Newsom to head to South Carolina next week to speak to Southern voters as his flirtation with 2028 grows
The Democrat 's trip to the state, which went for Trump in 2024, will see him visit rural counties, including Pickens County, where the president won 76 percent of the vote last year.
South Carolina has the first Democratic presidential primary on the calendar, and has a large share of Black voters, a core part of the Democratic base.
'Governor Newsom leads the largest economy in America and the fourth largest in the world, and he's coming to meet folks in towns that have been hollowed out by decades of Republican control,' state Democratic party chair Christale Spain, said in a statement to The Hill on Thursday. 'This is about building partnerships, uplifting communities, and showing rural voters they aren't forgotten.'
The trip will see the governor, perhaps the country's most prominent Democrat outside of Washington, visit settings including cafes, coffee shops, churches, and the Kershaw County Council on Aging, according to an itinerary obtained by the state's Post and Courier newspaper.
He last visited the state in 2024 to campaign for Joe Biden.
California congressman Ro Khanna will visit South Carolina later this year for an event highlighting those impacted by the Trump administration's cuts to Medicaid.
Newsom has a long history of using national campaign-style tactics, even when he's not running for president, including participating in a 2023 debate with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and paying for critical TV ads in Republican states the year before.
Since Trump return to office, however, the Democrat has shifted into a new gear, embracing a role as one of the most vocal opponents of the new administration.
In June, California sued the Trump administration over its decision to send in National Guard troops in response to anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles.
Newsom also gave a speech that month accusing the president of ushering in 'authoritarianism' and dared federal officials to arrest him instead of conducting immigration raids against low-level offenders.
The tactic appears to be getting attention in Washington, prompting House Speaker Mike Johnson to claim in June Newsom ought to be 'tarred and feathered.'
In January, as wildfires ravaged Los Angeles, Trump repeatedly, and often inaccurately, alleged that California leaders' environmental policies were to blame for hydrants running dry.
The following month, the president ordered officials to release billions of gallons of water from reservoirs in the state, a move largely seen as a symbolic gesture with little relation to stopping wildfires.
The fires continue to be a sticking point between Newsom and the administration, and in June President Trump threatened to withhold disaster aid to California in response to the protests.
Elsewhere, Newsom has embraced a pugnacious style and launched a podcast this year which often features conservative guests like activist Charlie Kirk.
The project comes after 2024 Democratic campaigns were criticized for not doing more to leverage the ' manosphere ' of podcasts and influencers reaching young male voters.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
US fiscal folly could create big, beautiful debt spiral
LONDON, July 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. tax and spending bill passed on July 3 is expected to add more than $3 trillion to the country's deficit over the next decade. If the current debt trajectory continues unabated, it could set off a slow motion debt spiral that could endanger the Federal Reserve's independence. The sobering long-term debt projections of the Congressional Budget Office, opens new tab may actually understate the likely impact on U.S. debt-to-GDP levels of President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill". The CBO based its estimate on the assumption that temporary increases in government spending and tax cuts will sunset at a projected date. But this new budget bill, which extended previous tax cuts and other measures, has shown that this sunset often never arrives. Thus, the long-term projections in the U.S. Treasury's annual financial report, opens new tab may be more realistic since they assume the current rate of government spending will continue indefinitely. In the Treasury forecast, the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to increase to over 200% in 2050 compared to the CBO's estimate of around 145%. Scarier still, the Treasury forecasts that the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio will reach 535% by 2100 if current spending plans continue. Proponents of tax cuts argue that they boost GDP growth and thus will slow the rise in debt-to-GDP, but the CBO estimates that the House Bill will only increase real GDP by an average of 0.5%, opens new tab over 10 years or 0.04% per year relative to the CBO's January 2025 projections. The Tax Foundation estimates that the Senate Bill will boost GDP growth by 1.2%, opens new tab in the 'long run'. That hardly makes a difference compared to an expected debt increase totalling almost 10% of GDP. If today's debt dynamics persist, the risk premiums in the U.S. Treasury market will almost certainly climb over the long run. Economists Martin Ademmer and Jamie Rush, opens new tab have analysed the drivers of 10-year Treasury real yields since 1970. They concluded that investors typically demand more risk compensation as the U.S. deficit increases, especially when there is competition from an ample supply of safe assets globally. Thus, Treasury yields rise. Their analysis concludes that these two factors together lifted the natural 10-year real yield for Treasuries by 1.3 percentage points between 2005 and 2023. If the deficit projections for the next decade are realized, this trend should continue. With all this in mind, it was notable that U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said last week, opens new tab that he would not boost long-term Treasury bond sales given today's high interest rates. Since the pandemic, the average duration of U.S. government debt has declined significantly as the Treasury has favoured bills over longer-term instruments in an effort to keep interest expenses under control. One reading of Bessent's comments is that the Treasury is concerned about the country's ability to continue servicing its long-term debts if it borrows at today's elevated yields, a message that could push Treasuries' risk premium even higher, making long-term borrowing even less tenable. This reminds me of a similar episode in which a heavily indebted country faced a sudden spike in its already large deficit. As investors lost trust in the country's ability to pay back its debt, long-term yields rose, which in turn forced the government to issue debt at shorter and shorter maturities. This signalled to the market that the government would struggle to pay the existing debt, and this pushed long-term government bond yields even higher. The country's debt entered a doom loop. The country in question: Greece after the 2009 financial crisis. To be clear, I do not expect the U.S. to experience a similar implosion. There are crucial differences between the U.S. and Greece that should prevent this, not least the ability of the U.S. to devalue the dollar and inflate away some of its debt. Greece, as a euro zone member, had no such flexibility. But the new U.S. budget increases the possibility that the U.S. could face a similar debt drama, only in slow motion. If long-term Treasury yields remain higher for longer, the Treasury is apt to continue shortening the duration of its debt. This, in turn, could create a vicious cycle by making government interest expenses more volatile, further imperiling U.S. fiscal health and making longer-term debt even riskier. There appear to be three main off ramps for the U.S. One: politicians could become fiscally prudent and significantly reduce the deficit to a sustainable level. This seems unlikely given both parties' recent track records. Two: the Treasury could impose capital controls to artificially increase demand for Treasuries. As I have written previously, this move would likely spell the end of the dollar as the main global reserve currency. Three: the Fed could create artificial demand for long-term Treasuries by scooping up bonds itself – that is, restarting quantitative easing – to keep yields low. The danger with this form of QE, however, is that it represents fiscal dominance, where the central bank loses control over monetary policy because of imprudent government actions. How such a development would play out is impossible to predict, especially when it involves a global superpower, but it's fair to assume the Fed won't want to find out. (The views expressed here are those of Joachim Klement, an investment strategist at Panmure Liberum, the UK's largest independent investment bank). Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI),, opens new tab your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn,, opens new tab and X., opens new tab
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Gen Z takes being American for granted
In the 2025 iteration of this poll, a staggering 92% of Republicans were "extremely" or "very" proud to be American, whereas just 53% of independents and 36% of Democrats reported feeling the same. Until 2016, Democrats and Republicans remained rather similar in their patriotism, with both reaching values above 80% before the election of President Donald Trump. However, modern patriotism among Democrats is dependent on who is in the White House, rather than any genuine love of America. During the time that Joe Biden was in the White House, Republican pride in being American bottomed out at 84%. Over the same period, Democrats rose to a peak of just 62%. One significant driver of this decline is Generation Z, born between 1997 to 2012, whose patriotism lags far behind previous generations. Just 41% of Gen Z is extremely or very proud to be American, and among young Democrats, that falls to just 24%. Partisanship is getting in the way of patriotism for Democrats Being proud to be American has absolutely nothing to do with being proud of our current leaders. In their fluctuations in pride depending on who is in the White House, Democrats have lost sight of this. I am one of the most critical people of our government out there, and I think of that as being borne out of my patriotism. Criticizing the government when it does not strengthen America's foundational principles is a patriotic act. My fellow columnist Rex Huppke has the right idea. "We can love this country and loathe the people in charge," he wrote in a recent column. "We can be simultaneously proud of this country and embarrassed of the things being done in its name." Tell us: This Fourth of July, are you proud to be an American? | Opinion Forum Now, obviously, I am no Democrat, but it saddens me that this same principle apparently does not hold for many of them. To many Democrats in modern times, it seems as if their love for this country is contingent on their preferred candidates being in power. Interestingly, this seems to be a problem unique to Democrats. While some Republicans seemingly faltered in their patriotism over the previous four years, they did not see the massive swing between the Biden and Trump presidencies that Democrats saw over the same period. This is all evidence of the fact that Democrats have attached their pride to a political movement, rather than to a love of America's founding principles. For some, this is a problem of them simply being blinded by partisanship. For others, however, it marks a much deeper problem. America's failures to live up to her founding principles at times are not evidence of those principles being bad; they are evidence of human nature being imperfect. Gen Z doesn't know how good we have it Much of Gen Z has been captured by the progressive left, many of whom do genuinely believe that America's institutions and system of government need to be torn down completely. These revolutionaries are responsible for the complete lack of patriotism among Gen Z. Opinion: Senate just passed Trump's Big Beautiful Bill - and made it even uglier Gen Z doesn't realize how lucky we are. We live in the greatest country and in the greatest time in history. There is no collective group that has it better at any point in history than we do right now. Many will disagree with me on this point, but they are mistaken. There is no place better constructed to safeguard your individual liberties than here. While we are very obviously imperfect in that goal, no other nation on earth is better equipped to pursue liberty through the freedoms that our Constitution protects. Tearing down the system that has led to such a wonderful place would be a mistake. Within a framework designed to preserve liberty is the best place to enact whatever political change it is that you want, unless your goal is not liberty. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Those who advocate against America's foundation might feel entitled - in the sense that they believe it is the job of government to provide for them - have taken the freedoms that we have for granted or are delusional about how good others have it. I do not know how to solve the problem of restoring patriotism to those who have lost it. I am sympathetic to the frustrations young Americans have with the state of our politics, and I am hopeful that Gen Z will learn that they are better off trying to change this country, rather than destroy it. America is a wonderful place, and you would do best to fight for your political causes within her structure of liberty, rather than attempting to tear it down. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
‘It's offensive': voices from Iran as fans face 2026 World Cup travel ban
'It's offensive for any football fan to be prevented from participating in the World Cup, not just Iranians,' Ali Rezaei of Tehran's Borna News Agency says. In March, the national team became the second to qualify for the 2026 World Cup that will be hosted by Canada, Mexico and the United States. In June, Donald Trump authorised the dropping of bombs on Iran and hit the country with a travel ban. As things stand, while the national team will be able to enter the US next summer, fans – and perhaps media – will not. Residents of Tehran and other cities may have had enough to deal with of late, but still, being barred from entry stings, even if Iranians have long found it difficult to get into the US. 'If the US government has issues with the Iranian regime for any reason, it should not result in discrimination against Iranian citizens,' Behnam Jafarzadeh, a writer for leading sports site Varzesh3, says. 'If someone hasn't committed any illegal activity, why should they be punished? It's not just about the World Cup – the policy needs to change in general.' What can Iran do? 'Boycotting the World Cup is not a solution,' Siavash Pakdaman, a Tehran-based fan, says. 'Refusing to play on US soil would be a dangerous precedent – any host country could start excluding teams it has issues with. Just as the Iranian delegation can and should be present at the United Nations in the US, the Iranian team should also play on American soil if the draw requires it – without relocation.' There is a feeling that staying away would not make much difference anyway. 'It would only deprive the national team of the opportunity to participate in a major tournament and would ultimately hurt Iran more,' Jafarzadeh says. 'It might even be welcomed by some American officials. It could make headlines briefly, but once the tournament starts, it will be forgotten and will have achieved nothing.' Questions have been asked – including in Iran, whose supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has long banned competing against Israeli athletes – about what the international reaction would have been if Qatar had banned citizens from certain nations from attending the 2022 World Cup. 'If the USA makes it difficult for football fans to attend, then changing the host country is necessary,' Rezaei says. 'Doing so would harm the USA's reputation, not the World Cup's. If strict entry rules remain, we should focus on protecting football. This is supposed to be a celebration of sport.' Jafarzadeh is not confident that the competition could be taken away from the busiest of the three hosts. 'It is not a challenge Fifa and [its president Gianni] Infantino would want to take on.' Perhaps there is another way. 'Fifa should use all of its influence to push for a suspension of this policy at least during the World Cup.' Fifa may find it easier to place Iran in Canada or Mexico and hope that Iran don't make it to the latter stages, when there would have to be a game in the US. 'Playing in Mexico or Canada is not a real solution – it just ignores the actual problem,' Rezaei says. Many expect it to happen anyway. 'Canada has a large Iranian immigrant population, although some of them are opponents of the Iranian regime and the national team can't count on their support,' Jafarzadeh says. 'Mexico is probably a more attractive and less controversial destination for the team.' That is another question. The Iranian-American community is more than a million strong yet many of these headed west before, or in response to, the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Sign up to Football Daily Kick off your evenings with the Guardian's take on the world of football after newsletter promotion 'It seems that many Iranians who oppose the government consider the national team to be a representation of the regime – which I believe is wrong,' Pakdaman says. 'And since a larger number of these opponents live in the US, the team may face pressure from the audience during the matches. Of course, I hope my analysis is wrong.' Jafarzadeh, who went to the World Cups in Russia and Qatar and would love to go to the United States, says: 'Some see the team as one that represents the regime, and this sentiment is even stronger among Iranians living abroad. Of course, the war with Israel has stirred feelings of patriotism among many Iranians, but I'm not sure if this will translate into support for the national team. We'll have to wait and see how things unfold in the coming months.' That there is time is perhaps a small reason for optimism that things could change. Iran is one of 19 countries subject to a full or partial US entry ban. Several of the others retain hope of qualifying for the first 48-team World Cup, including Sudan, Sierra Leone, Venezuela and Haiti. 'Considering that there is almost a year left until the 2026 World Cup, there is a possibility that the situation may stabilise,' says Isa Azimi, a columnist and translator, regarding Iran's situation, though he is not confident. 'Despite claims of separating politics from football, Fifa has shown that it is not particularly independent when facing major political powers.' Especially when Infantino appears to prize his close relationship with Trump. 'If Fifa considers itself a global body independent of governments, it must stand up to such laws and not allow politics to contaminate the world of sports,' Pakdaman says. 'Of course, we all know that, unfortunately, such contamination exists – especially when one side of the issue is a superpower that answers to no one. It is Fifa's duty to treat all member countries equally, but will that actually happen?'
