Talk:Gavin Newsom

French laundry

It is shocking that the French laundry controversy, one of the highest profile COVID-era controversies in the country, is almost entirely unmentioned in this article. It was controversial to the point where there was a time that polling had a majority of Californians expressing support for Newsom's recall, but it is given only a single sentence in the 2021 recall section. This alone should be given much more attention in either "ethics concerns" or "COVID-19 pandemic."

Additionally, Newsom's opposition to prop 36, which he actively campaigned against, should probably be put in the "criminal justice" section. 97.190.52.164 (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Roughly half a paragraph in the "2021 recall election" section is plenty DUE coverage of the French Laundry incident.

What should be said about Prop 36? Provide sources to support text proposals. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

page protection

There is no mention of why or when this page has been protected. I would like to make edits to it and cannot. There are many unsourced claims in the opening paragraph alone. 2001:1970:57E0:AE00:D172:EEF7:8B0E:B49D (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, by "opening paragraph" you are probably referring to the lead section of the article. Per MOS:CITELEAD, citations there are often omitted since the material is repeated in later sections. For example, the fact that Newsom is a businessman is discussed under "business career", of which the section is fully cited. Thanks VolatileAnomaly (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Newsom trans athlete comments

Why is this deliberate comment from Newsom, which was widely reported, subject to “recentism”? This doesn't make sense. If it were a mis statement by him, it would have been corrected by his office. @Usr Trj Helpingtoclarify (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

In the span of his 28 year career, is it that important? I'm on the fence about it, personally. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why all his “pro-trans” views and actions are relevant to the section on “LGBTQ+ rights” but this more recent view, which might show some balance on Newsom’s part is not. This is especially the case when his comment was delivered on a conservative podcast and was so widely covered. This is widely reported and there is a clear consensus as to what he said and why its notable.

Lack of willingness to include this clearly points to a bias.

So tell me, does 3 months need to pass and its no longer “too recent”? What would allow this update? There are statements of other politicians that are updated immediately.(see Trump statements) Helpingtoclarify (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I think because it was just a brief statement and wasn't even the subject of the podcast episode. Plus his actions clearly don't support it. Also, all the "pro-trans" stuff in the "LGBTQ+ rights" section are actions and not just brief statements. If Newsom actually takes action to prohibit trans women in women's sports, then maybe that can be included, but if he doesn't, then it's just an empty statement and no more worthy of inclusion than any other statement he's made in the last 28 years. Usr Trj (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Also pinging @Mathglot since they were the first to claim it was too recent.Usr Trj (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

So we think “he didn't mean it”? He hasn't walked it back, clarified or corrected his statement.

If its “just an empty statement”, isn't that notable in itself that he said something so controversial on such an important issue, where his track record has been the opposite. Especially when CA has a law on the books specifically allowing youth to participate in the sports team of the gender they identify (which Newsom’s comment suggests he may now oppose).

I would argue that the mainstream coverage of this points to that later perspectice this coverage itself makes it worthy of inclusion. Also the pushback which has come from this statement is significant.

I don't think I've seen a statement by a politician more widely covered. My search was not exhaustive.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/06/politics/newsom-trans-athletes-womens-sports/index.html

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/newsom-trans-sports-20206281.php

https://apnews.com/article/gavin-newsom-transgender-athletes-e28abfe4d507086633e5f83b94b095e6

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/06/us/politics/gavin-newsom-transgender-sports-democrats.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/03/06/gavin-newsom-transgender-athletes/74cc2b6c-fabd-11ef-bbd0-5841f0ec1418_story.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/california-gov-gavin-newsom-breaks-democrats-trans-sports-participatio-rcna195165

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/06/gavin-newsom-trans-people-sports

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/california-news/newsom-transgender-athletes/3649104/

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/california-gov-gavin-newsom-breaks-party-transgender-athletes/story?id=119559011 Helpingtoclarify (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily saying "he didn't mean it", but Newsom's office did subsequently issue a statement saying, "The governor rejects the right wing's cynical attempt to weaponize this debate as an excuse to vilify individual kids."(https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/06/gavin-newsom-trans-people-sports) Newsom also followed up his initial statement about fairness by saying, "These poor people are more likely to commit suicide, have anxiety and depression, and the way that people talk down to vulnerable communities is an issue that I have a hard time with as well" and that he believes transgender inclusion in sports should be handled with "humility and grace", (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna195165) which makes it kind of unclear as to whether or not he would actually support restricting trans people's ability to play on sports teams consistent with their gender identity.

I just think that, given his past actions and support of trans rights, we should wait and see if he actually takes action to limit trans women competing in women's sports or if this statement is just a blip and he continues to support trans rights regardless. Usr Trj (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

If this statement is re added to the article though, I strongly support including his subsequent comments about trans people being a "vulnerable community" that is "more likely to commit suicide, have anxiety and depression" etc. since that shows he is not completely renouncing trans rights and is at most, on the fence about it. Usr Trj (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

It should not be re-added, and an encyclopedia article is not the place for warring factions of editors to pile news article on top of news article in some kind of ideological arms race. Alan Barth said, "Template:Xt", and that may be so, but it is not what we do. Wikipedia is not the first rough draft of history, nor is it even the second draft of it (that would be secondary sources like books and articles in reputable magazines. Wikipedia is a tertiary source: we wait till the books and magazines figure out what was important in all those news reports that spill out the news as it happens in crazy-quilt fashion, and then they try to make sense out of it all to create a narrative, and then finally we come along after that, and look at all those secondary source narratives, and figure out what the common thread or majority view is in all of that. Jumping straight to the latest news is jumping the gun, and it is not our role as a WP:TERTIARY source of information. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia; Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your perspective. I wasn't planning on re adding it, I was just saying IF it was. But I agree that it should not be re added. Usr Trj (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Right, okay, but the derth of news sources covering it seem to think it relevant, so, Wikipedia isn't being the first draft here, it's very much adding a notable statement of a politician's views which is, kind of central to his article given that he's, you know, a politician? Snokalok (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

What precisely do you think "derth" means? And we're not a newspaper. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Dearrhbia the wrong word. Its the opposite. However 1) the fact trans rights has been a big issue nation wide 2) Newsom has been an unequivocal supporter 3) he very intentionally made a comment to a conservative podcaster 4) it was VERY WIDELY covered (as widely as I've ever seem) suggestions these sources believe it is noteworthy. These articles also suggest his comments have cause MANY to react.

How is this different than the dozens of such comments Trump has made that are quoted verbatim, blow by blow on Wikipedia?

There is no “ideological war” here and this is no “rough draft”. For Wikipedia to preserve its balance it must include all aspects of Newsom’s view on this high profile issue. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

What news sources consider newsworthy has no bearing whatsoever on what Wikipedia considers inclusion-worthy. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

This is way simpler than you are making it…

His views on trans rights is “inclusion-worthy”, its already discussed at length in the article.

This is a recent statement by him that is potentially relevant to this topic. I don't see how this is not the case.

Also, i'll put it another way, what has to happen for it to be inclusion worthy? Does he have to say it in another interview. Once? Two more times? Does he need to clarify or confirm his view to update the article? Helpingtoclarify (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I would like him to clarify whether he actually opposes trans women competing in women's sports given his past support of trans rights and subsequent comments about trans people being a "vulnerable community" that is "more likely to commit suicide, have anxiety and depression" etc. Because if he merely says it's "unfair" once but continues supporting trans rights regardless, then his comments about "fairness" has little meaning and would not be worth mentioning in the grand scheme of things. On the contrary, if he doubles down and takes action to restrict trans women in women's sports, it may be more noteworthy. Usr Trj (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

He's a professional politician. He made these comments on a conservative podcast. This statement on “deeply unfair” is not accidental and no source is suggesting he was mis interpreted.

The bar here is not him “taking action”. His statements alone are notable. Why do statements from Trump like “very fine people” show up on Wikipedia virtually instantly, despite him clarifying the comment quickly?

This is a double standard. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

There is no double standard. What there is, is limited volunteer time. There is no board of directors watching over articles to make sure that the same standards are applied equally everywhere (nor would we want someone telling us what to do). What there is, is a lot of volunteers donating their time for free, to improve the encyclopedia. If you want to apply the same standard to the Trump article, I would support your doing that, but volunteers can't be everywhere at once, and they work on what they wish to work on, not what someone tells them to work on. That's just the nature of a volunteer project. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thatt means that there are some articles that adhere to standards better than others, but you cannot use that fact as an argument for this one to ignore standards, too, just because others do. Instead, what you need to do (but only if you wish to) is to make the other ones adhere to them better. Mathglot (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

In addition, we can't, and don't want to cover every important podcast by every important politician; that would turn us into exactly what we are not: an online news service. On the other hand, feel free to add it to WikiNews, where it will be very welcome as WikiNews is designed for exactly this sort of thing. Mathglot (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I've added this topic to section on his 2028 presidential ambitions. I don't think there is debate on those ambitions and many sources support his recent statements on trans rights as another example of his views shifting to the mainstream for a presidential run. We can update his trans rights views when he is inevitably asked about these views and confirms or clarifies his position on sports participation. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

His recent comments on trans rights should left out of the article as long as the inclusion of those comments is being contested. Just moving it to a different section doesn't change why it's being contested. If a consensus supporting the inclusion of his recent comments on trans rights is reached here then it can be re added to the article. Usr Trj (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Directed here after my edit about this was reverted (wasn't aware the inclusion of this was actively being contested, my apologies). The comments made by Newsom regarding transgender athletes and other LGBTQ+ rights-related topics (use of pronouns, etc) were deliberate and on his own podcast, representing a significant departure from his party's positions. His statements have been covered extensively by a large number of RS (see sources listed by Helpingtoclarify) and have prompted direct responses from other Democratic party members and advocacy groups including a statement issued by the Human Rights Campaign. As we strive to be unbiased here, I think this definitely warrants at least a brief mention somewhere, as the article as-is doesn't seem to be representative of his current views on LGBTQ+ rights. There's been enough impact where recentism alone wouldn't disqualify its inclusion. ~Liance^talk 16:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I added his shifting views under “National profile and political future”. I gave up fighting the bias on his trans rights topic. It’s a game of whack a mole with the changing objections to this obvious update. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

The revert was correct. You will need consensus to add the information at this point. What I find puzzling is the cherry picking of the statement. He also said everyone needed to have empathy for trans athletes but somehow that didn't make the cut for Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not in the business of reporting news or adding selective quotes about everything a politician says. Should we report everything he said on the podcast? I think not. Stick with what his political views are that are widely reported in the media, not something that got a bunch of hits so recent. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree! It seems wrong to include his comments about fairness whilst leaving out his subsequent comments empathizing with trans people. Also, several of the other things he said in his podcast got media coverage too. Why is the comment on trans athletes the only one that people want to mention? It seems like bias selection to me. Usr Trj (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

This is quite simple. The other comments he made on the trans rights topic were consistent with his lifelong views. (Which are already well covered in the article) This “deeply unfair” was a departure from that view. Many in the press have attributed this to Newsom positioning himself for 2028 presidential bid (among other actions like appearing with conservatives). This is clearly a trend and his moderation on trans rights, as well as other statements cited in these sources are all supporting of this. I don’t understand the inability to acknowledge that this statement he made when it’s well covered and been used as meaningful point of evidence in the sources I had cited. Very well covered here.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/14/gavin-newsom-steve-bannon-podcast

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/09/politics/gavin-newsom-democrats-trans-athletes/index.html

https://www.wsj.com/politics/gavin-newsom-election-2028-e878c02e

How about this compromise: (if you don’t like it, suggest one, stop just saying “no”)

“Newsom made comments related to trans athletes competing in women’s sports that were different than his prior view suggesting he is less supportive of participation”.

There needs to be something here ignoring it is biased. You seem to be fine with his comments on pronouns and disposable plastics, why no objections here? Helpingtoclarify (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

"if you don’t like it, suggest one, stop just saying "no"" - That's not how WP:ONUS works. Your argument is mainly your personal view, not a summary of the sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

But by saying Newsom thinks it's "deeply unfair" and nothing more suggests his views have changed and therefore calls in to question his other views on trans rights mentioned in the "LGBTQ+ rights" section. So I think that actually makes his subsequent comments empathizing with trans people more noteworthy because it suggests his views haven't completely changed and it also offers a opposing viewpoint to his supposed new views.

Still, saying, "suggesting he is less supportive of participation" in the article may be original research per WP:NOR. IF this is going to be re added to the article, I would suggest something similar to my initial edits which I thought pretty thoroughly covered the issue before it was reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gavin_Newsom&diff=prev&oldid=1279406464 Usr Trj (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how "cherry picking" is an argument here - there's been very widespread and significant coverage of that statement specifically, and direct reactions from other party members and lobbying groups (already tens of reliable sources provided in the discussion above but see [1], [2], [3]). His comments on trans athletes and pronouns should at least be briefly mentioned. It's pretty clear to me that the current state of the article doesn't accurately reflect where Newsom is in relation to LGBTQ+ rights. ~Liance^talk 21:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It absolutely is cherrypicking to choose that part of his statement and leave out the other. At least imho. It leads the reader to believe he is against trans people and the statements as written do not comply with WP:NPOV. We don't lead people to a conclusion, and only including that partial statement does so. Now, I am not advocating to add the rest of the comment, but I am saying if we add this, then we need to add all of the statements that were reported, including things not related to trans athletes. On a side note, I also redirected the page for the podcast that was just created. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, in order for this to be neutral it definitively would need to include his opposing viewpoint where he empathizes with trans people. Otherwise, it would mislead the readers into thinking he has completely turned against trans rights. But based on his comments empathizing with trans people that doesn't appear to be entirely the case. Usr Trj (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Newsome's entire history has been sympathetic with trans rights. Over and over. So what is notable is the changenand acknowledgment of "deeply unfair" which is new. Why is it necessary to reiterate his prior view? It is well covered already Helpingtoclarify (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

First of all, Newsom’s “entire history” has not actually been sympathetic to trans rights. The article mentions that he’s vetoed several trans rights bills in the past, despite supporting others.

Secondly, it’s necessary to add that he empathized with trans rights in the same conversation where he mentioned fairness because just adding that he now thinks it’s “deeply unfair” at the end of the section and nothing more can and will mislead people into thinking he’s completely turned against trans women competing in women’s sports or even trans rights overall.

His prior views in the article wouldn’t really matter or hold much weight at that point since adding his comments about fairness as the last part of the section could invalidate his previous views and actions to readers or at least indicate that he no longer stands by them, which doesn’t seem to be the case. Usr Trj (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

2025 California wildfires

Request to add section on Response to January 2025 Southern California wildfires: "In January 2025, following the outbreak of the Eaton, Hughes, and Palisades fires in Los Angeles County, Newsom declared a state of emergency for multiple affected regions and urged residents to follow evacuation orders while coordinating closely with state and federal agencies.1 He signed two special-session bills—AB X1-4 and SB X1-3—allocating up to $2.5 billion in emergency funding to support firefighting operations, infrastructure repairs, and community recovery efforts in Southern California.2 On January 23, 2025, he also announced a $2.5 billion relief package, emphasizing the need for “unity” and calling on the federal government to release aid without political conditions.3

To enhance wildfire prevention ahead of the 2025 fire season, Newsom issued an executive order fast-tracking 41 forest and vegetation management projects statewide and signed legislation providing an additional $170 million for fuel-reduction and home hardening initiatives.4 He concurrently invoked emergency powers to suspend certain environmental regulations, expediting the removal of flammable brush, creating fire breaks, and conducting controlled burns on state lands.5 In March 2025, he mandated implementation of “Zone Zero” regulations—prohibiting combustible materials within five feet of homes in very high fire risk areas—to bolster ember resistance in both unincorporated and municipal jurisdictions.

Amid a torrent of online misinformation, Newsom launched CaliforniaFireFacts.com on January 11, 2025, to correct false claims about his administration’s wildfire management and to provide real-time updates on firefighting progress and evacuation routes.7 He ordered an independent inquiry into reports of fire hydrants running dry during initial suppression efforts after receiving conflicting accounts from local officials.8

Newsom also extended emergency rent and price-gouging protections for wildfire-impacted residents in Los Angeles County through July 1, 2025, capping rent increases at 10 percent above pre-disaster levels to prevent displacement during recovery.9 In bilateral discussions with President Joe Biden and during a planned briefing for President Donald Trump, Newsom pressed for at least $40 billion in federal disaster aid, insisting on minimal political interference and emphasizing the scale of the loss, estimated at over $250 billion in property damage.10"

Work cited Footnotes “January 2025 Southern California wildfires,” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 12, 2025. Wikipedia ↩ Gobert, J., “Governor Newsom Signs Emergency Funding Bill for 2025 Los Angeles Wildfires,” CSDA Blog, February 7, 2025. csda.net ↩ Preston, J., “California governor signs $2.5bn relief package for LA wildfire recovery,” The Guardian, January 23, 2025. The Guardian ↩ Office of the Governor, “Governor Newsom signs legislation investing additional $170 million to prevent catastrophic wildfires, issues executive order to fast-track projects,” Press Release, April 14, 2025. Governor of California ↩ Satter, R., “Newsom moves to clear flammable brush from California forests after Trump’s criticism,” New York Post, March 2, 2025. New York Post ↩ Noguchi, Y., “California must quickly ban plants within 5 feet of homes in fire-prone areas, Newsom says,” San Francisco Chronicle, February 20, 2025. San Francisco Chronicle ↩ “January 2025 Southern California wildfires,” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia ↩ “January 2025 Southern California wildfires,” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia ↩ California Apartment Association, “L.A. Wildfires 2025 – Important Updates,” March 2025. California Apartment Association ↩ “January 2025 Southern California wildfires,” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia ↩ Therealbrettcooper (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

These aren't things he ALONE has done (the legislature passed the bills), and so if this is included, it should be drastically trimmed and made to sound less promotional, if included at all. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I will work on fixing the comments and resubmit in this thread. Thanks for the feedback! Therealbrettcooper (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)