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.”

Three candidates for Long Beach City Council have joined forces in their bid to unseat the incumbents they’re challenging in the primary election this June.

Deb Kahookele, running for District 1; Tara Riggi, running for District 5; and Sequoia Neff, running for District 9, announced their combined ticket in a video published on social media earlier this month.

At a joint campaign event in front of around 100 people in Bixby Knolls on Wednesday, they reiterated their goal of “breaking up the 9-0 votes” they say are all too common on the mostly closely aligned Long Beach City Council, where it’s rare to see a narrowly-split vote.

All three are political newcomers, coming from careers in real estate.

They’ve claimed the grassroots lane this election, winning backing from resident groups like the Long Beach Reform Coalition that views itself as a check on City Hall power, occasionally suing — and winning — on tax issues.

Kahookele, Riggi and Neff say they feel disenfranchised from the current city government, something they emphasize in their slogan: people over politics.

They’re taking on three well-established incumbents: Mary Zendejas in the downtown area’s District 1, Joni Ricks-Oddie in North Long Beach’s District 9 and Megan Kerr in District 5 that extends east and west from Long Beach Airport. The three have already raised tens of thousands of dollars each for their reelection races and won endorsements from the mayor, other local politicians, labor and business groups.

Tara Riggi, center, and Sequoia Neff, left, talk with voters before a campaign event in Long Beach on March 19, 2026. Riggi is running for the District 5 seat.

(

Thomas R. Cordova

/

Long Beach Post

)

Riggi said she decided to run for office after moving to the Cal Heights neighborhood and becoming president of the neighborhood association.

“My allegiance is to my community,” Riggi said at the event. “We are a truly grassroots campaign.”

Kahookele, who moved around a lot at an early age because her father was in the Army, said she found Long Beach home after moving to the city in 2010 and has since risen to prominent roles in several local organizations, including the Promenade Area Residents Association, Long Beach Pride and Long Beach Rotary.

“My votes aren’t going to be bought,” she said.

Deb Kahookele speaks with voters at a campaign event in Long Beach on Wednesday, March 19, 2026. She is running for the District 1 City Council seat.

(

Thomas R. Cordova

/

Long Beach Post

)

Neff, a Poly High School grad and mother of six who founded a local youth basketball league and track club, owns a brokerage firm that operates in multiple states. Early this year, she held a walk to raise awareness about human trafficking in her district.

“North Long Beach has been unheard and overlooked for too long,” Neff said. “And it’s time we’re a part of the conversation, and I just want to step up and do that.”

At Wednesday’s campaign event, they repeatedly hit on the theme that current representatives aren’t doing enough to represent their constituents, and they vowed to dig into the city’s spending to remedy a looming $80 million deficit. They pledged to vote against the possibility of any new tax measures.

Sequoia Neff speaks with voters before a campaign event in Long Beach on Wednesday, March 19, 2026. Neff is a candidate for the District 9 seat.

(

Thomas R. Cordova

/

Long Beach Post

)

North Long Beach resident James Murray said he showed up Wednesday to hear more from Neff after she attended a recent Starr King Neighborhood Association meeting, and he came away convinced.

“I think it’s time for a change,” he said.

Dan Pressburg, a longtime neighborhood organizer in the DeForest Park neighborhood, said the three candidates joining together was the right move: He wants people outside the current political structure to have a chance to rise to power.

You can see a full list of candidates who will appear on the June ballot here. The Long Beach Post will have continuing coverage, including a full voter guide to be published in the coming months.

The Trump administration has reshaped a lesser-known corner of the Justice Department to set immigration policy and escalate mass detentions and deportations.

An administrative court known as the Board of Immigration Appeals has published a body of immigration case law that significantly narrows the due process and relief from deportation available for immigrants, an NPR analysis of its decisions shows.

The White House has done that by shrinking the size of the board by nearly half — and stacking the remaining slate of 15 judges with President Donald Trump's appointees.

Last year, their decisions backed Department of Homeland Security lawyers in 97% of publicly posted cases; that's at least 30 percentage points higher than the average from the last 16 years.

The board has made it harder for immigration courts to offer immigrants bond in lieu of detention. It's made it easier to deport migrants to countries other than their own. And a new proposed regulation would make it harder for people to appeal their immigration decisions at all.

The board did this last year while quickly pumping out 70 published decisions, a record number of precedent-setting cases.

"The board has an impact on immigration law that is much, much bigger than the number of people that are on it," said Andrea Sáenz, a former board judge appointed by former President Joe Biden and terminated by Trump last year. "That's because they have this ability to set immigration precedents and rules for the whole country."

Immigration courts are housed within the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, at the Justice Department and are not a part of the independent judiciary.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys appear before these courts to make their arguments about why someone should be removed from the country. Immigrants, meanwhile, appear before these courts to make their case about why they should be allowed to stay in the U.S.

The point of the Board of Immigration Appeals, former members and immigration attorneys said, is to catch mistakes made by immigration judges. After an immigration judge issues a decision, both the immigrant and ICE have a right to appeal that decision.

"The stakes are so incredibly high in the immigration proceedings and the law is so complicated and convoluted and difficult," said Victoria Neilson, supervising attorney at the National Immigration Project at the National Lawyers Guild. "Even assuming that [immigration judges] are acting in good faith, they're going to get things wrong sometimes because the laws are changing all the time."

Former BIA judge Katharine Clark had been at the DOJ for over 15 years and joined the Board in 2023.

She worked there until she received her reduction in force notice last year.

She said she reviewed thousands of cases in her role. These reviews were meant to catch overlooked details in an immigrant's case or testimony that could make the difference between approving or denying a deportation order.

"We lose an absolutely crucial method of catching errors by immigration judges who are absolutely flooded with cases," Clark said about the administration's gutting of the board. "In this situation, mistakes are essentially inevitable."

A DOJ spokesperson, who provided a statement sourced to the agency, said EOIR is "restoring integrity to the immigration adjudication system, and Board of Immigration Appeals decisions reflect straightforward interpretations of clear statutory language."

"President Trump and the Department of Justice will continue to enforce the law as it is written to defend and protect the safety and security of the American people," the spokesperson said.

"Under the leadership of Chief Appellate Immigration Judge Garry Malphrus, the BIA is now recommitted to following the law and fulfilling its core adjudicatory mission."

Trump changed the makeup of the board

Within a month of taking office, leadership in the new Trump administration moved forward with a reduction in force, cutting the number of appellate judge slots on the board from 28 to 15. The first to be dismissed were the most recent hires: those appointed by Biden.

Those had been there longer were also a part of the reduction in force or resigned soon after.

The changes in the workforce mirror a pattern seen across the federal government, especially immigration courts, where in the last year at least 100 judges were fired, and more resigned or retired. An NPR analysis last month found there are now a quarter fewer immigration judges than there were at the start of 2025.

Justice Department leaders have sent several memos and directives signaling to judges and appellate members that they want streamlined asylum and bond denials.

EOIR did not respond to a request for comment on the reduction in force. In the federal register notice announcing the reduction, the agency says a larger board wasn't more productive at reviewing more cases.

"Although many factors may have contributed to this outcome—including organizational and administrative challenges—the data demonstrate that increasing the Board's size has not brought about the hoped-for increases in productivity envisioned by prior expansions," the notice states.

Making rapid policy changes

BIA's public decisions set the precedent and tone for what immigration judges nationwide should do and how the general public should interpret immigration law and policy.

The number of such decisions has skyrocketed under Trump — as the board seeks to cement a particular interpretation of the law. An NPR analysis looked at BIA decisions over the past four administrations, going back to 2009.

It found that in 2025, the agency published 70 decisions. That is nearly as many as all of the decisions posted publicly under Biden and the single highest yearly total since 2009.

Judges that make up BIA panels reviewing appeals could consider tens of thousands of cases a year, but the vast majority are never made public.

"There are thousands and thousands of unpublished decisions that come out of the board every year that are your ordinary cases. And then normally, you'd maybe have two or three dozen precedents that are intended to explain a part of the law in more detail," said Sáenz, now with Co-Counsel NYC, a nonprofit immigration law organization. "And they're intended to be binding on the whole country and all immigration judges and [U.S. Citizenship and immigration Services] to say, this is how you actually follow this piece of the law."

ICE attorneys generally receive favorable orders in most cases against immigrants before the board, according to the data included in NPR's analysis; 2015 was the only exception, where immigrants won more cases than the administration did.

But in 2025 the government won 97% of the public cases brought before the board — a new high. In one of two cases in which the board did not side with DHS, DHS attorneys failed to appear at the initial hearing.

Already in 2026, NPR has tracked 21 decisions with DHS winning all but one of them, according to an NPR analysis of published decisions. The one case where the board ruled in favor of an immigrant involved the person withdrawing their appeal for asylum; they had already been granted another protection from deportation.

"Tangible effect on the lives of millions"

The administration "came in this time knowing we don't necessarily need to have immigration judges in place, we need to have the policy in place," said former BIA judge Homero Lopez, who was appointed by Biden and let go last year. "And the policy gets made by the board, not by the immigration judges."

Neilson, the attorney at the National Immigration Project, said recent decisions "have formed the backbone for how immigration judges" are allowed to consider asylum and bond cases.

"They've issued several decisions that make it impossible or nearly impossible for those who can seek bond from the immigration judge to even get bond," she said.

The BIA has made at least three decisions that limit whether an immigrant can be granted bond to be out of detention while their case plays out in the courts.

In one case, Matter of Yajure Hurtado, the board ruled that immigration judges have to deny bond and detain noncitizens who entered the country illegally. Several district court judges have rebuked the Trump administration's mandatory detention policy. Still, EOIR leaders in January instructed immigration judges to defer to Hurtado's case as precedent and to deny bond.

Federal appellate courts are now weighing in on the matter.

"The decisions that the board has made to take away the option of getting immigration bonds for various large groups of people has been by far the most impactful thing that has happened there since I left," said Clark, the former BIA judge. "It really has had a tangible effect on the lives of millions of people."

Other BIA decisions have paved the way for the government to more easily deport people to third countries — those countries other than their home country.

Proposed rule meant to curtail further appeals

At the start of 2026, the administration started phasing in more changes. A newly proposed rule would have shortened the window for immigrants' appeals to the board from 30 days to 10, and made it easier for appeals to the BIA to be dismissed before being heard.

The rule was aimed at reducing the BIA's pending backlog, which topped 200,000 cases as of the end of last year, according to EOIR.

Five immigrant rights organizations sued the administration, successfully arguing the rule would limit due process by straining legal services in order to meet the shorter deadlines.

A federal district judge last week blocked most of the new rule from taking effect, calling it unlawful and unenforceable.

Judge Randolph Moss on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said the government offered only one reason why immigration attorneys might see a reduced workload thanks to the rule: they would "quickly lose virtually every appeal that they bring before the Board."

"Defendants' argument is like telling Habitat for Humanity that a rule limiting new home construction will help, rather than hurt, the organization because it will incur fewer costs acquiring lumber and nails," Moss wrote in his opinion.

The lawsuit is still ongoing. EOIR said it does not comment on litigation-related matters.

"If someone feels like they had their fair day in court and they just didn't meet the legal standard, people can kind of accept that," Nielson said. "But if you give up everything to follow the rules and then suddenly the rules disappear, that seems very un-American."

This story used artificial intelligence to help analyze 634 cases that were decided by the Board of Immigration Appeals from January 1, 2009 to March 18, 2026. For each case, the AI tool determined whether the panel had decided for the Department of Homeland Security or for the immigrant. NPR reporters tested and verified the accuracy of the tool's results, and an independent lawyer who manually tracked court cases for 2021 and 2015 reviewed the analysis and confirmed the results.

Copyright 2026 NPR