Trump-Proofing: Good Policy or Good Politics?
Image credit: Government of California
California has long been a thorn in the side of Donald Trump, but Governor Gavin Newsom’s push to “Trump-proof” the state seems to take resistance to an entirely new level. Following the 2024 election, Governor Newsom announced that California would “seek to work with the incoming president,” but “stand with states across our nation to defend our Constitution and uphold the rule of law.” While Democrats have characteristically been called — sometimes pejoratively — the party of “big government” and strengthening the federal government, Newsom asserted that this is the “United STATES of America.” While this initial statement was short, he emphasized the importance of federalism as a signal of what was to come.
Looking back at the first Trump presidency, California was a crucial balancing figure to Trump’s actions. California spent over $41 million during the first Trump administration, filing 110 lawsuits to contest his policies. This emphasizes its proactive stance in opposing federal policies that conflicted with the majority party’s interests. This substantial financial commitment to contesting the first Trump administration’s actions demonstrates California’s dedication to key progressive initiatives. Some notable cases California filed include saving DACA, blocking a question on the 2020 census regarding immigration status, and many environmental lawsuits. The state’s legal challenges not only aimed to protect its residents but set precedents that influenced national choices. It may surprise few, then, that California Attorney General Rob Bonta held a press conference following the 2024 election promising to continue this effort and fight the incoming Trump administration on every front.
What was more surprising, however, was Governor Newsom’s statement one day after his initial reaction to the 2024 statement. In a proclamation on November 7, Newsom convened the California legislature to “Trump-proof” California. Despite the potential $2 billion budget shortfall projected for next year, Newsom wanted the incoming session of the California legislature to pass laws to prepare the state to fight the actions of the new Trump administration. Now that President Trump has entered office, what has happened? Did California successfully “Trump-proof” the state, or was this just rhetoric to stir up a saddened and frustrated base? While the story is still unfolding, this article seeks to unpack these questions and answer whether Trump-proofing a state is good policy or just good politics.
Before I begin my analysis of the state’s actions, it is necessary to note that the special session may not be what was first intended. After Governor Newsom called the California legislature into session, multiple massive wildfires ignited in the greater Los Angeles area. These fires caused an estimated $250 billion in damage, an unimaginable amount that will take decades to rebuild. The fires also decreased the salience of the issue and the resources the governor and legislature could divert to fighting the incoming Trump administration. They have increased the costs of such a blatantly partisan special session, as the image of legislators passing bills to fight Republicans while fires are burning isn’t great. Lastly, California must spend billions of dollars to help rebuild from these fires, reducing the resources they could give to fighting the incoming administration. As a result, in a (much better) world where these fires did not occur, this article might have been much different. As it is, I will focus on the limited actions the California legislature has taken and may potentially take to prepare for the new presidential administration.
In January, the California legislature passed two bills to give the California attorney general and nonprofits that provide legal services over $50 million in additional funding to sue future Trump administration policies. Essentially, the state is attempting to give themselves the resources to do what they did (and more) during Trump’s first term. California is attempting to expand the legal resistance efforts that defined Trump’s first stint in office. This bill has already seen some action — California joined twenty-two other states to challenge Trump’s executive order limiting the definition of birthright citizenship. While these bills may seem the most tame, they may be the most impactful. California was successful in beating back some of the first Trump administration’s most controversial actions, and in a second Trump presidency promised to be much more unhinged, it may be more important than ever. Is this good politics or good policy? It most likely goes into the latter category. It may not be the most attractive policy, but it will likely have the most material and lasting impact.
A policy that Newsom promised which has not seen legislative action is a recreation of the federal electric vehicle tax credit. While Trump promised to eliminate the tax credit during his campaign and issued an order to do so, the order may not survive legal challenges. California had an electric vehicle rebate program beginning in 2010, but it expired in June of 2023. According to the governor’s office, the state program helped fund more than 594,000 vehicles and saved more than 456 million gallons of fuel. Trump issued an executive order in which he indicated he would seek to roll back a $7,500 tax credit for EV purchases that was a part of the Inflation Reduction Act. Newsom’s proposed tax credit could help mitigate the loss of the federal program, a necessary action given the state’s action to ban new gas car sales by 2035. While the California legislature has yet to take this question up, it would be another good policy that could help combat climate emissions.
In calling for a special session, Governor Newsom said that “the freedoms we hold dear in California are under attack — and we won’t sit idle.” While Newsom and the legislature have yet to announce any new programs to fight the Trump administration, this language calls back to another article I wrote for the Davis Political Review — California abortion shield laws. California passed laws to protect abortion providers and patients from bans or lawsuits in other states, prevent tech companies from complying with abortion-related investigations by other states, and enshrine the right in the state constitution. Given the state has employed the strategy before, could they do it again? This concept of a state going against other states’ laws is, undoubtedly, dangerous. In the United States, a law in one place should be enforced in another; what would it look like if you could commit a crime in State A but seek refuge in State B? What if you could set fire to a Planned Parenthood in Washington but be protected in Idaho, for example? However, I would not be surprised if California and other deep-blue states pursued these strategies of shield laws on issues such as abortion and immigration while attempting to penalize people in other states for climate-related issues.
While the Los Angeles fires may be part of the reason, Governor Newsom’s calling for a special legislative session to pass two bills to increase funding for the attorney general seems a bit excessive. His actions may have been more political theater rather than political action. It is no secret that Newsom wants to run for president, and calling for a special session two days after the election may have given him the attention he wanted. Newsom framed himself as the leader of the Democratic resistance against Trump 2.0, setting himself up perfectly for a 2028 run for the office. Calling for a special session attracted nationwide coverage for him, and even if they ended up doing little to nothing, he still got the name recognition boost that is so important in an open primary. Therefore, while the actions Newsom and the California Democrats took during the special session may have been good policy, the special session alone appears to be more about political strategy than substantive governance.