Newsom calls biological men in women's sports 'deeply unfair' in podcast with conservative activist
California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom put distance between himself and his party, and found common ground with influential conservative activist and commentator Charlie Kirk, when the term-limited governor and possible 2028 presidential contender agreed that biological men in women's sports is "deeply unfair."
"The young man who's about to win the state championship in the long jump in female sports, that shouldn't happen," Kirk said California on Newsom's debut episode on his new podcast, "This is Gavin Newsom."
Kirk, a MAGA world rock star and ally of President Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr. who leads the powerful Turning Point USA youth organization, asked Newsom, "You, as the governor, should step out and say no. Would you do something like that? Would you say no men in female sports?"
"Well, I think it's an issue of fairness," Newsom replied. "I completely agree with you on that. It's deeply unfair."
Gavin Newsom Asks Charlie Kirk To Give His Party 'Advice' In One-on-one Podcast Interview
Kirk further pressed Newsom on whether he would condemn the recent victory of a transgender track athlete with a more than 40-foot jump at Jurupa Valley High School in Southern California.
Read On The Fox News App
Newsom — who has long backed LGBTQ causes and who was ahead of many in his party when, two decades ago, as San Francisco mayor, he defied existing state laws and issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples — didn't directly address the win, but said "it's a fairness issue."
The student, AB Hernandez, won an invitational meet on Feb. 22, booting out a female runner-up who had jumped just over 32 feet in their competition category. Hernandez also took first place in two other events at the meet.
"So that's easy to call out the unfairness of that," Newsom, a Democratic Party torchbearer, said. "There's also a humility and a grace… these poor people are more likely to commit suicide, have anxiety and depression, and the way that people talk down to vulnerable communities is an issue that I have a hard time with as well."
"So both things I can hold in my hand," the governor continued. "How can we address this issue with the kind of decency that I think you know is inherent in you, but not always expressed on the issue?"
Karoline Leavitt Addresses Democrats Defying Trans Athlete Ban Demand: 'Can't Say You Are The Party Of Women'
Transgender athletes in California have long been protected prior to Newsom's administration under AB 1266, also known as the School Success and Opportunity Act. The law was signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, in August 2013.
However, Senate Bill 132, also known as the Transgender Respect, Agency and Dignity Act, allows inmates to request cells and searches that align with their gender identity, which Newsom signed in September 2020.
Newsom's comments in California came as Senate Democrats in Washington D.C. earlier this week voted unanimously to block a GOP-led bill that would prohibit federally funded schools from allowing transgender athletes from participating in women's sports.
Title IX government protections — which cover schools — prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities that receive funding from the federal government.
Democrats argue that policies to restrict transgender athletes' participation in team sports are a form of discrimination.
There are relatively few transgender athletes competing at the collegiate level. Regardless, Republicans have spotlighted in recent years that transgender women playing in female sports hold an unfair physical advantage.
And the GOP attacked Democrats over transgender issues up and down the ballot on the campaign trail last year. That included a politically cutting ad from Trump's campaign that spotlighted then-Vice President Kamala Harris' support for taxpayer-funded gender transition-related medical care for federal prisoners and detained immigrants.
"It was a great ad," Newsom said in the podcast. "She didn't even react to it, which was even more devastating."
Trump signed an executive order titled "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports" in February, which said transgender athletes in women sports is "demeaning, unfair, and dangerous to women and girls." The order requires institutions receiving federal funding to abide by Title IX and follow the definitions of biological sex.
A day later the NCAA, which oversees college sports, instituted a ban. And more than two dozen states now prevent transgender athletes from school sports.
Newsom noted he has four children, including two daughters, and highlighted that both he and his wife played college-level sports.
"I revere sports, so the issue of fairness is completely legit," Newsom said.
And pointing to Kirk's efforts on the campaign trail, he emphasized the right was "able to weaponize that issue at another level."
Newsom noted that Republicans have been successful in portraying Democrats as out of step with most Americans on the issue.
"We're getting crushed on it. Crushed. Crushed," he said.
Newsom isn't the first Democratic Party politician in the wake of last November's election setbacks to soften their stance on the lighting rod issue. Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts made headlines and stirred controversy with similar comments late last year. But Newsom is the most high-profile Democrat, to date, to speak out.
Some Golden State leaders from the left and the right were critical of the governor's comments.
The California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, in a statement on social media, charged that "sometimes Gavin Newsom goes for the Profile in Courage, sometimes not. We woke up profoundly sickened and frustrated by these remarks. All students deserve the academic and health benefits of sports activity, and until Donald Trump began obsessing about it, playing on a team consistent with one's gender has not been a problem since the standard was passed in 2013."
And Will O'Neil, chair of the Orange County Republican Party, took to social media to claim "the difference between "redefining Newsom" and actual Newsom policies is going to get exposed in these podcasts."
"Entertainment is one thing, governing is different," he added.
Newsom's conversation with the often-controversial Kirk isn't the first time he's mixed it up with a high-profile Republican.
He's been an occasional guest of Fox News' primetime host Sean Hannity, and he debated Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on 'Hannity' in 2023, as the 2024 presidential race was heating up.
Fox News' Lee Ross contributed to this report.Original article source: Newsom calls biological men in women's sports 'deeply unfair' in podcast with conservative activist
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
20 minutes ago
- CBS News
Baldwin Park police shooting suspect faces murder and attempted murder charges
Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman announced murder and attempted murder charges for the 22-year-old man who is accused of killing two people Saturday, including a Baldwin Park police officer. Eduardo Roberto Medina-Berumen faces two counts of first-degree murder of special circumstances for the death of Baldwin PD officer Samuel Riveros and Darius Wong, a 43-year-old father from Hacienda Heights. He also has been charged with two counts of attempted murder, for allegedly firing at two other Baldwin Park police officers, one who was wounded by gunfire. Wong, 43, was shot and killed as he was attempting to park his car on the street after dropping off his daughters, wife, and sister-in-law at a Baldwin Park family party Saturday evening. Minutes later, just after 7:12 p.m., police responded to reports of a man armed with a rifle, shooting on the 4200 block of Filhurst Avenue. Sheriff Robert Luna said as two police officers arrived, they found a man lying on the sidewalk "unresponsive, that ultimately, unfortunately, was Mr. Wong." The two officers who arrived in separate cars, were "immediately fired upon by this suspect, who had a rifle" Luna said. "An officer-involved shooting occurred at that time, and Officer (Anthony) Pimentel. Riveros arrived shortly after and was struck by gunfire, Sheriff Robert Luna said. More officers responded to the scene and a second officer-involved shooting occurred with the suspect. Medina-Berumen suffered gunshot wounds and remains hospitalized in stable condition, Luna said. An AR-15-style weapon with two high-capacity magazines was recovered at the scene. "Every time I hear about an assault rifle like this being used on the street, it makes the hair on my neck stand up …" Luna said. Medina-Berumen also faces a possession of an assault rifle charge. "This tragedy is a painful reminder of the dangers that law enforcement faces daily. Officer Riveros along with his fellow officers ran towards the danger without absolutely no hesitation and that's an act of profound courage… and his sacrifice will not and should not ever be forgotten," Luna said.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Feds seek to ditch settlement over alleged redlining with North Jersey bank
The Trump administration is asking a judge to drop a 2022 settlement the Justice Department had reached with North Jersey-based Lakeland Bank — which was later absorbed by Provident Bank — over allegations of redlining against Black and Hispanic customers. While Provident Bank said it will continue to provide low-cost mortgages to underserved communities, the motion by the U.S. Justice Department to abandon the settlement has drawn the ire of community advocates and legal experts, who say it would make it easier for banks to engage in redlining. 'It goes without saying it's a good thing when financial institutions are complying with those consent orders, but when you take away the teeth — the actual enforcement — who's to say that they will continue to comply,' said Leila Amirhamzeh, director of community reinvestment for New Jersey Citizen Action, a consumer advocacy four-page motion by the Justice Department, filed May 28 in U.S. District Court, seeks to terminate the consent order the Biden administration negotiated with what was then Lakeland Bank. In the initial complaint, the Justice Department said Lakeland violated the federal Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act by deliberately avoiding banking with Black and Hispanic customers, particularly in and around Newark. The discrimination in question allegedly took place between 2015 and 2021, according to the Biden administration. To settle the complaint, Lakeland agreed to pay $12 million to subsidize mortgages, home improvement loans and home refinancing loans for Black and Hispanic residents and open two branches in underserved neighborhoods. Lakeland also had to provide $150,000 a year for advertising, outreach and consumer finance education in the Newark area. Newark Mayor and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ras Baraka wanted one of those new branches to be in his city, and the Greater Toms River Chamber of Commerce also wanted a branch in its area. According to the Provident Bank website, there are currently four locations in Newark and three in Toms River. After acquiring Lakeland, Provident took ownership of the settlement and the mandate to open two branches in underserved areas of New Jersey. The Justice Department in its motion to terminate the order said Lakeland reached substantial commitment to comply with the consent agreement and it is committed to continuing its disbursement of the loan subsidy. Provident spokesperson Keith Buscio told and the USA TODAY Network New Jersey that the bank remains committed to the loan subsidy initiative. He said Provident is not a party to the litigation and referred other questions to the Justice Department. The Justice Department could not immediately be reached for comment. Baraka's office in Newark said it is planning to hold a press conference about the motion by the Justice Department on June 5. Court filings show two attorneys who helped file the initial complaint against Lakeland, Michael Campion and Susan Millenky, withdrew as counsel from the case. Campion was appointed in 2022 to lead the U.S. Attorney's Office's Civil Rights Division that was created to enforce federal civil rights laws in New Jersey. The Fair Housing Act was passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 to prohibit landlords and mortgage lenders from discriminating based on race, religion, national origin or sex. Nearly 60 years later, racial wealth disparity remains vast. In New Jersey, the median household wealth of white families is $322,500, compared with $17,700 for Black families and $26,100 for Hispanic families, the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice said. In New Jersey, 77.3% of white residents owned a home in 2020. By comparison, 42.8% of Black residents and 32.7% of Hispanic residents were homeowners, according to the Urban Institute, a research group. Critics said the Justice Department's motion to drop the Lakeland settlement is a step by the Trump administration's bid to reverse diversity, equity and inclusion programs. David Troutt, a professor at Rutgers Law School in Newark, said the motion by the Justice Department to terminate the consent decree is part of a larger campaign by the department to rescind investigations and agreements involving anti-Black racism, while beginning investigations into what it deems 'illegal DEI.' 'The Trump administration's withdrawal from a federal consent decree without justification is an extraordinary act of endorsing racist practices and housing market manipulation,' Troutt said. 'For the very government that successfully enforced those borrowers' civil rights to now repudiate them sends a message unlike any we've seen since the federal government first endorsed redlining in the 1930s,' Troutt said. Lakeland isn't the only New Jersey bank that faced scrutiny under the Biden administration. Toms River-based OceanFirst Financial Corp. agreed to pay $14 million to subsidize mortgages, helping settle a lawsuit that alleged the bank violated federal discrimination laws. Since then, it has improved the rating given by federal bank regulators who oversee investments in underserved communities to 'outstanding.' The Justice Department hasn't filed a motion seeking to terminate the consent order with OceanFirst. But two attorneys who represented the U.S. in the initial complaint, Millenky and Nathan Shulock, have filed motions to withdraw from the case, according to the court docket. A combined 22 Provident and Lakeland branches closed in 2024 following the $1.3 billion merger creating a 'super community bank.' Each branch that closed was within roughly three miles of a nearby branch. Activists and opponents warned that the merger would mean fewer banking services would be available for underserved communities, such as people of color, the elderly and disabled. New Jersey Citizen Action applauded Provident for its continued commitment to the terms of the consent order. But the group said the Justice Department should continue to enforce it. 'When you actually terminate these consent orders, there's no deterrence, and it's basically telling financial institutions that the Department of Justice is going to be taking a hands-off approach to fair lending issues, to redlining,' New Jersey Citizen Action's Amirhamzeh said. Daniel Munoz covers business, consumer affairs, labor and the economy for and The Record. Email: munozd@ Twitter:@danielmunoz100 and Facebook Michael L. Diamond is a business reporter for the Asbury Park Press. He has been writing about the New Jersey economy and health care industry since 1999. He can be reached at mdiamond@ This article originally appeared on Feds seek to drop Lakeland Bank settlement over alleged redlining
Fox News
23 minutes ago
- Fox News
Booker, Cruz spar over threats to US judges in fiery Senate spat
Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas., sparred Tuesday over the uptick in threats made to federal court judges during President Donald Trump's second term. Their heated standoff comes as federal judges have issued a record number of injunctions against the flurry of executive actions by the president. The testy exchange took place during a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing titled "The Supposedly Least Dangerous Branch: District Judges v. Trump." Cruz, the subcommittee chair, used his remarks at the outset of the hearing to take aim at Democrats on the subcommittee, who he said were "utterly silent" about judicial threats under the Biden administration, including after threats were made against conservative Supreme Court justices. Cruz took aim at Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., for "unleashing" protesters who gathered outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh prior to their decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization – the landmark ruling that overturned a 50-year-old abortion rights precedent – which he later said was ironic given the current "pearl-clutching" stance of Democrats on the panel. His remarks sparked a quick rebuke from Booker, who said, "Something you said is actually dangerous, and it needs to be addressed." "This implication that there was silence [from Democrats on the panel] at a time there were threats on people's houses is absolutely absurd," he continued. "I remember the rhetoric and the comments, the concern from [Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del.]," Booker said. "I actually distinctly remember you, chairman, on more than one occasion, condemning those attacks on Republican-appointed jurists." "To say things like that just feeds the partisanship in this institution, and it feeds the fiery rhetoric. And it's just plain not true," Booker added. In response, Cruz argued the "angry mobs" that appeared outside the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices prior to their decision in Dobbs were in violation of U.S.C. Section 1507. That law prohibits picketing outside the homes of judges or justices' homes in a way that could influence their decision or otherwise obstruct justice. Despite the protests, Cruz said, the Biden-led Justice Department "prosecuted nobody." "I really appreciate that you have now shifted the accusation you made earlier," Booker shot back. "Your accusation was that we were silent in the face of protests at Supreme Court justices' homes. Again, we joined together in a bipartisan way, not only to condemn that but to pass legislation to extend round-the-clock security protection. So if you're saying we didn't criticize –" he started before Cruz interjected. "Did the Biden DOJ go out and arrest a single person under this law?" the Texas lawmaker asked. Booker attempted to respond before Cruz interrupted again, "Did the Biden DOJ arrest even one [person]? Again, the answer is no." Booker attempted once more to respond before Cruz interrupted again, prompting Booker to raise his voice. "I did not interrupt you, sir, I would appreciate it if you would let me finish," he told Cruz. "I am sick and tired of hearing the kind of heated partisan rhetoric, which is one of the reasons why we have such divisions in this country," Booker continued, prompting Cruz to laugh openly in response. "The attacks we see from the president of the United States of America, trolling and dragging judges through is what we should be talking about," Booker said. "I'm simply taking issue with the claim that you made at the top, that people on the Democratic side of the aisle do not care about the safety and the security of judges and said nothing," he continued, adding that the notion that his Democrat colleagues said nothing in the face of Supreme Court justice threats "is a patent lie." The two continued arguing before Cruz said, "Let the record reflect that Spartacus did not answer the question and did not tell us whether the criminal law" under U.S.C. Section 1507 should be enforced, "because he knows the answer is yes." The hearing comes as the number of threats against federal judges has spiked during Trump's second term, which has seen hundreds of federal lawsuits filed in courts across the country seeking to either pause or halt the flurry of sweeping executive orders and actions taken by the president. Trump has repeatedly criticized what he called "activist judges," prompting Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare public warning. The U.S. Marshals Service said last week that it has investigated more than 370 threats against federal judges since Trump's inauguration in January, which is a sharp rise from 2024, when 509 people were investigated during the entire year. Democrats on the panel used Tuesday's hearing to renew requests for the Justice Department and FBI to investigate an uptick in anonymous "pizza deliveries" sent to federal judges, which can be used as a threat or warning to let judges know their home address is known.
