The Brief

When Gov. Gavin Newsom launched his new podcast last month, he touted it as an opportunity to understand the MAGA movement’s motivations and figure out a path forward for Democrats after the party’s bruising losses in the 2024 election.

But the early response has predominantly been bewilderment — from supporters, critics and the public alike — as listeners struggle to make sense of Newsom’s intentions, his political evolution and what the show signals for his leadership of California.

The governor’s about-face from leading critic of President Donald Trump to MAGA-curious pundit comes at a critical moment for the state, as California launches legal battles against Trump administration policies and faces potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funding cuts.

Republicans have dismissed Newsom’s concerted shift to the center on some issues as disingenuous and roasted him for diverting his attention away from solving the state’s problems. Even many allies who applaud Newsom for reaching across the ideological aisle were troubled by his early guests and how the governor boosted their ultraconservative views.

And in Sacramento, legislators and advocates are scratching their heads. If the podcast is, as insiders widely suspect, Newsom’s attempt to redefine himself ahead of a long-anticipated presidential bid, then what does a renewed focus on the national stage mean for the remaining two years of his governorship?

“Quite frankly, we’re all asking those questions,” said state Sen. Ben Allen, a Santa Monica Democrat.

Allen pushed for a limit on single-use plastics in California that Newsom signed into law in 2022 — before scrapping rules to put the law into effect right before the final deadline this month, citing cost concerns, and telling regulators to start over. Environmentalists fumed that the governor was bowing to industry pressure after an election in which affordability was at the forefront of voters’ minds.

“I think people are trying to figure out what’s going on,” Allen said.

The governor’s mixed messages

Newsom gave nearly all his attention in the first part of the year to the response and recovery from the devastating wildfires that burned through Los Angeles County in early January. Despite initially proclaiming last fall that he would again lead the resistance to Trump, national politics took a backseat as the governor navigated their complex relationship to lobby for federal disaster aid, which California has not yet secured.

But Newsom seemed to flip a switch in late February with the podcast launch. Since then, the governor has not held any public events or press conferences, allowing the four episodes of his show released so far to drive his messaging almost completely, though he has also waded back into denouncing federal Republicans on social media.

That has created a conundrum for those trying to understand how what Newsom says in these casual conversations may translate to his day job running the biggest state in the country. When his remarks generate headlines — as they did during the controversial first episode featuring the Trump-aligned activist Charlie Kirk, where Newsom called it “deeply unfair” for transgender athletes to participate in girls’ sports — his office refuses to clarify his positions.

Speaking to far-right former Trump adviser Steve Bannon on the third episode last week about the president’s foreign trade strategy, Newsom said he was “not an absolutist as it relates to being against tariffs,” just days after the governor put out a statement that “tariffs are nothing more than a tax on hardworking American families.” Spokesperson Izzy Gardon would not explain when Newsom supported the use of tariffs, directing CalMatters back to his comments on the podcast.

Cornered by reporters at the Capitol this week, Newsom dodged questions about whether he supported Republican-led legislation that would ban transgender women and girls from competitive sports in California. “I haven’t seen any bills,” he repeatedly said.

The shifting tone and positions without explanation has undermined Democrats’ trust, said Anthony Rendon, who was Assembly speaker when Newsom took office during Trump’s first term promising to make California a bulwark against the president.

Rendon, who termed out of the Legislature last year, said he talks to former colleagues who now wonder whether they should strategically shift their priorities so that they don’t waste time on measures that Newsom will simply veto.

“They’re mystified,” he said. “‘WTF’ is the most common text message I get.”

Uncertainty in Sacramento

Many lawmakers, not wanting to damage their relationships with the man who ultimately decides the fate of their agendas, are loath to speak publicly about the governor’s podcast. Those who will can be painstakingly diplomatic, emphasizing that they remain committed to their own work.

“We just have to remain focused. The outside noise to me is neither here nor there,” said Sen. Lena Gonzalez, a Long Beach Democrat who serves as the Senate majority leader. “Sometimes words are just words, and I’m hoping that that’s where it stays.”

Some of the most progressive lawmakers at the Capitol have spoken out against Newsom’s choice of guests and his comments about transgender athletes, but they have largely separated those complaints from the governor himself, whom they characterize as an ally.

Assemblymember Ash Kalra, a San Jose Democrat, said there is too much focus on what the governor is doing as the Trump administration challenges democracy itself. He said it was not helpful for Democrats to go after each other when they should be fighting the Republicans in Washington, D.C.

“I do think that every Democrat right now should be ringing the alarm as to the constitutional crisis that we’re having, and anything that detracts from that I think minimizes the dangerous place we’re in as a nation,” Kalra said.

Like many Democrats, Allen complimented Newsom for “talking to people from different perspectives in different parts of the country” as the party tries to make sense of Trump’s victory in November. But Allen said he didn’t want Democrats to take the wrong lessons from the 2024 election and be afraid to assert their values.

“I do think that some of the people who have been on his show have been a little fringe,” Allen said. “I worry that they may be anchoring the conversation in a way that’s counterproductive.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom addresses media after signing legislation in Los Angeles on Sept. 28, 2023.

(

Alisha Jucevic

/

CalMatters

)

Listeners confused and distraught

Listeners have been equally perplexed. Voter data expert Paul Mitchell surveyed 1,000 Californians before and after the first episode of the podcast dropped and found a tangle of conflicting responses.

Asked to watch three snippets of Newsom’s conversation with Kirk, nearly a quarter of respondents said they viewed the governor as more moderate, but twice as many people said the podcast harmed their perception of Newsom as improved it.

“In the short-term, wow, Republicans are not convinced and Democrats are not pleased,” Mitchell said, pointing to hundreds of open-ended comments from the survey in which conservatives largely expressed suspicion of Newsom’s intentions and liberals felt betrayed.

Mitchell also tracked a drop in the governor’s approval rating, from 52% to 47%. But since the launch, positive and negative sentiments about the podcast have dropped while neutral sentiment has nearly doubled — with political independents seeming more receptive.

“That could be voters kind of cracking the door open,” Mitchell said. “If he’s trying to get away from the Gavin Newsom caricature, then that might be something he’s doing.”

Yet a true political reinvention, one that could reshape the arc of his career, is a long-term project, for better or worse.

Liberal donors and activists who backed Newsom in the past were shaken by the early episodes, which also saw the governor brush past comments that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump without any debate as he cozied up to figures who have been accused of antisemitism and doing a Nazi salute. Movie star Jane Fonda compared Newsom to the former UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, known for appeasing Adolf Hilter’s early territorial annexations to avoid war.

Ludovic Blain, executive director of the progressive donor network California Donor Table, slammed Newsom for “capitulating to authoritarians,” even as he expressed hope that the governor would grow a stronger backbone and defend civil rights as the podcast continues.

“He’s turning the Democratic Party into one that stands for nothing,” Blain said. “We do expect Gavin to be better.”

‘I don’t think this podcast is gonna help him’

And if Newsom is going to persuade the public that he’s got bipartisan appeal and is electable in purple states, that day still looked far away at the recent California Republican Party convention in Sacramento. Attendees — even the young men whose drift to Trump in 2024 has convinced Democrats that podcasts are the future — were not buying the governor’s transformation.

“He hasn’t done anything to build any trust. And I don’t think this podcast is gonna help him,” said Topher Hall, a 25-year-old college student from El Dorado County wearing a Make America Great Again Again sweatshirt.

Hall said he had watched clips from the podcast on Kirk’s social media and felt that Newsom was merely trying to use the large established audiences of his conservative guests to build his own platform.

After growing up apolitical in the liberal Bay Area, Hall said he was drawn to the Republican Party in recent years by its stances in favor of gun rights and against transgender athletes. But Newsom’s comments about the latter had struck him as opportunistic flip-flopping.

“He’s kind of a slick politician. I think he’s like the used car salesman of politics. I think he’s just Hollywood,” Hall said. “He’s just a sellout.”

Jessica Rutan, a 60-year-old retired educator from Fullerton, said Newsom lost her completely with his dictatorial lockdowns during the coronavirus pandemic. But she listened to his conversations with Kirk and Bannon, curious what they would say to him — and whether the governor would actually take their advice.

She was frustrated that he had not, calling Newsom’s engagement with the conservative activists “so disingenuous” and the “wrong priority” following the Los Angeles fires.

“Your place is the governor. You have a job to do and now you just want to sit on a chair and act like you’re buddies with people?” said Rutan, who sported a bedazzled red-white-and-blue elephant pin. “You have people in the state you need to take care of. Why aren’t you doing your job? And that’s what I’m most annoyed with.”

Americans will likely face higher prices on items for their Thanksgiving dinners this year.

Turkey, typically the centerpiece of the Thanksgiving meal, will be one of the biggest sticker shocks for consumers. Wholesale prices for a turkey have jumped 40% from a year ago, according to the Department of Agriculture. Outbreaks of avian influenza, or bird flu, and increased demand have contributed to these higher prices.

Those opting for beef instead of turkey should also prepare to pay more. Beef prices are nearly 15% higher than they were last year, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Canned vegetables are 5% more expensive compared to last year, due to higher packaging costs from the steel and aluminum tariffs the Trump administration put in place earlier this year.

President Trump announced Friday that he would be rolling back tariffs he imposed on beef, coffee, tropical fruits and other commodities, in an effort to combat high prices at grocery stores.

David Ortega, a professor and food economist at Michigan State University, said those rollbacks won't lower prices completely, as tariffs aren't the only cause of increasing prices.

"By removing the tariffs, what we're doing is we're slowing down the increase in the price of many of these goods," Ortega said. "So while we may not see prices go down for the holidays, it helps in terms of moderating the price increases that we've been accustomed to at the grocery store."

Some grocery items have seen some price decreases in time for the holiday season. Egg prices have seen a decline from earlier this year, and domestic wine prices are down about 1.2% from last year due to a steady supply and softening demand.

Ortega says buying fresh produce rather than canned fruits or vegetables is one way consumers can avoid higher prices from aluminum packaging. He also recommends shoppers plan their meals out in advance, look for private label or store brands over name brands, and shop early for certain items to take advantage of sales or promotions grocery stores might have.

"It really pays off to plan ahead and create a shopping list, making sure you're sticking to it and avoiding impulse purchases," Ortega said.
Copyright 2025 NPR

This story was originally published by Boyle Heights Beat on Nov. 17, 2025.

After a report revealed federal immigration agents are allowed to interfere in medical decisions at Adventist Health White Memorial, the Boyle Heights Immigrant Rights Network is calling for hospital administrators to uphold patient privacy and ensure that staff can advocate for patients without retaliation.

The article, published by LAist on Oct. 9, reported that hospital administrators are blocking doctors from properly treating detainees who need emergency care. Administrators at White Memorial have told doctors not to call a detained patient’s family members, even to find out what type of medication they’re on or what conditions they have, doctors told LAist.

Community demands stronger protections

Since then, community stakeholders who are part of the Boyle Heights Immigrant Rights Network presented demands at a Nov. 5 meeting with hospital leaders, including Kerry Heinrich, the president and chief executive officer of Adventist Health System, and John Raffoul, president of Adventist Health White Memorial.

As part of those demands, the network — which is made up of residents and community leaders from organizations like Legacy LA, InnerCity Struggle and Centro CSO — wants immigration agents out of patient rooms during medical consultations and procedures. Many in the network have deep ties to White Memorial, including having friends who were born there or taking their children for care at the hospital.

Hospital issues memo in response to community concerns

In response, White Memorial, in a Nov. 12 memo, thanked community leaders for sharing their concerns and outlined the following five points:

• “Every patient’s privacy is protected and respected. We follow the laws that keep people’s medical information private, and we take that responsibility very seriously.
• Doctors and nurses make care decisions together with their patients. No outside groups tell them how to treat a patient.
• When there is a medical reason to contact a family, our team can do that through the right process. There are rules we must follow, but our goal is always to support care and connection whenever possible.
• Law enforcement officers cannot interfere with medical care or put anyone’s safety at risk. Our hospital protects the privacy and safety of everyone here — patients, families, and staff.
• We stand by our care teams. They are supported and protected as they care for every person with kindness and respect.”

“We know trust takes time to build and can be lost quickly. Many of you told us that trust has been broken, and we understand that. We want to keep earning your trust through open communication, transparency, and action, not just words,” the memo reads.

The memo — signed by Juan De La Cruz, president of the Adventist Health White Memorial Charitable Foundation — does not specifically address the network’s demand that agents be kept out of patient rooms during medical consultations and procedures.

Leaders say the memo falls short of key demands

Raquel Roman, executive director of Proyecto Pastoral, which operates the Boyle Heights Immigrant Rights Network, said White Memorial’s memo is a “good first attempt.” But, she added, “it doesn’t meet the demands we presented.”

“There is still opportunity to continue dialogue,” Roman said.

“Ultimately, we want to make sure our community and the doctors treating our community feel safe being at White Memorial, whether they go in there on their own or if somebody gets detained by ICE,” she said.

Lucy Herrera, executive director of Legacy LA, said the memo contained “a lot of gray area.”

“The way they [White Memorial] responded in the memo makes it seem like they’ve already been doing all of these things, when we’ve been hearing the opposite,” said Herrera.

Herrera said an open dialogue with White Memorial can be beneficial. “As a coalition, I want to stay vigilant to ensure that they comply with our demands,” she said.

Adventist Health White Memorial Hospital in Boyle Heights.

(

Steve Saldivar

/

The LA Local

)

For Henry Perez, executive director of InnerCity Struggle, the memo “signals that they have heard the community’s concerns.” However, he said, the hospital’s response is doing the “bare minimum.” As a hospital, “they already should be protecting patients’ privacy,” he said.

“White Memorial has the opportunity to fully stand with our immigrant communities … and it falls short of really communicating and conveying that they understand the horrors that our community is going through at the hands of ICE agents,” Perez said.

Sol Márquez, with the social justice group Centro CSO, wants White Memorial to make specific assurances that hospital staff won’t be punished when advocating for patients. In the memo, Marquez said, “I don’t think that they’re actually saying anything concrete.”

“We just really don’t want any of the staff to be reprimanded for asking ICE to leave the room, and for trying to make a rightful connection with the detainees and their families,” Márquez said.

Network presses for concrete changes in ongoing talks

As part of efforts to call attention to the issue, Centro CSO launched a petition soon after the LAist article was published, calling for White Memorial to uphold HIPAA, the federal law that safeguards patient privacy, and to bar U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from making medical decisions for patients.

It urges White Memorial not to retaliate against or reprimand doctors and nurses “for asking ICE to leave examination rooms.”

Sammy Carrera with Centro CSO said the petition has garnered more than 300 signatures so far.

The petition highlights the role of White Memorial in Boyle Heights.

“White Memorial is situated in a working-class neighborhood made up of predominantly Chicano, Latino, and undocumented people. ICE is bringing detainees to this hospital knowing their presence threatens the very community they are attacking and deporting,” the petition reads.

The Boyle Heights Immigrant Rights Network is meeting to discuss next steps. De La Cruz notes in the memo that the hospital is “committed to keeping the conversation going.”

“We are opening our doors for guided visits to help you see how care works inside the hospital. We are also creating new ways for you to be part of hospital discussions and advisory groups,” the memo reads.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting agreed Monday to fulfill a $36 million, multi-year contract with NPR that it had yanked after pressure from the Trump White House.

The arrangement resolves litigation filed by NPR accusing the corporation of illegally yielding to Trump's demands that the network be financially punished for its news coverage. The argument, part of a broader lawsuit by NPR and several stations against the Trump administration, focused on CPB funding for NPR's operation of a satellite distribution system for local public radio stations. NPR announced Monday it would waive all fees for the stations associated with the satellite service.

The judge in the case had explicitly told CPB's legal team he did not find its defense credible. CPB lawyers had argued that the decision to award the contract to a new consortium of public media institutions was driven by a desire to foster digital innovations more swiftly.

"The settlement is a victory for editorial independence and a step toward upholding the First Amendment rights of NPR and the public media system in our legal challenge to [Trump's] Executive Order," Katherine Maher, President and CEO of NPR, said in a statement. "While we entered into this dispute with CPB reluctantly, we're glad to resolve it in a way that enables us to continue to provide for the stability of the Public Radio Satellite System, offer immediate and direct support to public radio stations across the country, and proceed with our strong and substantive claims against this illegal and unconstitutional Executive Order. We look forward to our day in court in December."

In its submission Monday evening to the court, CPB did not concede that it had acted wrongfully — nor that it had yielded to political pressure from the administration.

Instead, in a statement posted on its website, CPB asserted its side "prevails" as a result of the settlement.

"This is an important moment for public media," said Patricia Harrison, President and CEO of CPB. "We are very pleased that this costly and unnecessary litigation is over, and that our investment in the future through [Public Media Infrastructure] marks an exciting new era for public media." CPB had awarded a rival contract to PMI, a newly created consortium of public radio organizations including several major stations, to ensure the digital distribution system functions properly. That contract will continue, CPB said.

Federal subsidies for public broadcasting stopped on Oct. 1 as a result of a party-line vote over the summer by Congress, called a rescission. Only a skeleton crew remains at CPB, which was created as a nonprofit corporation more than a half-century ago to funnel federal subsidies to public media. While PBS has had layoffs and NPR is monitoring its own finances, many local stations across the country have been hit hard.

Over the course of the litigation this fall, mounting evidence appeared to demonstrate that CPB's board chair and executives had acted against NPR in what turned out to be a futile attempt to salvage the corporation's own future.

In hearings last month in Washington, D.C., U.S. District Court Judge Randolph Moss told CPB's legal team they had not made a credible case for why the corporation reneged on the contract just a day after a top White House official warned senior CPB leaders against doing business with NPR. A trial had been set to start on Dec. 1.

CPB's change of mind — and NPR's ensuing lawsuit — sparked consternation and unease within the larger public media ecosystem. The two organizations had served as partners for decades. But that relationship frayed earlier this year, as the system came under attack from the Trump administration.

Trump's public campaign against NPR and PBS started in earnest soon after he returned to the White House. Trump kicked it into high gear in late March with a series of social media posts.

In early April, CPB leaders sought to get money out the door before Trump took action against public media. On April 2, CPB's board approved the extension of a contract with NPR to distribute public radio programs, including those not produced by NPR. The arrangement stretched back four decades. The amount included millions still due on the then-current contract.

The next day, CPB's board chair and two senior executives met with a top White House budget official who attested to her "intense dislike for NPR." The budget official told them CPB didn't have to "throw the baby out with the bathwater," according to a deposition from CPB executive Clayton Barsoum submitted as part of NPR's legal filings.

And the day after that — just 48 hours after that board vote — CPB reversed itself. CPB executive Kathy Merritt informed NPR's top official over the satellite and distribution service that it had to be spun off: it could not be part of NPR. NPR refused to do so. CPB revised the scope of the contract and solicited new bids. NPR's submission proved unsuccessful.

Meanwhile, the White House was ramping up the pressure. It accused NPR and PBS of bias. On April 14, for example, it issued a formal statement that called their offerings "radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news'." NPR and PBS's chief executives have rejected the accusations of bias.

On May 1, Trump issued an executive order that no federal money should go to the two public broadcasting networks. NPR and three Colorado public radio stations then filed suit against the White House, saying they were being unlawfully punished because the president did not like their news coverage. They contended the executive order represented a violation of First Amendment protections. Their suit names CPB as a defendant as well for, in their characterization, bending to the president's will. In Monday's legal filing, CPB agreed that the executive order was precisely the sort of government interference that Congress sought to prevent in establishing CPB as it did.

In the summer, Republican leaders in the U.S. Congress, urged on by Trump, pulled back all $1.1 billion for future public broadcasting that had already been approved and signed into law by the president.

Throughout the legal battle, NPR has said, regardless of the outcome of the case, it would work with Public Media Infrastructure.

NPR's broader constitutional case against Trump's executive order purporting to ban federal funding of public media continues. A hearing on its merits is scheduled for December.

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik. It was edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and Managing Editors Gerry Holmes and Vickie Walton-James. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no NPR corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.
Copyright 2025 NPR