California Gov. Gavin Newsom found himself in the hot seat during a recent podcast interview with conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, addressing a controversial tweet from his press office about a Jan. 7 shooting by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent in Minnesota.
Fox News reported that on Thursday, during an episode of Newsom’s podcast “This is Gavin Newsom,” Shapiro challenged the governor over a press office tweet labeling the Minnesota incident involving Renee Good as “STATE. SPONSORED. TERRORISM,” while the discussion also touched on transgender policies, California taxes, and a grim outlook for Republicans in the November midterms.
The exchange has ignited conversations about political rhetoric and policy positions, with critics questioning whether Newsom’s response signals a shift or merely a strategic sidestep on contentious issues like ICE’s role and progressive agendas.
Shapiro didn’t hold back, pointing out the inflammatory nature of the tweet from Newsom’s team. “Your press office tweeted out that it was state-sponsored terrorism. That sort of thing makes our politics worse,” Shapiro said, arguing that ICE officers aren’t terrorists and tragic events shouldn’t be framed so recklessly.
Newsom, nodding through the critique, conceded with a simple, “Yeah, I think that’s fair.” It’s a rare moment of humility, though one wonders if it’s genuine or just a calculated move to dodge a deeper reckoning on overheated rhetoric.
Later, Newsom circled back, musing on “how things are weaponized” and admitting he’s wary of mirroring divisive tactics. Perhaps he’s learning that playing the outrage game can backfire when you’re governing a state as complex as California.
On the policy front, Newsom made it clear he doesn’t support abolishing ICE, a position that puts him at odds with more progressive Democrats like New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It’s a pragmatic stance, especially as he noted California’s cooperation with ICE in state prison matters.
Still, this feels like a tightrope walk—appeasing moderates while risking the ire of his party’s left flank. Is this a hint of 2028 presidential ambitions, where a centrist pivot might play better nationwide?
His retreat on ICE echoes last year’s flip on transgender athletes in sports, where, under pressure from activist Charlie Kirk, Newsom called the situation “deeply unfair.” That comment drew sharp backlash from progressives, and one suspects he’s treading lighter now.
The podcast, known for hosting right-wing figures like Steve Bannon and Michael Savage since its launch last February, also saw Shapiro press Newsom on transgender issues, specifically whether boys can become girls. Newsom dodged with a vague, religiously tinged remark about grace and history, sidestepping the core question.
Shapiro pushed harder, saying, “This isn’t a hard one,” but Newsom deflected, condemning “hate and bigotry” while emphasizing the small number of people affected. It’s a classic move—pivot to compassion to avoid the hard science or policy debate.
While defending California’s transgender education laws as predating his tenure, Newsom insisted he respects differing views. Yet, for many, this feels like a non-answer, leaving the issue unresolved and ripe for further contention.
On economic policy, Newsom touted California’s rise to the world’s fourth-largest economy and cheered OpenAI’s recent expansion in San Francisco, while defending the state’s progressive tax code against Shapiro’s probing.
When asked why taxes remain high, he pointed to 16 other states with steeper rates on low earners, suggesting they lower theirs instead—a quip that drew online mockery.
Conservative host David J. Harris Jr. fired back on X, accusing Newsom of dodging responsibility for California’s fiscal mess. It’s hard not to smirk at the governor’s sleight of hand; why not just own the state’s tax burden instead of playing hot potato with other legislatures?
