Newsom’s Two-Faced Trump Truce

California Gov. Gavin Newsom says he wants to “work with” President Trump—while simultaneously building a legal war chest to fight him, raising a blunt question about whether “defending democracy” has become a catch-all slogan for political resistance.

Quick Take

Newsom publicly offered cooperation with Trump after the 2024 election, but paired it with a warning about defending the Constitution and rule of law.
Within a day, Newsom announced a special legislative session aimed at funding lawsuits against anticipated Trump policies.
Reported targets included immigration (such as DACA), abortion-related disputes, environmental regulations, and even potential fights over federal disaster aid.
The available reporting does not show Newsom warning that Trump would “stay in power forever”; his stated concern centered on constitutional norms and federalism.

Newsom’s “Work Together” Message Came With a Legal Trigger

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s first public response after Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election struck a careful tone. Newsom said California would seek to work with the incoming president, while also saying the state would stand with others to defend the Constitution and uphold the rule of law. He framed “federalism” as a cornerstone of democracy—language that signals cooperation in theory, but conflict when Washington and Sacramento collide.

That balancing act matters because it shapes how large blue states relate to a Republican White House in 2026. Conservatives generally support federalism as a constitutional design that limits centralized power, but Newsom’s version often functions as a shield for progressive policy priorities. The practical question is not whether states can sue—of course they can—but whether constant litigation becomes a substitute for legislating, governing, and delivering results on public safety, affordability, and border-related spillover.

A Special Session Was Called to “Trump-Proof” California

On Nov. 7, 2024—one day after Newsom’s post—he called a special legislative session set to begin Dec. 2, 2024, aimed at preparing California to litigate against Trump administration actions. The reporting described the move as the first of several actions, with lawmakers and the governor arguing the state should not “sit idle.” The session was designed to allocate funding to state agencies and the attorney general for anticipated legal fights.

Politico and CalMatters reported that the expected areas of conflict included immigration policy such as DACA, abortion-related disputes, environmental regulations like clean-vehicle rules, and even concerns about federal disaster aid being withheld. In other words, the “work together” language coexisted with a plan that assumed major confrontation almost immediately. For voters who prioritize limited government, this approach is a reminder that political outcomes often move from the ballot box to the courtroom.

What the Record Shows—and What It Doesn’t—About “Staying in Power Forever”

The claim that Newsom “warned Trump was trying to stay in power forever” is not supported by the reporting provided. The Fox News coverage describes Newsom warning broadly about defending constitutional norms, and the other cited outlets focus on litigation planning and the rationale for a special session. None of the cited summaries include language asserting that Trump would remain in office permanently, and the research notes that such a claim is “unsubstantiated” based on the available sources.

That distinction is important for readers trying to separate rhetoric from verifiable statements. When a political leader invokes the Constitution and “rule of law,” conservatives should ask: Which specific constitutional provision is at risk, and what concrete action is being alleged? In this case, the evidence presented points to a familiar blue-state strategy—pre-positioning lawsuits against an incoming administration—rather than documentation of a specific “forever power” warning attributed to Newsom.

The Deeper Political Stakes: Resistance Politics and 2028 Ambitions

California’s posture did not come out of nowhere. During Trump’s first term, the state filed more than 120 lawsuits challenging federal policies across immigration, environmental rules, and health care, reinforcing a governing model that treats federal courts as a primary battleground. Experts cited in the coverage also tied the post-election moment to Newsom’s rising national profile after Harris’s loss, with analysis suggesting he could “lead the resistance” for years.

For conservatives watching in 2026, the through-line is clear: progressive leaders are still organizing around institutional confrontation—often framed as “saving democracy”—even after voters delivered a decisive change in Washington. If Newsom’s special session mainly expands California’s capacity to sue, the immediate effect is more taxpayer-funded legal combat and a colder federal-state relationship. The longer-term effect is political: litigation becomes a national audition, and governance becomes secondary.