In a stunning display of political theater that ignores basic facts, California Governor Gavin Newsom’s recent outburst against federal election monitors has exposed both his selective outrage and apparent ignorance of his own party’s identical practices.
The Democratic governor launched into an impassioned tirade against the deployment of federal election monitors, falsely claiming this represents unprecedented interference by former President Trump. However, readily available evidence reveals that President Biden’s Department of Justice has repeatedly sent election monitors to California and other states during non-federal elections.
The facts are clear and unambiguous: The Biden administration deployed election monitors to California during both the 2022 and 2024 general elections. Furthermore, the current administration has sent election resources to multiple non-federal contests, including Alaska municipal elections in October 2023, New Jersey’s off-year general election in 2023, and Mississippi’s off-year general election that same year.
When confronted with these inconvenient facts, Newsom’s office attempted to deflect, stating, “This is not a federal election. The US DOJ has no business or basis to interfere with this election.” This statement notably fails to address why such monitoring was acceptable under the Biden administration but is suddenly problematic now.
The situation becomes even more politically charged when examining similar rhetoric from Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, who has promoted an equally unfounded narrative about National Guard deployments to crime-ridden cities. Pritzker’s assertion that such deployments are part of a broader plot to declare martial law represents the same kind of evidence-free fear-mongering that characterizes Newsom’s monitor complaints.
This pattern of behavior suggests a concerning trend among Democratic governors who appear more focused on constructing anti-Trump narratives than addressing the actual challenges facing their states. Their reactions demonstrate a clear prioritization of political theatrics over substantive governance.
Civil Rights Division head Harmeet Dhillon’s pointed response to Newsom’s claims effectively highlighted the governor’s hypocrisy, using documented facts to dismantle his partisan narrative. This exchange underscores a broader issue within Democratic political messaging: the tendency to manufacture crises while ignoring similar actions when undertaken by their own party.
The reality is that federal election monitoring has been a standard practice under both Democratic and Republican administrations. The selective outrage displayed by Newsom and Pritzker appears calculated to appeal to Democratic primary voters who prioritize anti-Trump positioning over actual policy achievements or governmental competence.
This episode serves as a stark reminder of the importance of fact-checking political claims and the danger of allowing partisan rhetoric to overshadow objective reality in our political discourse.
Related: Trump’s White House Renovation Plan Reveals Left’s Misplaced Priorities