TED SOQUI/AP
As Donald Trump wages an all-out war on just about every corner of American life, Democrats have appeared nothing short of comatose. Their struggle to respond, which has since seen pink attire and auctioneer-styled signs, has instead revealed a party relying on the last dregs of Resistance Era politics to pull us through this unending series of crises.
But one Democrat is taking a radically different approach to such fecklessness: California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who on Thursday, debuted a new podcast, This Is Gavin Newsom. The result seems to be an open invitation for the right to embrace a new man. In fact, Newsom, in his first episode, appears eager to abandon his record of supporting LGBTQ rights, cozy up to the likes of Charlie Kirk, and criticize so-called cancel culture as well as Black Lives Matter. This comes against a larger pivot, as Newsom ditches his identity as a resistance leader to become the first Democrat to hang out with Trump in the Oval Office this term. But perhaps the most striking feature of Newsom’s first podcast was a full-throated willingness to side with Kirk on the issue of trans athletes.
“I think it’s an issue of fairness, I completely agree with you on that,” he told Kirk. “It is an issue of fairness, it’s deeply unfair. I am not wrestling with the fairness issue. I totally agree with you.” Newsom later praised the effectiveness of a 2024 Trump campaign ad that had claimed, “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.”
Newsom’s thirst for the presidency may be as longstanding as it is humiliating. But there is something especially craven about these remarks, as they come at a moment of immense danger for the vulnerable groups he abandons with clear ease. That they arrive as Democrats continue to flail seems to unveil the true rot of his political calculus.
Today it’s trans folks. Who else will Newsom ditch? As Newsom teased in a trailer, This Is Gavin Newsom is set to feature a string of MAGA darlings the California Democrat claims to “fundamentally disagree with.” But when details prove otherwise, such assertions are rendered meaningless.
