More stories

  • in

    Silver Fire in California Prompts Evacuations

    Efforts to battle the 1,250-acre fire in eastern California were complicated by strong winds, which were expected to continue through Monday.A wildfire in eastern California that ignited on Sunday has spread to 1,250 acres and has prompted evacuations, state fire officials said.The wildfire, named the Silver fire, began around 2:11 p.m. north of Bishop, a city about halfway between Yosemite National Park and Death Valley National Park, according to Cal Fire, the state fire agency.The agency shared photos on social media that showed bright flames and clouds of smoke burning a grassy, rural area below towering mountain ranges.Timelapse video from an ALERTCalifornia camera showed plumes of smoke rising from the Silver fire on Sunday afternoon.ALERTCalifornia/UC San Diego via StoryfulStrong winds helped intensify the fire overnight, Cal Fire said on social media Monday morning, adding that it had “significantly increased” resources to stifle the blaze. “The fire is actively threatening structures, critical infrastructure, endangered species habitats, watersheds, and cultural and heritage resources,” the agency said.Officials ordered evacuations in parts of Inyo County and Mono County and closed a 30-mile stretch of U.S. Highway 6. The fire was zero percent contained, and there were no known injuries from the fire as of late Sunday night, according to Cal Fire.On Sunday, efforts to fight the fast-moving fire were complicated by strong winds that grounded some aircraft, Cal Fire said.The National Weather Service said a high wind warning was still in place in the region on Monday morning and would remain through the evening. The Weather Service warned that gusts could reach up to 65 miles per hour and that strong winds could blow down power lines and trees. More

  • in

    USC enacts hiring freeze and makes cuts over Trump threats to funding

    The University of Southern California announced an immediate hiring freeze for all staff positions, “with very few critical exceptions” in a letter to faculty and staff on Tuesday.The letter, from USC’s president, Carol Folt, and provost, Andrew Guzman, said the hiring freeze was one of nine steps to cut the school’s operating budget amid deep uncertainty about federal funding – given sweeping cuts to scientific research, the reorganization of student loans, and an education department investigation accusing the university of failing to protect Jewish students during protests over Israel’s destruction of Gaza following the Hamas attacks on 7 October 2023.“Like other major research institutions, USC relies on significant amounts of federal funding to carry out our mission,” the university administrators wrote. “In fiscal year 2024, for example, we received approximately $1.35 billion in federal funding, including roughly $650 million in student financial aid and $569 million for federally funded research. The health system also receives Medicare, Medicaid, and Medi-Cal payments – a significant portion of its revenues – and the futures of those funds are similarly uncertain.”The other measures include: permanent budget reductions for administrative units and schools, a review of procurement contracts, a review of capital projects “to determine which may be deferred or paused”, a curtailment of faculty hiring, new restriction on discretionary spending and expenses for travel and conferences, an effort to streamline operations, a halt on merit-based pay increases, and an end to extended winter recess introduced during the Covid-19 pandemic.Two weeks ago, USC was one of 60 schools notified by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights of “potential enforcement actions if they do not fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students on campus”.The newly announced budget cuts follow a university statement in November of last year that informed staff that “rising costs require … budgetary adjustments”. In 2024, that statement said: “USC’s audited financial statement shows a deficit of $158 million.”“Over the past six years, our deficit has ranged from $586 million during legal cost repayments and COVID, to a modest positive level of $36 million in 2023,” USC administrators wrote in November.“Similar deficits are being reported at many peer institutions due to rising costs that outpace revenues across all of higher education,” they added. More

  • in

    Democrats: Still Under Construction

    More from our inbox:Domestic EnemiesNew housing under construction in Georgetown, Texas.Mike Osborne for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “There Is a Liberal Answer to the Trump-Musk Alliance,” by Ezra Klein (column, March 9):Mr. Klein gets some things right about government efficiency and some things absolutely wrong. I agree that Democrats should pursue policies of abundance rather than policies of constraint. But Democrats did make that argument repeatedly and provided real policy solutions — for example, an expanded child tax credit that reduced child poverty roughly by half within a two-year period.Mr. Klein underestimates the power of the media’s constantly hammering on the message of division and the false assumption that taking care of the poorest will disadvantage working- and middle-class white people. He also contrasts housing construction policy in California and Texas, blaming overregulation for California’s lack of progress in meeting needs. Earthquakes? Wildfires? Coastal erosion? Access to adequate water? Mr. Klein ignores those constraints. And has he been to Texas lately?I am from a large Texas family and lived in California for 40 years. “Accessible housing” in Texas has led to endless sprawl, long commutes, increasing air pollution alerts and limited access to amenities to improve the quality of life. With its diminishing investment in public goods like schools and parks, its poor family support and hostility to women and diverse people, and one of the most corrupt administrative and legislative governments in the United States, Texas is hardly a model.Terry L. AllisonMontrealTo the Editor:Ezra Klein suggests that “a politics of abundance” can defeat the “politics of scarcity” that fuels the fear driving people into the arms of authoritarians like Donald Trump. While I agree from a philosophical standpoint, I must ask: How can we pull that off in a world where more and more of our planet is becoming uninhabitable because of climate change?Climate change is at the root of most of the challenges we face today. Millions of people displaced by famine, fire or flood will move to the quickly dwindling parts of the planet that are habitable. People in these still habitable locations sense this at their deepest core, and thus the politics of scarcity are born — not from propaganda but from actual crisis.We cannot even begin to project any sense of “abundance” while this indisputable fact remains true. The only way to save not only our political representation but also our planet is to face this existential crisis squarely, so that maybe one day “abundance” becomes a word that we can use truthfully, and joyfully, once again.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Chomps Recalls Beef and Turkey Sticks Over ‘Pieces of Metal’ Complaints

    The snack sticks included in the recall were packaged at a single facility in Idaho from Jan. 16 through Jan. 23, the company said.Nearly 30,000 pounds of ready-to-eat beef sticks were recalled on Thursday after consumers complained that they had found metal fragments in them, food safety and company officials said.The voluntary recall affects Chomps Original Beef Sticks, but the company said in a statement posted online on Thursday and Friday that it was including Original Turkey sticks and additional product lots that were produced at Idaho Smokehouse Partners, based in Shelley, Idaho.The Food Safety and Inspection Service, which is under the U.S. Department of Agriculture, said in a statement that the agency was informed of “two consumer complaints reporting that pieces of metal were found in the product.”The products subject to the recall were packaged at a single facility from Jan. 16 through Jan. 23, according to Chomps. The Food Safety and Inspection Service said that the recalled items were shipped to retail locations in California and Illinois.The company said the turkey products added to the recall were not included in the 29,541 pounds of recalled beef sticks reported by federal regulators, but it did not provide a weight for the additional items.There have been no confirmed injuries from consuming the products, the Food Safety and Inspection Service said, adding that anyone who is concerned about an injury should contact a health care provider.Consumers who purchased the recalled items are urged to throw them away or return them to the store.Idaho Smokehouse Partners said in a statement on Saturday that after becoming “aware of the two complaints,” it “worked with regulatory authorities on the best way to protect consumers from this issue.”“We are taking this action because we are committed to the highest food safety standards for the consumers of our products,” the company added.Chomps said in a statement on Saturday that the decision to recall the items was “made following a thorough investigation conducted alongside our manufacturing partner” and under the oversight of the Agriculture Department.The company said it “chose to broaden the scope of the recall beyond what was required, ensuring that all product packaged during that time frame was fully accounted for and removed from the market.”Chomps also said that it had added “further safeguards to prevent this from happening again.” More

  • in

    In California, Confusion Abounds Over Status of 2 National Monuments

    A week after the White House indicated it would eliminate two national monuments in California, many remain unsure whether President Trump has actually revoked the lands’ protected status.Mr. Trump announced last Friday that he would rescind a proclamation signed by former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. a week before he left office that established the Chuckwalla and Sáttítla national monuments, which encompassed more than 848,000 acres of desert and mountainous land.The White House then released a fact sheet that included a bullet point stating that Mr. Trump would be “terminating proclamations” declaring monuments that safeguarded “vast amounts of land from economic development and energy production.”The New York Times confirmed last Saturday that Mr. Trump had indeed rescinded that proclamation. But later that day, the bullet point listing termination of national monuments disappeared from the White House fact sheet.A post on X sent by a verified White House account last week still included the terminations of national monuments, and has not been edited or removed as of Saturday morning.The White House declined to answer questions about the discrepancy.“We were obviously very disappointed to see that fact sheet go up and then confused to see it come back down,” Mark Green, the executive director of CalWild, a nonprofit in California that advocates for wild spaces on public lands. “There’s very little clarity about what’s going on, and there’s such a lack of transparency with this administration that it’s just really hard to know what’s happening.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Gavin Newsom’s podcast has featured Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk. Is this the way to the White House?

    On the latest episode of This Is Gavin Newsom, the California governor interviewed his Minnesota counterpart, the 2024 Democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz. “Thanks for having me,” Walz said, flashing a cheeky smile. “I’m kinda wondering where I fall on this list of guests.”Walz was not only the first Democrat to make an appearance on Newsom’s splashy new podcast, but also the first participant who had not cast doubt on the 2020 presidential election results or expressed sympathy for the mob that stormed the capitol on January 6.Newsom has billed his podcast, launched at the beginning of March, as a platform for “honest discussions” with those who “agree AND disagree with us”. Many Democrats share his desire to expand their reach and influence across platforms – but his critics recoil at the approach. Newsom doesn’t seem to conduct the interviews as a blue-state leader raring to defend progressive values – or even as a governor whose response to one of the costliest and most destructive natural disasters in recent memory was undermined by a relentless rightwing campaign of rumors and lies. Instead, he seems to take on the role of an anthropologist conducting fieldwork on the forces fueling Maga fervor – and Democrats’ descent into the political wilderness.It’s a potentially high-stakes gambit for the term-limited governor widely believed to have national ambitions.“You’re taking a risk, doing a podcast, doing something to try to fill a void that’s out there and hopefully using it as a platform to try and articulate our values to a broader audience,” Walz told Newsom. “But we’ve not figured this out yet.”Since launching the podcast earlier this month, Newsom has taped a trio of friendly chats with rightwing figures reviled by the left: Steve Bannon, an architect of Donald Trump’s political rise; Charlie Kirk, the founder of the conservative youth group Turning Point USA and a Maga-world darling; and Michael Savage, a longtime conservative talk-radio host whose Trumpian rhetoric preceded the president’s rise. (According to the Wall Street Journal, Newsom sought help from his ex-wife and Trumpworld insider Kimberly Guilfoyle to connect with Kirk and Bannon.)Then came Walz. But the parade of conservatives on the Newsom podcast isn’t likely to stop. At one point during the second episode, Savage suggested another guest: Tucker Carlson. “I agree,” Newsom concurred. “I’m fascinated by him.”Media watchdogs have criticized the lineup, arguing Newsom is elevating and legitimizing rightwing extremists like Kirk, who once suggested Joe Biden should face the death penalty for unspecified “crimes against America”. They were baffled by his praise of Bannon, whom he commended for his “advocacy” and calling “balls and strikes” on the Trump administration.Many Democrats meanwhile have been infuriated by Newsom’s lack of pushback against his guests’ false or misleading claims, and his agreement with them on issues they had long thought he opposed. Newsom didn’t challenge the baseless assertion by Bannon that Trump won the 2020 election. And in his conversation with Kirk, he shocked longtime allies when he agreed that allowing transgender women and girls to compete in female sports was “deeply unfair”.Newsom and his representatives did not answer questions from the Guardian about his podcast. But he has said previously that the idea for it was born from a private conversation with a conservative figure he wished had been recorded. A cross-partisan conversation, he had said, could show that “we don’t hate each other”, despite holding deeply opposing political views.“The world’s changed. We need to change with it in terms of how we communicate,” Newsom told reporters at a press conference in Los Angeles last month. “We’d be as dumb as we want to be if we continue down the old status quo and try to pave over the old cow path. We’ve got to do things differently.”After the 2024 election, Democrats offered many theories about why they lost. There was widespread agreement that to win again, Democrats needed to do a better job of breaking out of their ideological bubbles and reaching voters the party had alienated in recent years. What they needed, some strategists argued, was a “Joe Rogan of the left”.Who is Newsom’s intended audience?For many Democrats and critics of the Maga movement, Newsom’s overtures have gone too far. His chats are doing little to diagnose the problem, and even less to position himself as a solution, they argue.“If you’re running to be a Republican nominee, this is a great strategy,” the California state assembly member Alex Lee, a member of the LGBTQ+ caucus, said earlier this month in response to the governor’s comments on trans athletes. “But if you want to run as a Democrat and someone who is pro-human rights, this is a terrible look.”“Cuddling up to the Charlie Kirks and Steve Bannons of the world and truckling to the Michael Savages … is a strange way to try to build national support among fellow Democrats,” the Los Angeles’s Times longtime political columnist, Mark Barabak, wrote.Andy Beshear, the governor of Kentucky who is also seen as a presidential hopeful, told reporters that the left should be willing to debate “just about anyone” – but that turning over the mic to Bannon was a bridge too far. “Bannon espouses hatred and anger and even at some points violence, and I don’t think we should give him oxygen on any platform, ever, anywhere,” Beshear said.And Adam Kinzinger, a Republican former representative from Illinois turned anti-Trump campaigner who sat on the January 6 committee, said it was “stupid” to talk to Bannon.“Bannon is the author of this chaos we’re seeing right now,” he said in a video posted on X.“Many of us on the right sacrificed our careers taking these people on and Newsom’s trying to make a career with them,” Kinzinger continued. “This is insane.”But perhaps progressive Democrats, and never-Trump Republicans, aren’t Newsom’s intended audience – at least for the moment.“He wants to be in the national conversation for the possibility of running for president,” said David McCuan, a political science professor at Sonoma State University.If he does seek the White House, Newsom will need to prove to his skeptics that he is more nuanced than the rightwing caricature of him as a “knee-jerk liberal”, McCuan argued, the same attack conservatives leveled against Newsom’s “political cousin”, Kamala Harris, in last year’s election.View image in fullscreenThe podcast is the latest iteration in a much broader effort by the governor’s team to show that Newsom has matured politically, McCuan said, and make the case that he is capable of taking on Trump and the heir to Maga.It has certainly catapulted Newsom into the national political conversation, at a moment when his party appears rudderless, divided and desperate for new leadership.Each episode has generated headlines and the endeavor has sparked a wider debate about whether the governor is being savvy, cynical – or both.Howard Polskin, who documents rightwing media on his website TheRighting, said Newsom’s podcast is more about marketing and public relations for Newsom himself than a platform for making content or clearly articulating his political views.“Its value is that he’s getting people talking about himself,” he said. “This is like a page out of the Trump playbook. Doesn’t matter what they’re saying, they are talking about Gavin Newsom.”His conservative guests don’t gain converts from their appearances on Newsom’s show – they already have far larger audiences than the governor anyway, Polskin said, while the governor’s supporters are likely turned off by the rightwing figures he has invited on.But his guests gain something else: access. “Who wouldn’t want a relationship with the governor of California?” Polskin said. “It’s power. It’s proximity to power, someone who could arguably become the next president of the United States.”Polskin said it’s a smart move for Newsom as a branding play, and it’s “gutsy” for him to engage directly with top Magaworld influencers and try to have civil discussions. Whatever Democrats have been doing before clearly wasn’t working, he argued, so why not try something new?It’s a play he expects more Democrats to attempt in the run-up to the next presidential election. “He’s taken a controversial stand here. He’s getting a lot of attention for it. I think that’s smart,” he said.From antagonistic to calculatedWhen asked by a reporter whether the podcast was a “distraction” from his day job as a governor, Newsom said it was not. Opening new lines of communication with constituents – and providing a forum for civil dialogue between political opponents – was “essential” and “important” in an era defined by deep polarization and media fragmentation, he argued.It reflects a slight shift in tactics for the California governor.During Trump’s first term, Newsom, the leader of the largest blue state, embraced the role of liberal antagonist, holding up California as a bulwark against the administration’s attacks on immigrants and the environment.After soundly defeating a Republican recall effort in 2021, and handily winning re-election in 2022, an emboldened Newsom grew his national profile, acting as a prominent surrogate for Joe Biden and frequently taking the fight directly to the right.Before the 2022 congressional midterms, he implored Democrats to launch a “counteroffensive” to defend abortion rights and LGBTQ+ protections. He debated the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, on Fox News. His political action committee ran ads in Republican states – including ones a Democratic nominee would never hope to win, such as Alabama.But he’s also hedged his bets, barring state legislation that might have wound up in ads fueling California’s ultra-liberal image: Newsom has used his veto pen to reject bills that would have required a warning label on gas stoves and provided free condoms in schools. California’s prison system has long cooperated with federal immigration authorities, and this year the governor vetoed a bill that would have limited state prison officials’ cooperation with Ice.Newsom is taking a far more cautious approach with Trump, too, in the president’s second term. As Trump threatened to withhold federal disaster aid for the state following the devastating wildfires in Los Angeles, Newsom greeted Trump warmly on the tarmac when Trump came to survey the damage. Shortly after, Newsom traveled to Washington for a lengthy Oval Office meeting. “We’re getting along, Trump and I,” he said in one of his podcast episodes.Mike Madrid, a California-based Republican consultant and podcast host, has argued that Newsom not only grasps the depth of Democrats’ engagement deficit but also the the urgency of creating a liberal “media infrastructure” to counter the right’s influence.“He knows he needs to get into that cultural space to be relevant,” Madrid said, noting that the governor is a longtime observer of rightwing media. “It doesn’t necessarily need to be the rightwing media ecosystem, but he’s keenly aware that you can’t just have a large Twitter account like he does and be a dominant national force.” He pointed out that it’s not Newsom’s first foray into podcasting. He also hosts Politickin’ with the former NFL star Marshawn Lynch and his agent, Doug Hendrickson.In an opinion piece for Fox News, Kirk wrote that his invitation to appear on Newsom’s podcast had been part of a “calculated play” by the governor to “present as a centrist” and shed his image in conservative media as the well-coifed leader of liberal America.“It might work,” Kirk warned. “One thing I learned in my podcast experience: the governor isn’t a joke. He has a shark’s instincts and is hoping that voters will have a goldfish’s memory.”Barabak, the LA Times columnist, couldn’t disagree more: “If Newsom really hopes to be president someday, the best thing he could do is a bang-up job in his final 22 months as governor, not waste time on glib and self-flattering diversions.” More

  • in

    Fear grows among US’s 390,000 undocumented Chinese immigrants: ‘So many policies have changed’

    In 2014, a few years after the birth of her second child, Jenny left China to flee an abusive relationship and government persecution for violating the one-child policy. She brought her younger daughter to San Francisco and, though undocumented, found work at a childcare facility and eventually married a US citizen.Because of extended delays in visa processing, her green card application remains in limbo after three years, but she’s never been particularly afraid of her immigration status. That is until Donald Trump won re-election last November, fueled in part by a promise to conduct the largest mass deportation program in US history.Jenny – the Guardian is using an alias to protect her identity – said she had been afraid to go to work, buy groceries or even meet her friends outside. Her husband, she said, urged her not to leave the house unless absolutely necessary until her visa is approved. Many other Chinese immigrants in her community share her fears, she said.“People are very scared,” Jenny said. “My husband and I are very scared. So many policies have changed and so many more are coming from White House that might have an impact on us.”On the campaign trail, Trump said he would prioritize deporting Chinese nationals of military age, suggesting without proof that they are building an army in the US. Immigrant rights advocates say Trump’s targeted rhetoric has instilled an unprecedented level of fear and anxiety in Chinese communities, both among newly arrived migrants and undocumented immigrants who have lived in the US for decades.Two months into his return to office, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) have already stepped up arrests across the country, conducted raids in major cities, detaining people at restaurants, local businesses and other public spaces. Ice operations have also occurred in sanctuary cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles.View image in fullscreenRoughly 390,000 undocumented Chinese immigrants live in the US, according to the Migration Policy Institute, with more than a quarter residing in California. Nearly 38,000 of them are thought to have final removal orders, according to Ice data from November.Jose Ng, the immigrants-rights program manager at Chinese for Affirmative Action, said there was a lot of fear among undocumented Chinese immigrants where he works in the Bay Area, especially those with final removal orders, a ruling that formalizes an individual’s deportation from the US. The organization operates a rapid response hotline for emergency immigration situations. Over the past six weeks, Ng said the service has received an uptick of frantic calls, up to 40 per night.“We have people reporting Ice activity and presence in their neighborhood,” he said. “We have people sending us information about Ice pickups.”Chinese for Affirmative Action, Ng said, works closely with ethnic media to inform undocumented Chinese immigrants about their rights and the latest immigration policy updates. It also organizes “know your rights” clinics with community members and conducts training on Ice protocols.That prospect has become increasingly likely. In the past eight months, Ice has sent five charter flights to China carrying hundreds of Chinese migrants. Experts say deportations have increased as the Chinese government said it is willing to repatriate confirmed Chinese nationals – a more cooperative stance than it has taken in the past. Many undocumented Chinese people, Ng said, have lived in the US for decades but have had no viable way of obtaining legal immigration status. They are worried about being deported to a homeland they have not set foot on in years.The GOP’s anti-Chinese stance on immigration, experts said, is partially a reaction to the influx of Chinese migrants at the southern border over the past few years. In 2023, more than 35,000 Chinese migrants traversed the dangerous Darién Gap between Colombia and Panama and entered the US from Mexico – 10 times higher than the previous year’s figure. (Crossings have dropped significantly since then due to stricter enforcement from US and Mexican authorities.)View image in fullscreenThe Darién Gap has not historically been a popular route for Chinese people who, in the past, have largely entered the US on tourist visas then overstayed, say experts. But as China’s economy faltered, and visas and other legal paths to immigration in the US became prohibitively difficult to obtain, more migrants have turned to border crossing as an alternative. The social media platform WeChat, which provides detailed instructions on crossing the Darién Gap and finding boarding houses, is also responsible for the influx of Chinese migrants at the southern border, said Connie Chung Joe, chief executive officer of the civil rights organization Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California.“There’s a whole system set up for Chinese migrants who are mostly going through San Diego,” she said.The Trump administration said the crackdowns would first target violent criminals. But across the country, reports of Ice agents rounding up migrants and people with permits are causing concern in immigrant communities. Fewer than half of the roughly 8,200 people arrested from 20 January through 2 February have criminal convictions, according to an analysis of government data from ProPublica and the Texas Tribune.Chung Joe said Trump’s deportation campaign had caused “a lot of concern and anxiety” in Chinese enclaves in Los Angeles such as Monterey Park and Alhambra.Frank Hwu, an Alhambra-based lawyer who has represented thousands of Chinese undocumented immigrants, said that in the past, Chinese migrants were primarily single men and young adults seeking better financial opportunities in the US. The more recent arrivals have come together as a family. “They have young children and grandparents,” Hwu said.Martin Kim, director of immigration advocacy at Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, said it was unlikely that Trump has the authority or resources to fulfill his hardline promises on immigration, given the astronomical cost of mass deportations. (The American Immigration Council estimated the cost of removing 1 million people a year to be about $88bn.)Despite the administration’s fearmongering tactics, Kim said undocumented people should not hesitate to seek legal advice about their rights and how to deal with Ice.“It’s important to note that fear is exactly what this flurry of policy changes is meant to inflict,” Kim said. “There is a difference between what he’s indicated he wants to do and what he’s able to do.” More

  • in

    Why is Gavin Newsom handing Steve Bannon a megaphone? It’s becoming clear | Margaret Sullivan

    Gavin Newsom’s choice of guests – a parade of rightwingers – on his new podcast might seem baffling.After all, the California governor is seen as a mostly progressive Democrat from a very blue state whose reputation is that of a coastal elite. That’s the kind of person the American right, and plenty of centrists, love to hate, as we learned once again when Kamala Harris lost the presidential race to Donald Trump. His image is that of a rich, pretty boy who probably thinks jumper cables are just oversized iPhone chargers.It’s understandable that he would want to reposition himself as he looks ahead to a possible 2028 presidential run.But the way he’s going about it is bizarre and deeply misguided.Still in its infancy, This Is Gavin Newsom has hosted several rightwing media figures including Michael Savage, Charlie Kirk and – almost unbelievably – Steve Bannon, one of the most regrettable people to emerge into public life in decades. This is the guy who trashes the reality-based press as the “opposition party”, and who believes in bamboozling the American people into submission by “flooding the zone with shit”.If you had to name the five people most responsible for Trump’s still-shocking rise to power, Bannon’s name would belong on that list. Don’t forget that he was sent to prison for criminal contempt of Congress after refusing to cooperate with the House of Representatives investigation of the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol.But Newsom found Bannon worthy of a cordial chat blasted out to his growing podcast audience.For some, it boggles the mind.“I know what Steve Bannon got out of that interview – his fringe views were elevated and validated,” one prominent Democratic member of Congress told the journalist Oliver Darcy. “I don’t know what Gavin or Democrats got out of it.” Those “views”, naturally, included the repeated lie that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.As Martin Pengelly reported in the Guardian, one red-state Democrat – someone who knows a lot about bridging the gap in American politics – heartily disapproves.“We shouldn’t be afraid to talk and to debate just about anyone,” said Andy Beshear, the Kentucky governor, “but Steve Bannon espouses hatred and anger, and even at some points violence, and I don’t think we should give him oxygen on any platform, ever, anywhere.” (Beshear, it should be noted, may also be looking at a presidential run, and was considered as Harris’s running mate last year.)So what the heck is Newsom’s strategy, exactly?If you ask one of his podcast guests – Kirk, the pro-Trump extremist and podcaster – it’s simple enough.In an opinion piece on the Fox News website that followed his podcast appearance, Kirk called the California governor savvy and charming, but most of all ambitious. Newsom, Kirk quipped, wanted to be president more than any other person alive – and maybe dead, too.“He has a shark’s instincts and is hoping the voters will have a goldfish’s memory,” he posited.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAdam Kinzinger, a former Republican congressman and vocal anti-Trumper, finds that infuriating.“Many of us on the right sacrificed careers to fight Bannon, and Newsom is trying to make a career and a presidential run by building him up,” Kinzinger told Pengelly.Make no mistake. There is a legitimate issue underlying this disagreement.Democrats are justifiably searching for a way to reach that wide swath of voters who seem permanently turned off to their party.And whatever one’s politics or affiliation, we all know that the US is terribly and destructively polarized. We must find a way to talk to each other across the great divide. We really do need to seek common ground.But the way to do it is not to normalize conspiracy theorists who have already done so much damage. It’s not to offer chummy chats – with little or no pushback – to those who want to trash vulnerable people, including transgender individuals and immigrants, or to repeat lies about a stolen election.This “rebrand” may help Newsom’s efforts to present himself as a healer or a centrist as he prepares to run for president in 2028.But anybody who’s paying close attention should know that what he’s doing is deeply cynical and ultimately counterproductive.

    Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture More