In a dramatic turn of events on June 13, 2025, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has emerged as a central figure in the escalating political showdown between President Donald Trump and California Governor Gavin Newsom. As protests over immigration raids continue to roil Los Angeles, Leavitt’s pointed remarks and strategic messaging have dealt a significant blow to Newsom’s credibility, bolstering Trump’s position as he navigates his second term with renewed vigor. This clash, rooted in a contentious deployment of the National Guard and a broader ideological battle, underscores a pivotal moment in American politics, with Trump appearing to gain the upper hand.
The conflict ignited when Trump federalized 2,000 of California’s National Guard troops on June 7, 2025, to support Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations amid violent protests in Los Angeles. This unprecedented move, the first of its kind in over half a century against a state governor’s wishes, sparked outrage from Newsom, who swiftly labeled it a “brazen abuse of power” and filed an emergency lawsuit to reclaim control of the troops. The situation escalated further when Trump deployed an additional 700 U.S. Marines, doubling the National Guard presence to 4,000, a decision Newsom decried as fulfilling “the deranged fantasy of a dictatorial president.”
Leavitt, stepping into the fray, has been instrumental in framing the narrative to Trump’s advantage. During a press briefing on June 11, she condemned the Los Angeles riots as “shameful,” accusing Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass of failing to maintain order. “The governor and the mayor need to actually do more,” Leavitt asserted, dismissing Newsom’s national address on June 10 as a hollow gesture driven by “future political ambitions.” Her remarks struck a chord, amplifying Trump’s narrative that California’s leadership is incapable of addressing the unrest, thereby justifying federal intervention.
The White House has capitalized on the chaos to portray Newsom as a leader out of touch with his constituents. Leavitt’s statement that Newsom “spoke a lot of words” but offered no solutions has been echoed across conservative media, painting the governor as more interested in posturing for a 2028 presidential run than governing effectively. This messaging aligns with Trump’s own taunts, including reviving his old nickname “Newscum” and suggesting that arresting Newsom would be “a great thing.” The administration has also hinted at cutting federal aid to California, including billions in education grants, further pressuring Newsom’s administration.
Newsom, for his part, has fought back with fiery rhetoric. In his June 10 address, he accused Trump of “fanning the flames” of the protests and targeting “hardworking immigrant families” with federal raids. He positioned himself as a defender of democracy, warning that “the moment we’ve feared has arrived” and urging Americans not to succumb to Trump’s demands for “fealty” and “silence.” This stance has garnered praise from some Democrats, with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer lauding Newsom’s refusal to be intimidated. However, it has also exposed divisions within the party, as some strategists worry that Newsom’s confrontational approach risks alienating moderates who favor Trump’s hardline immigration stance.
The legal battle over the National Guard has added another layer of complexity. On June 13, a federal appeals court temporarily blocked Newsom from regaining control of the 4,000 troops, a ruling that handed Trump a tactical victory. Newsom had argued that Trump’s deployment violated the U.S. Constitution and California’s sovereignty, but the court’s decision underscored the administration’s authority in times of national security concerns. Leavitt seized on this outcome, reinforcing the narrative that Trump is restoring “law and order” where state officials have failed, a theme that resonates with his base.
This feud has roots in a longstanding rivalry between Trump and Newsom. The two leaders have clashed repeatedly, from Trump’s earlier criticisms of California’s wildfire management to Newsom’s efforts to “Trump-proof” the state against federal overreach. The current crisis, however, has elevated their spat to national prominence, with Newsom emerging as a potential Democratic standard-bearer. Political analysts suggest that this confrontation could define Newsom’s 2028 presidential prospects, especially if he leverages it to rally the party’s progressive wing. Yet, the risk remains that Trump’s aggressive tactics and Leavitt’s effective counter-narrative could undermine Newsom’s image as a competent governor.
Leavitt’s role in this saga cannot be overstated. A relative newcomer to the national stage, she has proven adept at delivering Trump’s message with precision. Her closed-door meeting with House Republicans on June 11, where she urged them to “offensively message” the administration’s agenda, signaled a coordinated effort to maintain party unity. She also downplayed reports of a physical altercation between Elon Musk and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, framing it as a “healthy disagreement,” thus deflecting attention from internal administration tensions to the external battle with Newsom.
The Los Angeles protests, sparked by ICE raids targeting undocumented immigrants, have become a flashpoint in this political theater. Demonstrations have spread to cities like New York, Chicago, and Atlanta, with violence escalating to include burning cars and attacks on law enforcement. Trump has justified his military response as necessary to curb “mob rule,” while Newsom counters that it traumatizes communities and exacerbates the crisis. Leavitt’s use of protest imagery during briefings has effectively shifted public perception, with some polls indicating growing support for federal intervention among independent voters.
Trump’s strategic pivot from his recent fallout with Musk to targeting Newsom has been a masterstroke, according to political observers. The public split with Musk, marked by disagreements over policy and a rumored physical clash, had threatened to distract from Trump’s agenda. By focusing on Newsom, Trump has redirected attention to a high-profile adversary, reinforcing his image as a decisive leader. Leavitt’s assertion that Trump gave Newsom 24 hours to “get it together” before federalizing the Guard further underscores this proactive stance.
The economic implications of this standoff are also significant. Trump’s signing of congressional resolutions on June 13 to end California’s electric vehicle mandates and diesel engine restrictions dealt another blow to Newsom’s environmental agenda. Celebrating the move as killing “the California mandates forever,” Trump positioned himself as a champion of industry against what he calls Newsom’s “left-wing rules.” This action, combined with threats to withhold federal funds, places Newsom in a precarious position as he balances state budget priorities with political survival.
Public sentiment, as reflected in online discussions, is sharply divided. Supporters of Trump praise Leavitt’s assertiveness and view Newsom’s resistance as evidence of Democratic weakness. Critics, however, accuse the administration of authoritarian overreach, with some pointing to Leavitt’s comments on journalist Terry Moran’s suspension as an attempt to intimidate the media. Moran’s suspension by ABC News after a critical social media post about the Trump administration drew Leavitt’s rebuke, with her suggesting it reflects public distrust in legacy media—a statement that has fueled debates over press freedom.
For Newsom, the stakes are high. His defiance has won him admiration from progressive circles, but it has also invited scrutiny of his governance record. House Speaker Mike Johnson’s call to “tar and feather” Newsom and the White House’s portrayal of California as a “safe haven for violent criminal illegal aliens” have intensified the pressure. If the protests worsen or the legal challenges fail, Newsom’s national standing could suffer, potentially derailing his presidential ambitions.
As of 3:22 PM +07 on June 13, 2025, the situation remains fluid. Trump’s apparent winning streak—bolstered by Leavitt’s sharp messaging, the court ruling, and policy victories—suggests a strengthening grip on the national narrative. Newsom’s next moves, whether through legal appeals or public campaigns, will be crucial in determining whether he can reclaim the initiative. For now, Leavitt’s deft handling of the crisis has delivered a massive blow to Newsom, positioning Trump as the dominant force in this unfolding drama.
