GOV GAVIN NEWSOM: Trump is trying to destroy our democracy. Do not let him
Over the past two weeks, federal agents conducted large-scale workplace raids around Southern California. They jumped out of unmarked vans, indiscriminately grabbing people off the street, chasing people in agricultural fields. A woman, 9 months pregnant, was arrested in LA; she had to be hospitalized after being released. A family with three children, including a three-year-old, was held for two days in an office basement without sufficient food or water.
Several people taken in the raids were deported the same day they were arrested, raising serious due process concerns. U.S. citizens have been harassed and detained. And we know that ICE is increasingly detaining thousands of people with no other criminal charges or convictions: Those arrested with no other criminal charges or convictions rose from about 860 in January to 7,800 this month – a more than 800% increase. Meanwhile, those arrested and detained with criminal charges or convictions rose at the much lower rate of 91%. Trump is lying about focusing on "the worst of the worst."
While California is no stranger to immigration enforcement, what we're seeing is a dangerous ploy for headlines by an administration that believes in cruelty and intimidation. Instead of focusing on undocumented immigrants with serious criminal records and border security – a strategy both parties have long supported – the Trump administration is pushing mass deportations, targeting hardworking immigrant families, regardless of their roots or risk, in order to meet quotas.
In response, everyday Californians came out last week, and by the tens of thousands just this last Saturday, to protest their government's actions – to exercise their constitutional right to free speech and assembly.
Our system of democracy was created in direct opposition to the monarchy and designed to bolster individual freedom and liberty so that we are never again subjugated to a king. It is that idea, that sacred value, that is being destroyed.
California, the home of the free speech movement, is no stranger to such demonstrations. Our law enforcement officers are well-trained to provide security, ensure order, and intervene when necessary. Last weekend, state and local authorities deployed law enforcement officers, including those from the California Highway Patrol, the LAPD, and the sheriff's department. Although there were incidents of violence and property damage, state and local law enforcement officials restored and maintained order.
Those who become violent and destructive – vandalizing property, trying to attack police officers – will be apprehended and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. We do not tolerate criminal behavior.
But we know that President Donald Trump is not opposed to lawlessness and violence, so long as it serves him. His supposed concern for the men and women in uniform is not based on their loyalty to this country and its people, but to him and his cause. What more evidence do we need than January 6 – and his pardons for those involved, including those who violently assaulted police officers that day?
So it's no surprise that – without any request or input from me – he illegally commandeered 4,000 of our state's National Guard members to deploy on our streets. It was only five years ago that President Trump himself said: "We have to go by the laws … we can't call in the National Guard, unless we are requested by a governor."
Then, at a moment best timed to further inflame the situation, he deployed more than 700 active duty U.S. Marines. These are men and women trained in foreign combat, not domestic law enforcement. We honor their service and their bravery. But we do not want our streets militarized by our own Armed Forces. With this act, President Trump has betrayed our soldiers, the American people, and our core traditions; soldiers are being ordered to patrol the very same American communities they swore to protect in wars overseas.
The deployment of federal soldiers in L.A. doesn't protect our communities – it traumatizes them. Kids are afraid to attend their own graduations. People are afraid to go to work. They are arresting dishwashers, gardeners, and seamstresses. These are not criminals, these are families; this is not public safety, this is tyranny.
California will continue to fight on behalf of all our people, including in the courts. The president knows it, that's why he's attacking us so aggressively. We've filed 26 lawsuits against the Trump administration, and already, we've successfully secured a federal court order calling out Trump's illegal takeover of the California National Guard and militarization of Los Angeles.
This is still far from over.
Authoritarian regimes begin by targeting the most vulnerable. But they do not stop there. Trump and his loyalists thrive on division because it allows them to consolidate power and exert even greater control. If some of us can be snatched off the streets without a warrant, based only on suspicion or skin color, then none of us are safe.
We are in a perilous moment. We have a sitting president who believes he is bound by no law, including our Constitution. In just over 140 days, he has fired government watchdogs that could hold him accountable for corruption and fraud. He's declared war on culture, on history, on science, and on knowledge itself. Databases are disappearing, archives are being raided, and universities are being told what they can teach. The judicial branch and the rule of law are under siege. Journalists and news organizations are targets.
This is about far more than L.A. It's about more than California. This is about all of us – it's about you.
When Donald Trump asserted blanket authority to commandeer the National Guard, he made that order apply to every state in this nation. California may be first, but it won't be the last. Other states are next. Democracy is next.
His administration has manhandled and handcuffed U.S. Senator Alex Padilla for asking the Secretary of Homeland Security a question. For doing his job. Newark Mayor Ras Barakawas was arrested as he accompanied members of Congress to inspect a federal immigration detention center. Rep. LaMonica McIver has now been indicted in connection with the same incident.
Our system of democracy was created in direct opposition to the monarchy and designed to bolster individual freedom and liberty so that we are never again subjugated to a king. It is that idea, that sacred value, that is being destroyed.
But our greatest strength has always been with the people. It's time for all of us to stand up.
Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said it best: "In a democracy, the most important political office is that of the private citizen." Not the office of the president, nor of the governor. But it is you, the people, who are most important. It is your voice that should be loudest.
Many of you are feeling deep anxiety, stress, and fear. But you are the antidote to that fear and anxiety. What Donald Trump wants most is your fealty, your silence.
Do not give in to him. Do not let him win. If we stand together, as neighbors, as communities, as states, we will win.
This column is adapted from Gov. Newsom's "Democracy at a Crossroads" address on June 10.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What the business world has to like (and not) in Senate version of Trump's 'big beautiful bill'
The business community has some clear wins in a Senate version of President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" released Monday, but it isn't getting everything it wants. The Senate's Finance Committee released its 549-page blueprint this week that contains significant changes from what the House passed in May, especially on taxes, Medicare funding and clean energy. The changes are still being digested by the business community but one proposal is already being embraced: a Senate-side push to make corporate tax deductions permanent for things like interest payments and new capital investments. One idea that may not be quite so popular is the survival of an idea for a so-called "revenge tax" that would allow the government to levy new duties on foreign nations and their businesses. That idea was introduced in the House version and sparked fears of reduced foreign investment. The version released Monday pares back the tax but doesn't eliminate it entirely, as corporate lobbyists had asked. Specific industries also have plenty at stake from changes made by the Senate. Businesses that work in clean energy will have more time to adjust to the phase-out of Biden-era credits. Restaurants and gig economy companies have more limited tax breaks for tips and overtime in the Senate bill. Health care providers will also have to adjust to even steeper cuts to Medicaid's provider tax structure — perhaps the most surprising and significant overall change in the Senate version. What the Senate version of the bill doesn't appear to have — as Elon Musk and others had pushed for — is a significant change in the final price tag. Both versions are expected to add trillions to dollars to the debt. The Senate version also raises the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, compared with $4 trillion in the House version. The bill does have one clear cost saving measure with a slashing of the annual deduction for individual State and Local Taxes (SALT) from $40,000 to $10,000. But that provision is even described in the official summary of the bill as "the subject of continuing negotiations," with defenders of the deduction pledging to restore the full credit forthwith. The Senate version earned a quick flurry of Republican pledges — from fiscal hawks to defenders of those SALT deductions to those who object to the Medicaid cuts — to vote no if the final version isn't changed to their liking. "We're not seriously addressing our long-term deficit and debt," Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin told reporters soon after the unveiling as he reiterated that he remains a no. This latest release comes only about two weeks ahead of Republicans' self-imposed deadline to get the bill to the president's desk by July 4. The Senate is aiming to pass the bill by next weekend, Ed Mills of Raymond James pointed out in a note, "however, we continue to view the July 4 target as ambitious" — suggesting that SALT and Medicaid provisions in particular could be under intense debate in the days ahead. Here is a closer look at some of the major business world changes being proposed by the Senate: A key focus for business owners are a series of tax deductions that will reinstate credits for corporations around things like the depreciation of property, capital investments, new factory construction, interest expenses, and research and development costs. These provisions were present in the House version but only temporarily. Permanency was a key Senate priority once they took over even as it is expected to increase the price tag. The bill "powers the economy by permanently extending critical pro-growth provisions and introduces new incentives for domestic investment, providing certainty for American job creators to spur domestic economic activity and invest in their workers," offered Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo as he unveiled these provisions. The Senate version also enhances credits for Opportunity Zones, which provide tax relief in rural and distressed communities. The bill also includes Trump's campaign promises of no taxes on tips and overtime but in a more limited form. Employee will have annual deductions of up to $25,000 for tips and overtime — in contrast to the House's approach of 100% deductibility under certain income limits. Also present in the Senate blueprint is a rollback of clean energy credits for things like solar panels and electric vehicles. The changes in the Senate would make that phaseout slower — zeroing out some key credits by 2028 — but with a bottom line that Republicans across the spectrum are united in eliminating these benefits entirely. Amy Hanauer, the executive director of the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, reacted to the released proposal by saying "the emerging clean energy economy will be curtailed and for what?" "Our communities will be worse off as a result of this legislation,' she added. On the fossil fuel side, the Senate bill continues to include changes to make permitting less laborious, open up new lease sales, and reverse a fee on excess methane emissions. The Senate bill also includes a controversial plan to limit the ability of states to regulate artificial intelligence. The Senate's provisions are less airtight (stopping short of the outright ban proposed by the House) but are expected to remain a point of contention and also potentially an issue for the Senate parliamentarian given the Senate's complex reconciliation rules. Other changes in the bill appear to have cut against the business interests at least slightly. The Senate bill makes permanent the so-called pass-through deduction — formally called a 199A deduction for small businesses — but at the current rate of 20%. The House version also had permanency but at a higher rate of 23%. Meanwhile a clear focus of business lobbyist ire has remained in the bill but in a slightly diminished form: this so-called "revenge tax." That is an idea that would allow a president to punish companies and countries if they adhere to foreign laws that policymakers find objectionable. In Trump's case things like the digital services taxes the often hit tech companies overseas. The Senate version, in a nod to the flurry of concerns, set a maximum rate of 15% and delayed implementation until 2027 but kept the concept intact. In addition to that tax, the SALT and Medicaid changes are likely to be most in focus in the days and weeks ahead. Tobin Marcus of Wolfe Research noted Tuesday morning that "SALT changes underscore the reality that this is another step forward in negotiations, not the final answer." He added "we still view late July as the real deadline." Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
New York Times
13 minutes ago
- New York Times
FIFA has taken us for fools over its promise to fight racism
Maybe ultimately, we're the fools. Because did we expect anything else from FIFA? Did we really believe world football's governing body was going to make use of the colossal platform available to it? Did we actually think it was going to do even the bare minimum? The news that FIFA has decided not to display any anti-racism or anti-discrimination messaging during games at the ongoing Club World Cup in the United States came with a grim inevitability. Despite rustling up some promotional materials for its 'no racism' and 'no discrimination' initiatives, none have been used so far in the first week of the tournament. There has been nothing in the stadiums, on social media, on captains' armbands. Anywhere at all, in fact. Advertisement When asked by The Athletic, FIFA did not comment on whether there was a link between this decision and the increasingly close relationship between its president Gianni Infantino and the competition's host nation's President Donald Trump, but as soon as it became clear that Infantino was prioritising nurturing that bond over, say, actually running FIFA, it probably should have been obvious that this was going to happen. Trump's attempts to eradicate anything that faintly smells of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) — three words which he has, astonishingly, managed to redefine as bad things — already appear to have spilt over into sport. February's Super Bowl was the first in four years not to have 'End racism' messaging in the stadium. In March, an article on the U.S. Department of Defense's website celebrating Jackie Robinson, the former soldier who became the first man to break the colour barrier in Major League Baseball (MLB), was removed amid a purge of government web content relating to DEI. The article on Robinson was eventually restored, but the direction of travel was clear. So, when it came to FIFA and launching its new, greatly expanded Club World Cup with this first edition in the States, this was probably a case of when, rather than if. From a strictly pragmatic, realpolitik point of view, you could argue that it's sensible for Infantino to cosy up to the president of the country hosting your next two global events, with much of the national-team World Cup next year being played in the U.S. too. But if that means abandoning any moral principles you have, or at least pretend to have, is it worth it? Instead, FIFA's big message for this tournament is its 'Football Unites the World' slogan, which is displayed on captains' armbands, but not in many other places. Advertisement Football unites the world. Sure. But behind what? What is the force for good here? If you're saying that football has a broader social impact beyond just the game, then you have to give us something tangible to prove the point. Otherwise, it's just meaningless. Still, perhaps that's the point. At various intervals, FIFA and Infantino have spoken solemnly about their commitment to anti-racism. In January 2024, he encouraged the idea that teams should forfeit matches in the event of racist incidents. FIFA's 2022 World Cup sustainability report included a promise to carry out 'diversity and anti-discrimination awareness-raising initiatives.' Good idea. If nothing else, football should be used to raise awareness. It's the most popular sport in the world, arguably the biggest cultural force on the planet. When, though, if not at the Club World Cup, the tournament FIFA has been telling us for years is going to be the greatest show on earth? Would this not have been a pretty good opportunity to plaster everything with strong messaging, to make sure that if any viewers took anything from watching these games in America, it was that FIFA was committed to anti-discrimination? It's a particularly Eurocentric point of view to label this tournament a waste of time, another brick placed on top of the Jenga tower that is the international football schedule. But it has much more value and holds much more interest to fans and clubs from other parts of the world. It is far from insignificant. So at the very least, it could have been used as a platform, a method of influencing and drawing attention to the things that FIFA say it is committed to. Football's messaging when it comes to discrimination messaging is generally dishwater-weak as it is. UEFA, the game's European governing body, used to display a video before games in its competitions where famous football figures would stare into the camera and intone, in their native language, 'No to racism'. A noble sentiment, although it's stretching credibility to think that a racist would see, say, Pavel Nedved telling them that this sort of thing is not on, and thus change their ways. Advertisement But at least it was something. FIFA isn't even doing that. Comparisons will be made to the row over the 'One Love' armbands a few teams suggested they were going to wear during matches at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, an idea that FIFA nixed pretty quickly, and indeed pre-emptively banned from the Women's World Cup in Australia and New Zealand the following year. That was an external initiative, though: from a corporate perspective, it was consistent with its stance that only FIFA-approved messaging could be used. This is different. This is FIFA actively jettisoning something it has previously declared to be a precious part of football's social fabric, apparently because it is politically inconvenient. It all begs the question: if you can't even rely on FIFA to publicise what it claims to stand for, then what's the point? FIFA didn't comment on its plans for the actual World Cup next summer, to be hosted in the United States, Canada and Mexico, but it doesn't bode well. What will the slogan be for that? 'Can everyone just be nice?' 'Please don't be mean to each other'? Could this be watered-down even further, to homeopathic levels? If anyone can, FIFA can. It shouldn't be that hard to present some sort of worthwhile message, even if these are often frustratingly milquetoast. Major League Soccer and MLB recently carried out Pride initiatives, as did the Premier League. Teams in England were still taking the knee before games at the end of the most recent domestic season. But even that seems beyond FIFA. Again, perhaps this is our fault. Expect nothing, and you won't be disappointed. Expect the most basic expression of humanity, and you will. This is FIFA, after all.
New York Times
13 minutes ago
- New York Times
In ‘Not My Type,' E. Jean Carroll Gets the Last Gab About the Trump Trials
NOT MY TYPE: One Woman vs. a President, by E. Jean Carroll We already know that E. Jean Carroll looked smashing when she went to court versus Donald J. Trump. But her irrepressible voice was, necessarily, repressed. For 27 years, with countless exclamation points and emphatic italics, Carroll wrote the 'Ask E. Jean' column for Elle magazine, focusing on the perils of modern dating. Advice columns, a quaint holdover from the heyday of print you'd think ChatGPT would make redundant, remain curiously ubiquitous. Yet even in a crowded field, this adrenalized agony aunt, currently on Substack, stands out, with her giddy feminism (her tuxedo cat is named Vagina T. Fireball); literary references (the Great Pyrenees dog: Miss Havisham); and runaway retro expressions like 'egads!' and 'twitpiffle.' Testifying in depositions and two trials, however, Carroll was instructed by her lawyers to keep her answers short. 'Very, very short,' she writes in 'Not My Type,' a delightful full-gallop account of the experience, and sequel of sorts to 'What Do We Need Men For?' (2019), in which she first accused Trump of assaulting her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room. 'I receive the impression that saying nothing at all would be best,' she adds. Now she is saying pretty much everything, including a few evidentiary morsels not introduced at trial. Like that Jeffrey Epstein, Trump's friend, had heard and gossiped about what had happened. And a 1987 'Spy 100' issue listed Bergdorf dressing rooms in an article about places for 'lunchtime adultery.' The man the magazine called a 'short-fingered vulgarian' was among those on the cover. Trump has plenty of his own insults at hand, of course. Indeed the title 'Not My Type' is taken from one about why he never would have advanced on the unconsenting Carroll: 'No. 1, she's not my type.' (He did, however, mistake her in an old photo for one of his exes, Marla Maples.) 'No. 2, it never happened,' he added. 'It never happened, OK?' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
