While I’m not privy to every course that Gavin Newsom took in college, I suspect that at some point during his undergraduate days at Santa Clara University he stumbled across the works of William Shakespeare.
How else to explain a recent media kerfuffle involving California’s governor that amounts to “much ado about nothing”?
At issue: the debut of Newsom’s newest podcast (This Is Gavin Newsom) featuring a dialogue between the progressive governor and conservative activist Charlie Kirk—that conversation, at one point, turning to the hot-button issue of people assigned male at birth competing in women’s sports, which President Trump railed against in his recent joint address to Congress. (Trump also issued an executive order in early February rescinding “all funds from educational programs that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities.”)
Here's what went down in the podcast:
Kirk: “Would you say no men in female sports?”
Newsom: “I think it’s an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness. It’s deeply unfair.”
And here’s how two Democratic-friendly media outlets reacted:
The New York Times: “Newsom Splits with Democrats on Transgender Athletes”
Politico: “Newsom’s Move on Trans Athletes Jolts 2028 Campaign”
I chose those two news organizations purposely, for they’re where Democratic donors turn, as they await the beginning of the next presidential campaign cycle, to read the tea leaves (translation: who’s up, who’s down, who’s worth bankrolling in the early primaries).
Here, Newsom has work to do if one turns to a yet another traditionally Democratic-friendly publication, The Washington Post, and its ranking of 12 possible 2028 hopefuls who could “assert control over the listless vessel that is the Democratic Party.”
Newsom’s spot in the top 12: ninth, five spots behind fellow Californian Kamala Harris (in April 2023, the Post placed Newsom fifth among 10 possible 2024 Democratic presidential candidates).
So if this was Newsom’s intent in creating the podcast—spark a controversy that (a) will get the media to talk about him; (b) suggest that rather than a run-of-the-mill California progressive, he’s actually more of a nuanced “maverick”; and (c) bump his presidential stock—then he succeeded brilliantly.
Especially when one considers that what Newsom had to say has zero to do with actually changing current state or federal policy.
For example, Newsom didn’t indicate whether he supported a congressional bill banning transgender atheltes from competing in women’s sports (not a single Democratic senator voted for it, though two Texas Democrats did when the House considered a companion measure).
Nor did Californa’s governor suggest that his personal concerns about women athletes being at a competitive disadvantage will lead to action in Sacramento—i.e., whether he’d push to amend the state’s education code or pressure the California Interscholastic Federation (that’s for high school sports), the California Community College Athletic Association, or the NCAA to change existing policies (California is one of 24 states that allow transgender student athletes to join teams in accordance with their gender identity).
In fairness to Newsom, perhaps he was being earnest when he decribed the sports status quo as “unfair.” He is, after all, the father of two daughters who’ve yet to cycle through secondary and collegiate athletics (they currently attend a private school in Marin County). Perhaps he’s also swayed by California’s “First Partner,” herself a youth and college soccer player. Although, Jennifer Siebel Newsom recently spoke at a “sports equity” event organized by groups supporting trans girls’ rights.
Buttressing the argument that Newsom is making a political calculation: His portrayed “change of heart” pertains to a topic that polls terribly for the left. This recent New York Times/Ipsos poll found that nearly four of five Americans believe trans athletes should not be allowed to participate in women’s sports (a May 2023 Gallup poll placed the same sentiment at 69%). That includes 67% of Democrats polled, thus putting Newsom in more of a mainstream position.
Moreover, Newsom’s smart enough to know that the intersection of gender identity and sports is a topic that sends the most progressive elements of his party into a frenzy.
According to this statement by the executive director of Equality California, the state’s leading LGBTQ+ advoacy group: “Instead of standing strong, the Governor has added to the heartbreak and fear caused by the relentless barrage of hate from the Trump Administration.”
The Human Rights Campaign likewise didn’t pull its punches: “The path to 2028 isn't paved with the betrayal of vulnerable communities. . . . it's built on the courage to stand up for what's right and do the hard work to actually help the American people.”
Not that I’m in the business of putting words in the governor’s mouth, but I’m willing to wager that any Newsom reponses to future such criticism will begin with this factoid: Two decades ago, as a San Francisco mayor, he defied state and federal law by handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Time will tell where Newsom goes with his podcast, including his choice of guests (does he seek out intellectual heavweights like Hoover’s Victor Davis Hanson or tap conservative personalities less steeped in policy?) and combustible topics (the Kirk podcast also touched on defunding the police and the left’s insistence on announcing their chosen personal pronouns to others).
There’s another way to look at Newsom’s latest attempt at broadcasting (he also does a podcast with the former football player Marshawn Lynch that was supposed to be apolitical but isn’t): It’s keeping with modern celebrity culture and information oversharing.
On Netflix, another Californian who wants to be liked in “flyover America” regales the world with her culinary acumen (even if it’s not her kitchen) and hostess skills (even if it’s a nearby luxury farmhouse and not the actual Montecito estate she shares with her princely husband). That would be Meghan Markle, engaging in image repair.
As this New York Post columnist sees it: “The new showbiz is hawking lurid personal revelations—for clout, online influence, or to sell whatever crappy product they’ve slapped their name on.”
Not that what Newsom had to say during the course of his one-on-one with Charlie Kirk could be characterized as “lurid.” Nor am I suggesting the governor is peddling a “crappy product.” But he does benefit politically – well, in terms of sheer volume of political media coverage – when his words are construed as daring to go where other prominent 2028 Democrats.
Paul on the road to Damascus? Not exactly.
But maybe Gavin Newsom has seen the light—in choosing his words carefully (maybe deliberately), on a podcast that could prove useful on the roads of America’s swing states.
