Gavin Newsom is much worse than you think

Gavin Newsom made headlines this winter by vowing to defeat a proposal for a one-time 5% tax on billionaires in the state. The move was a notable one for the California governor, whom many national polls now rank as the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028; aligning with the ultra-wealthy is not auspicious for wooing the party’s voters. Last year, a Reuters-Ipsos poll reported that a whopping 86% of Democrats said “changing the federal tax code so wealthy Americans and large corporations pay more in taxes should be a priority.”

Newsom has drawn widespread praise for waging an aggressive war of words against Donald Trump. Since at least June 2025, when the president deployed National Guard troops and Marines to quell protests in Los Angeles against his mass deportation campaign, Newsom and his team have successfully tapped into the need that many rank-and-file Democrats have for adopting a confrontational approach to Trump and his policies. But few people outside of California know much about the governor’s actual record — and many Democratic voters will be turned off to learn that his fervent opposition to a billionaire tax is part of an overall political approach that has trended more and more corporate-friendly.                                                                        

A year ago, Newsom sent about 100 leaders of California-based companies a prepaid cell phone “programmed with Newsom’s digits and accompanied by notes from the governor himself,” POLITICO reported. One note to the CEO of a big tech corporation said, “If you ever need anything, I’m a phone call away.” While pandering to business elites, Newsom has slashed budgets to assist the poor and near-poor with healthcare, housing and food – in a state where seven million live under the official poverty line and child poverty rates are the highest in the nation.

The latest Newsom budget, released in January, continues his trajectory away from social compassion. “The governor’s 2026-27 spending plan balances the budget by dodging the harsh realities of the Republican megabill, H.R. 1, and maintains state cuts to vital public supports, like Medi-Cal, enacted as part of the current-year budget,” the California Budget & Policy Center pointed out. “Governor Newsom’s reluctance to propose meaningful revenue solutions to help blunt the harm of federal cuts undermines his posture to counter the Trump administration.” The statement said that the proposed budget “will leave many Californians without food assistance and healthcare coverage.”

So far, key facts about Newsom’s policy priorities have scarcely gone beyond California’s borders. “National media have focused on Newsom as a personality and potential White House candidate and have almost completely ignored what he has and has not done as a governor,” said columnist Dan Walters, whose five decades covering California politics included 33 years at the Sacramento Bee. “It’s a perpetual failing of national political media to be more interested in image and gamesmanship rather than actual actions, the sizzle rather than the steak, and Newsom is very adept at exploiting that tendency.”

Walters told me that Newsom “has generally avoided direct conflicts with his fellow millionaires, such as discouraging tax increases, and has danced between corporations and labor unions on bread-and-butter issues such as minimum wages. He’s also quietly moved away from environmental issues, most notably shifting from condemnation of the oil industry for price gouging and pollution to encouraging the industry to increase production and keep refineries operating.”

Newsom angered climate activists last fall by signing his bill to open up thousands of new oil wells. Noting that “Newsom just championed a plan to dramatically expand oil drilling in California,” the Oil and Gas Action Network said that he “can’t claim climate leadership while giving Big Oil what it wants.” Third Act, founded by Bill McKibben, responded by denouncing “Newsom’s Big Oil backslide” and accused the governor of “backtracking on key climate and community health commitments.”

Efforts to curb the ubiquitous toxic impacts of PFAS “forever chemicals” hit a wall in October when Newsom vetoed legislation to ban them in such consumer items as cookware, dental floss and cleaning products. “This bill had huge support from both within the state and beyond, and yet, apparently, the governor was interested only in the one sector opposing it – the cookware industry,” said Clean Water Action policy director Andria Ventura. The organization put the veto in context, observing that “the governor seems determined to move away from his pro-environment past.”

Newsom has also refused to protect workers’ rights. In 2023, he vetoed a bill to provide unemployment compensation to workers on strike. The following year he vetoed a bill to help protect farmworkers from violations of heat safety regulations, while temperatures in California’s agricultural fields spike above 110 degrees.

Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

The latest Gallup polling of the party’s voters underscored a wide ideological gap between the governor and the party’s base. Fifty-nine percent of Democrats described themselves as “liberal” or “very liberal,” while 32% said “moderate” and 8% “conservative” or “very conservative.” The trendline is striking: Democrats’ self-identification as liberal or very liberal has doubled in the last two decades. 

It might be tempting to believe that Newsom’s services to corporatism and the rich are less important than the possibility that he would be an adept Democratic nominee to defeat the GOP ticket in 2028. But pursuit of such “moderate” politics proved harmful to Democratic turnout in 2016 and 2024 when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Kamala Harris led the party’s ticket and were criticized for their ties to corporate America. 

Newsom says he’s eager to pitch a big tent for the Democratic Party, declaring that he welcomes the likes of former West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin as well as New York City’s socialist mayor Zohran Mamdani in the fold. “I want it to be the Manchin to Mamdani party,” Newsom said in November. “I want it to be inclusive.” 

But Newsom failed to mention that while Manchin was in the Senate during the Biden presidency, he wrecked prospects for the transformational Build Back Better legislation and other measures that would have benefitted tens of millions of Americans.

It’s telling that Newsom and former president Bill Clinton, a long-time backer, have voiced profuse mutual admiration. When he was interviewed after coming off the stage with the former president in a joint appearance at a Clinton Global Initiative event a few months ago, Newsom praised “the ability to reach across the aisle.” That formula is a throwback to what propelled Clinton into the presidency — a pledge to find common ground, only to toss the working class overboard from the Oval Office. The disastrous results — made possible by Clinton’s reaching “across the aisle” — included passage of the NAFTA trade pact, the “welfare reform” law that harshly undermined poor women with children, the mass-incarceration-boosting crime bill and the media monopoly-enabling Telecommunications Act.

When the governor launched his podcast “This Is Gavin Newsom” a year ago, he began warmly showcasing extremist bigots by featuring Charlie Kirk as his first guest. And when Kirk was assassinated in September, Newsom lavished praise on him. “The best way to honor Charlie’s memory,” he tweeted, “is to continue his work: engage with each other, across ideology, through spirited discourse.” Newsom issued a statement that explained: “I knew Charlie, and I admired his passion and commitment to debate.”

That praise raises the question: How far right would someone need to be before no longer meriting Newsom’s admiration for “passion”? Clearly, Kirk wasn’t far right enough to be disqualified — even though he said things like asserting that “Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America,” proclaimed “we made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s” and castigated Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the late Democratic Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee and others as affirmative-action hires: “You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.”

Newsom’s show has continued to give a friendly platform to such extreme right-wingers as Steve Bannon and Ben Shapiro. In effect, the governor is engaged in a podcast form of triangulation — by turns validating and disputing his guests’ attacks on progressivism.

But on no issue is Newsom more out of step with the Democratic electorate than  support for Israel. Even though an August 2025 Quinnipiac survey found that 77% of Democrats believed Israel was guilty of genocide in Gaza, last month Newsom said the opposite, declaring “I don’t agree with that notion.” 

Like most Democratic officeholders who combine their denial of genocide with support for the nonstop weapons flow to Israel, Newsom lays the blame narrowly on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying that he is “crystal clear about my love for Israel and condemnation of Bibi.” The same Quinnipiac poll found that fully three-quarters of Democrats were opposed to sending further military aid to Israel, a position that Newsom refuses to take at the same time that he dodges questions about the right-leaning Israel lobby group AIPAC.

Newsom can expect a direct challenge from another California Democrat when the party’s presidential campaigns get underway next year. “He doesn’t want to offend the AIPAC donors,” Rep. Ro Khanna said of the governor in January. “He doesn’t want to offend the donor class. And that explains his position on going to give Netanyahu a blank check right after October 7, on not being willing to ever call out the funding we were giving, and not willing to call out that clearly it was a genocide, and then not willing to challenge the billionaire class on tax policy.”

For anyone who wants a truly progressive Democratic Party, Gavin Newsom is bad news.