in Republican hands for the first time in eight years. Spears has been the director of constituent services for Republican Bexar County Commissioner Grant Moody. Flashback: The four districts headed to the June runoff after no one earned more than 50% of the vote in the May 3 election. District 4 on the Southwest Side is newly represented by Edward Mungia, a former staff member in the office. He won outright in the May election.
Fox News
28 minutes ago
- Fox News
CHUCK DEVORE: Trump moves fast to save LA from a 1992 repeat
Los Angeles is rioting again. Mobs, amped up by professional agitators and implicit support from Democratic elected officials, have attacked federal law enforcement officers with deadly intent. This violence, which includes hurling rocks, torching cars, launching fireworks, and assaulting federal law enforcement officers, aims to prevent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) from carrying out lawful deportation efforts. Missing the irony, the rioters enthusiastically waved the flags of nations to which they are fighting against being returned. In response, federal and some local law enforcement deployed tear gas and flash bangs to disperse the crowd in the LA suburb of Paramount. But with law enforcement lives clearly threatened and the local law enforcement response less than robust, President Donald Trump ordered up 2,000 members of the National Guard to restore order. Additional active duty troops are said to be on standby. Predictably, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass clutch their pearls, whining about "cruel" immigration enforcement while the city spirals into anarchy. Newsom labeled Trump's federalization of the National Guard "purposefully inflammatory." He said it would escalate tensions—one supposes the future presidential candidate sees the ruckus as "mostly peaceful." The pro-immigration without limits group, the League of United Latin American Citizens, predictably condemned Trump's order, claiming it "marks a deeply troubling escalation in the administration's approach to immigration and civilian reaction to the use of military-style tactics." Trump isn't moved by the criticism. He doesn't want to see federal law enforcement officers killed or injured by anarchists and would-be revolutionaries for simply doing their jobs. I saw this movie before. In 1992, as a California Army National Guard captain, I patrolled LA's scorched Crenshaw District during the Rodney King riots. Looters ran wild, businesses burned, and chaos reigned until Gov. Pete Wilson called up the National Guard and President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act, sending 3,500 federal troops—active duty Army and Marines—to back 10,000 federalized Guardsmen. Order swiftly returned. It worked. There's a big difference—so far—between today's unrest and that of 1992. The Rodney King riot was initially sparked by resentment over what was seen as excessive police force. Due to LA's chronically under-staffed police department and a tactical error—pulling back law enforcement from an intersection that had been taken over by a violent mob—the riot quickly spiraled out of control. By the end, some 63 people were dead, 2,383 injured, 12,111 arrested, and more than $2.3 billion in inflation-adjusted property damage was inflicted. In comparison, the 1992 LA riot equaled all the death, injuries, arrests, and damage of the 2020 George Floyd-Antifa-BLM riots of 2020 combined. In 1992, once law and order broke down, opportunistic looting and arson quickly followed. Today's riots are fueled by open-borders radicals and their enablers, not anger over police using excessive force. ICE is enforcing federal law, rounding up illegal immigrant criminals and those with final deportation orders. And the danger, so far, is more focused on federal law enforcement officers, not private property per se. Thus, there's a subtle difference in the call-up of troops, both in the size of the deployment—13,500 in 1992 vs. 2,000 today—and in their purpose. Normally, National Guard personnel, when operating on a state mission for a governor, can enforce civilian law. The post-Civil War Posse Comitatus Act which generally prohibits the use of the military to enforce civilian laws doesn't apply. But when the Guard is federalized—that is, called up to federal service—the Posse Comitatus Act's restrictions apply to the Guard, just as they do to active-duty service members. But there's a big exception: The Insurrection Act. Through 1992, presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act 31 times. Essentially, when local law and order break down, the president is authorized to use the military to enforce civilian law. But Trump has not yet invoked the Insurrection Act. What he did instead was to call up the California National Guard and potentially some Marines to protect federal law enforcement officers. Thus, these military personnel will not be allowed to arrest agitators and rioters or conduct immigration enforcement operations, but they will be allowed to perform force protection missions and provide logistical support. Of course, if that's not enough. Trump can always invoke the Insurrection Act, federalize more National Guard soldiers—even from other states—and send in additional active-duty forces, just as Eisenhower and Kennedy did to smash segregationist resistance in the 1950s and 60s. Newsom and Bass are at fault here. Their failure is glaring. Californians have been voting with their feet for years, fleeing Newsom's wrong-headed policies. Now, his mismanagement of LA's violence will torch what is left of his presidential ambitions. These rioters aren't protesters—they're insurgents. Like Antifa in 2020, they're attacking federal authority, targeting ICE agents enforcing laws Congress passed. Newsom and Bass coddle them. Since they won't act, Trump must. The left will scream "tyranny," and some retired generals will fret about "politicizing" the military. But anarchy is a brutal tyranny of its own kind.
