Listen to the article
The White House launched a scathing attack on California Governor Gavin Newsom Friday, calling him an “inauthentic slimeball” after he distanced himself from his office’s characterization of an ICE officer-involved shooting as “state-sponsored terrorism.”
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told Fox Digital that Newsom “has no principles” and “simply says whatever he thinks he needs to, in the moment, to get attention.” Jackson accused the Democratic governor of being willing to “smear ICE officers and incite violence against them” to appeal to his base, only to “throw his staffers under the bus” when challenged.
The controversy stems from a fatal shooting involving an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer in Minneapolis on January 7, which resulted in the death of Renee Good. Federal authorities maintain the ICE officer opened fire after Good allegedly used her vehicle as a weapon against the agent.
Following the incident, Newsom’s office posted on social media platform X that the shooting represented “STATE. SPONSORED. TERRORISM.” The inflammatory characterization drew immediate criticism from law enforcement supporters and Republicans.
When pressed about the comment during a recent episode of his podcast “This is Gavin Newsom” by conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, the governor appeared to walk back the statement. Shapiro argued that such rhetoric “makes our politics worse,” adding that “ICE officers obviously are not terrorists.” Newsom simply responded, “Yeah, I think that’s fair.”
During the podcast, Newsom attempted to position himself as more moderate on immigration enforcement than some Democratic colleagues. He claimed to have disagreed with Vice President Kamala Harris’s past calls for a complete overhaul of ICE and said he opposed efforts to “defund ICE.”
“California has cooperated with more ICE transfers probably than any other state in the country,” Newsom stated, referring to transfers from state prisons to federal immigration authorities. “And I vetoed multiple pieces of legislation that have come from my legislature to stop the ability for the state of California to do that.”
The Trump administration has consistently criticized Newsom’s immigration policies, arguing California’s sanctuary state status undermines border enforcement and public safety. Newsom defended these policies by claiming they would be “unnecessary” if Congress passed “comprehensive immigration reform.”
When approached for comment on the White House criticism, Newsom spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo responded with an all-caps statement: “TRUMP IS TRYING TO CANCEL THE GOVERNOR – VERY WOKE!” She added: “EVERYDAY AMERICANS ARE EXPERIENCING STATE SPONSORED TERROR BY OUR INCOMPETENT PRESIDENT.”
The incident has contributed to escalating tensions in Minneapolis, where protesters have clashed with law enforcement following a second ICE-involved shooting in the city. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt blamed Democratic rhetoric for the increasing threats against federal immigration officers.
“The Democrat Party has demeaned these individuals,” Leavitt said Thursday. “They’ve even referred to them as ‘Nazis’ and as ‘the Gestapo.’ And that is absolutely leading to the violence we’re seeing in the streets.”
The Department of Homeland Security reported in December that assaults and violent attacks against ICE officers have surged dramatically under the Trump administration. According to their data, there were 238 assaults on ICE officers between January 21 and November 21, 2025—representing a 1,150% increase from the same period in 2024 under the Biden administration.
The heated exchange between the White House and Newsom highlights the intensifying political divide over immigration enforcement policies as the administration continues its aggressive approach to border security and deportations.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
22 Comments
This case highlights the challenges of balancing public safety, civil liberties, and political pressures. A thorough, impartial investigation is essential to determine the facts and whether any policy changes are warranted.
Well said. Avoiding knee-jerk reactions and instead focusing on facts and accountability should be the priority here.
The White House’s harsh rhetoric against Newsom seems more like partisan mud-slinging than a constructive response. Both sides should focus on getting the facts right and finding ways to prevent similar incidents in the future.
Exactly. Escalating political tensions is unlikely to lead to meaningful solutions. A more measured, problem-solving approach would be far more productive.
This incident highlights the complexities involved when law enforcement encounters and uses force against civilians. A calm, evidence-based review is essential to determine if protocols were followed and whether any changes are needed.
Well said. Maintaining public trust in institutions requires thorough, impartial investigations, not political point-scoring.
I’m glad to see Newsom acknowledged the need to re-evaluate his office’s initial characterization of the incident. That kind of openness and willingness to course-correct is important for maintaining public trust.
Agreed. Admitting mistakes and adjusting positions based on new information is a sign of principled leadership, not weakness.
As an observer, I’m concerned about the apparent politicization of this incident. Both sides should focus on getting the facts right and avoiding inflammatory language that could further escalate tensions.
I share your concern. Maintaining public trust requires transparency and accountability, not partisan point-scoring.
This is a complex and politically charged incident. It’s important to understand all the facts before jumping to conclusions about what happened. Newsom’s change in stance suggests there may be more to the story than initial reports indicated.
Agreed, the details matter here. Responsible leadership means carefully reviewing the evidence rather than rushing to inflame tensions.
The White House’s harsh criticism of Newsom seems more like political theater than a constructive response. Both sides should dial down the rhetoric and work together to prevent similar incidents in the future.
I agree. Partisan point-scoring rarely leads to meaningful solutions on complex issues like this. A more collaborative approach would be far more productive.
This incident highlights the need for robust, impartial investigations to determine the facts and ensure accountability, regardless of political affiliations. Resorting to partisan attacks undermines public trust and distracts from finding solutions.
Well said. Focusing on the evidence and identifying constructive ways to prevent similar incidents should be the priority here, not political point-scoring.
Newsom’s reversal on the ‘state-sponsored terrorism’ claim is noteworthy. It suggests the initial characterization may have been premature or overstated. Responsible governance means acknowledging mistakes and adjusting course when warranted.
Agreed. Leaders should be willing to re-evaluate positions based on new information rather than stubbornly defending early statements.
Newsom’s reversal on the ‘state-sponsored terrorism’ claim is a positive sign that he’s willing to re-evaluate positions based on new information. Responsible leadership means acknowledging mistakes and adjusting course when warranted.
Exactly. Admitting errors and correcting course is a sign of strength, not weakness, in public office.
I’m curious to see how this plays out. The White House’s strong rhetoric seems aimed at scoring political points rather than addressing the substance of the issue. Hopefully a more measured, fact-based approach can prevail.
You make a fair point. Cooler heads should prevail to ensure a thorough and impartial investigation is conducted.