SACRAMENTO, CA – California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed laws Friday setting aside $50 million to help the state protect its policies from challenges by the Trump administration and defend immigrants amid the president’s mass-deportation plans, reported CBS News.
The laws, explained CBS News, will set up “$25 million for the state Department of Justice to fight legal battles against the federal government, and $25 million in part for legal groups to defend immigrants facing possible deportation.”
Since Trump’s last administration, the CBS News notes “the same fights are reemerging in the early days of Trump’s second term” with the article noting the current president’s “climate laws, water policy, immigrant rights.”
CBS added that after Trump assumed office, “Newsom expanded a special session to ‘Trump-proof’ California values by calling on legislators to also prioritize the Southern California wildfire response,” including a “$2.5 billion package for fire relief into law last month to help fund the state’s disaster response including evacuations, sheltering survivors and removing household hazardous waste.”
CBS News noted that Republican lawmakers have criticized the funding for lawsuits, saying the focus on Trump is “distracting as the Los Angeles area recovers from the fires.”
GOP Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones charged, “This slush fund isn’t about solving any real problems — it’s a political stunt designed to distract from the urgent issues our state faces and it won’t bode well for fire victims.”
CBS News reported other problems, including that “critics have also said the legislation doesn’t ensure that funding wouldn’t be used to defend immigrants without legal status who have been convicted of serious felonies.”
But, added CBS, Newsom declared “the money wasn’t intended to be used for that purpose,” and encouraged lawmakers to pass subsequent legislation if clarifying that is needed.
“CBS News noted, republican lawmakers have criticized the funding for lawsuits, saying the focus on Trump is distracting as the Los Angeles area recovers from the fires.” ”
“This slush fund isn’t about solving any real problems — it’s a political stunt designed to distract from the urgent issues our state faces and it won’t bode well for fire victims.”
Newsom doesn’t realize how bad the optics look when he’s putting aside $50 million for illegals while at the same time traveling to Washington and begging Trump for disaster relief funds for Californians.
Your argument is based on optics rather than policy substance, and it conflates state budget allocations with federal disaster relief.
California’s budget decisions – whether its $50 million for undocumented residents or other programs – are made based on state priorities.
In the meantime, federal disaster relief is something Californians are entitled to as taxpayers – just like any state hit by a disaster.
Asking for federal aid isn’t “begging” – it’s actually ensuring that California gets its fair share of assistance just as every state receives in times of crisis.
Moreover, you are making a big deal out of $50 million – a tiny fraction of California’s multi-billion budget.
This just seems like you are attempting to turn disaster relief into another political talking point.
Everything you say here is probably correct, but you have to admit the “optics” look bad.
“Moreover, you are making a big deal out of $50 million – a tiny fraction of California’s multi-billion budget.”
This is something that always makes me shake my head, making $50 million sound like it’s not much money. Well not to the average taxpayer and not to those people who were burned out of their homes. California could use its own DOGE.
$50 million represents approximately 0.017% of California’s $297.9 billion budget. It’s an extremely small fraction of the overall spending.
It would take approximately 60 separate $50 million expenditures to reach just 1% of California’s total budget.
Personally, I agree with the notion that there is inefficiency in the budget. How could there not be. I don’t think the best approach is DOGE however, because you are going about it backwards. If you want to shrink a budget, reduce the budget and make each department adjust to it.