Newsom Demands Trump Halt Republican-Led Congressional Redistricting Efforts
WHAT AN EMBARRASSMENT: Newsom’s press office published an all-caps Trumpian-style X post, promoting a frantic letter and concluding with Trump’s signature line – “Thank you for your attention to this matter”.
California Governor Gavin Newsom is a desperate little man.
Legal Insurrection has been following his exploits to maintain his rapidly diminishing relevancy, as he is term-limited and is currently ending his reign administration in 2026. And while the frantic need for media attention has been laughable, his team’s latest move is nothing short of embarrassing.
Newsom’s press office published an all-caps Trumpian-style X post, promoting a frenzied letter in which Newsom threatens Trump about redistricting California if Texas proceeds to redraw its congressional district boundaries. It ends with Trump’s new signature line: Thank you for your attention to his matter.
DONALD TRUMP HAS 24 HOURS LEFT TO RESPOND TO GOVERNOR NEWSOM’S LETTER. IF HE DOES NOT STAND DOWN, THERE WILL BE A VERY IMPORTANT PRESS CONFERENCE THIS WEEK WITH A MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.
— Governor Newsom Press Office (@GovPressOffice) August 11, 2025
The letter itself is a doozy.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom warned President Donald Trump on Monday that he will push to redraw his state’s congressional district maps if Trump does not call on Texas and other Republican-led states to end efforts to redraw their own districts.
“You are playing with fire, risking the destabilization of our democracy, while knowing that California can neutralize any gains you hope to make,” Newsom, a Democrat, wrote in a letter to Trump.
Newsom said the GOP-led states are seeking to redesign their congressional maps to “rig the upcoming midterm elections” to benefit Republican candidates.
If the Republican majority in the Texas legislature is successful in redrawing district maps, it is expected to give their party an additional five seats in the House of Representatives.
However, the reality is that the states themselves are leading the redistricting efforts. I suspect Red States are tired of the power-grab that Blue State gerrymandering has wrought. While making Trump a target of this rant may be red meat to TDS-sufferers and the media, there are other governors and their legislatures who have decided that reworking their own districts would be in the best interest of their states.
A revised Ohio map could prove to be most interesting.
Under Ohio’s current map, Republicans hold 10 congressional districts while Democrats hold five. But three of Democrats’ seats are in districts that are competitive, thanks to the mix of voters who live in them. So Republicans could greatly increase their chances of picking up those three seats by tweaking the lines.
And if Newsom starts complaining, Red State governors can point to the gerrymandered glory that is California.
While everyone is talking about Newsom’s threat to redistrict California, here’s a what a fairer map of the state would look like…
The first is more intact:
16 Trump seats
36 Harris seatsA map that matches 2024 results is the second map, 19 R seats, 33 D seats. pic.twitter.com/B5umpeaArM
— Ryan James Girdusky (@RyanGirdusky) July 21, 2025
Why should their citizens be deprived of congressional representation because of Newsom’s weak threats and Blue State arrogance?
In reality, there are only two states Newsom controls: California and Confusion. In addition to this fact, there are constitutional limits to California’s redistricting processes. Newsom’s plan would require a temporary override of California’s independent redistricting commission, with voter approval needed for any new, legislature-drawn maps to take effect for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 elections.
Currently, the state constitution has many requirements related to the mapping of districts. The following items make Newsom’s threat even weaker than it was to begin with:
- Districts must have nearly equal populations to comply with the U.S. Constitution.
- Each district must be contiguous—all parts of the district must be connected.
- Districts cannot be drawn to favor or discriminate against any political party, incumbent, or candidate, and the process should be free from legislative interference.
- Districts should be geographically compact, that is, have a fairly regular shape.
The push-back to Newsom’s plan has been fierce.
Gavin Newsom has a meltdown and says President Trump needs to tell Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to not redistrict.
The hypocrisy here is tremendous. Democrats have already maxed out most of their redistricting.
So they’re panicking now. Dems played with fire. pic.twitter.com/YQIuTi3kHe
— Anna (@Anna198907) August 11, 2025
If Newsom thinks Trump-hate will carry him to the White House, he might want to ask fellow Californian Kamala Harris how that idea worked out for her.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
newsome is the little punk who needs daddies attention and can only do wrong to raise dads attention so he can be spanked by daddy
Oh shut up, Gavin. It’s not like California won’t redistrict later to give democrats an advantage if Texas agrees not to now. And they’ll portray it as “saving democracy” by preventing any change in the status quo or some such nonsense.
The proper response from Trump should be that Texas won’t redistrict if Illinois and new Jersey and California actually district fairly.
The proper response is:
NO.
YOUR MOVE.
President Trump should announce he is convening a committee to explore dividing California up into two states. Red California for the Sierras and other rural areas and Blue California for the Pacific Coastal regions.
Four states — three in the red areas, one for the blue hells.
That can’t happen without the California legislature’s consent, and why would it consent?
You miss my point. I did not state my point but you missed it nonetheless.
Divide California into five states, not two. Call them Sierra, Mojave, Valley, South CA, and Laficornia (around SF). Milhouse is correct: the legislature needs to propose such a division, and then Congress must consent (Constitution, Article IV, section 3).
But don’t stop there: just like gerrymandering, red states can do this too: Texas and Florida into 3 states each. Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio into 2 states each. That’s 12 states instead of 5, and potentially 24 Republican senators instead of 10 (they’ll all be squishes and RINOs of course, but still…). Even if the Dems won a couple of those, you’d pack the Senate red for quite a while.
“It’s okay when WE do it, and it’s only a double standard when WE complain about it.”
That’s what all their indignant pearl-clutching boils down to.
the amazing thing is that even the dems know they re-district by with the support of the media propaganda machine and their hold on the childrens minds we cant stop lefty but for moments at a time
thats just “feel good” bs
we must take back the schools from lefty
An empty bluff by an empty man.
They CAN’T gerrymander any more than they already are. MAYBE they could squeeze a seat or two out, but that’s it.
That’s why their tantrum over this has been so severe and prolonged. They KNOW if the GOPe is finally forced to actually fight back they’re finished in the House, without even talking about how many seats they’re about to lose with the new census after losing millions of illegals.
Well, they can’t without amending their constitution, which takes time, and might not succeed, though it probably would. Texas’s advantage is that it doesn’t need to amend its constitution to redistrict (though it might consider doing so to get rid of the 2/3 quorum requirement, which would put a permanent end to these performances).
This is political grandstanding and red meat to the crowd Mr. Newsom wants to attract for the 2028 primaries. As a political ploy, Newsom doesn’t lose by doing this.
He should tell us all about it on his podcast.
This reminds me of Demolition Man.
Now, tell the citizen to stand down….in a slightly firmer tone of voice!
When Newscum was shoved into a locker in high school they should have never let him out. What a maroon.
It wasn’t a locker. It was a lubrication port. Explains a lot.
You know he begged for swirlies.
His real concern is a new census to correct the errors in the 2020 census. Not counting illegals will deprive the sanctuary areas of 20-30 Congressional seats as well as loss of federal dollars. Red states will pick up the seats. This also makes changes in the electoral map. If Commiefornia loses 4-6 seats and electoral votes it greatly diminishes their clout. It will also be a loss of federal dollars as their budget goes deeply into the red. Don’t you love it when a plan comes together!!
“Sanctuary state” makes sense now.
Yes.
No, he is not afraid of this. Not counting illegals would do nothing, because it would make the census unusable for apportionment. California is entitled to a number of seats representing its entire population, including those who can’t vote, such as minors and aliens. Including illegal ones. A census that didn’t count everyone would be invalid, and would just be political theater. So he’d be delighted if Trump were to do that.
What he fears is an honest census that counts everyone who is there, but doesn’t count people who are not there. Which was the problem with the 2020 census. And a new one might find even fewer people, because of all those who have left CA since 2020 (minus the illegals who came in during those years and are still there).
Including illegal ones.
No.
Those who get counted MUST be subject to the jurisdiction of the state.
Illegal aliens are SPECIFICLY avoiding that jurisdiction. It’s how they remain in the country.
So they don’t get counted.
However much you and yours might want it.
Bullshit. This is the notorious liar Azathoth, a literal demon from Hell.
First of all, illegal aliens are under the state’s jurisdiction. Otherwise they wouldn’t have to hide; they could openly break as many laws as they liked, and laugh at the policemen who are unable to arrest them.
But second and far more importantly there is no such requirement. Your claim that “Those who get counted MUST be subject to the jurisdiction of the state” is pulled entirely out of your bottom. You made it up because you’re a lying liar who lies and is constitutionally incapable of ever not lying.
The constitution is absolutely clear and could not be clearer: the whole number of persons in each State must be counted, excluding only Indians not taxed. ALL persons. No matter who they are or how they got there.
Is an illegal alien a person? Yes.
Is he in the state where he is? Yes, of course he is.
Is he an Indian Not Taxed? No, because Congress abolished that category.
Therefore he must be counted. If he is not, then the count cannot be used for apportionment.
Azaboth, Milhouse is simply stating the current view of the USSC about the 14A: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.”
“Whole number of persons” does not today provide any wiggle room to discard the count of illegal aliens. You might persuade the USSC to agree but it’s going to be an uphill battle.
Better to do as Milhouse suggests: ensure that only whole persons actually there are counted, without all the ghosts.
Not just the current view, but the only possible view. There is no other way to read it, and anyone pretending to read it any other way is lying, because even he doesn’t believe his own reading.
“Whole number of persons” does not today provide any wiggle room, nor has it ever provided such room, nor will it ever. The definition of “person” is clear, at least until we have self-aware computer programs, or uplifted animals. The definition of “in” is even clearer. There aren’t any other terms that need defining.
A lot of people are fixated on the shiny bauble of a 2026 census being used for reapportionment. Which is okay for this administration, as it maintains public interest and highlights the fears of the Democrats. But there is solid political value in a new census that doesn’t count illegal immigrants and doesn’t count phantom citizens. Comparing those numbers to the 2020 census would highlight for the public just how screwed the Biden administration made this country.
And all Trump has to do is threaten to use it for reapportionment. The media will do his work for him by screaming about how Trump can’t use the census that otherwise would just fade into one more report by a gov’t agency.
In 2021, the Texas legislature redrew its congressional districts using a method they were told to use to ensure equal racial minority representation.
In 2024, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the method used was an impermissible and unconstitutional use of race and ethnicity in drawing congressional districts.
That meant that at least four districts, drawn in good faith in 2021, were unconstitutional because they were drawn in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and needed to be redrawn to meet constitutional muster.
Gov. Abbot called a special session of the legislature to resolve the situation and bring the districts into compliance with the court’s decision. The resulting re-drawn map would mean that five districts, currently held by Democrats, would become majority-Republican districts.
Democrat legislators threw a tantrum and fled the state to avoid the necessary two-thirds quorum for the legislature to vote on a new district map. Contrary to the claims in the press, it is these petulant, truant Democrats who think there is nothing wrong with race-based congressional districts.
This represents the very antithesis of the democratic process: They are preventing the legislature from fixing the racial discrimination that occurred four years ago when the legislature thought it had to draw up districts in a particular way to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
The legislature that was democratically elected by the people of Texas to represent them.
Congressional districts must be as equal in population as possible. Bear in mind that political gerrymandering, as opposed to racial gerrymandering, is perfectly legal and constitutional and has been going on since it was first done in 1812.
Comprehensively put.
It’s perfectly legal and constitutional in Texas, and many other states. But it’s unconstitutional in some states, such as NY and CA, which is why the Dems have a problem.
You’re right. Political gerrymandering does violate some state constitutions, like California, I believe. I was referring to the federal constitution.
Newsom and Blue States such as Mass, Illinois, NY are play with fire. There’s not many more CD they can squeeze. NY and CA both have ‘independent’ commissions to be overcome, Mass is already 9 for 9 on d/prog CD. Illinois would need to have even more bizarre shaped CD to alter their current 14 of 17 d/prog CD advantage and the three GoP CD are already highly concentrated at +22, +20 and +11 so they may end up making a new map but with 8-10 of those new CD with much less d/prog advantage and vulnerable in a competitive elections.
The other issue is Federal Funding. The block grants and direct payments to States are distributed largely based on political representation (how many CD) but could be altered to a distribution model of $X amount per State plus $Y amount per US Citizen ….using the new mid decade data collection ordered by the Trump WH. All it would take is a willing Congressional majority.
Newsom and Blue States such as Mass, Illinois, NY are play with fire. There’s not many more CD they can squeeze.
Massachusetts gov calls for redistricting retaliation
in a state with no GOP seats 🤡🤡🤡
Nobody (at least nobody here) said the d/prog leadership of big Blue uncompetitive States were super smart.
This mid decade census is gonna be useful. It will:
1. Show the errors of the 2020 Census which even the Census Bureau acknowledged was responsible for the misallocation of 4-6 CD by chronic over count in Blue States and chronic under count in Red States.
2. Demonstrate the mid decade population shift acceleration from Blue to Red States post Covid which is another 2-4 seats.
3 Show the impact of illegal aliens on Census data and apportionment plus Federal spending.
Frankly I’m not convinced that illegal aliens qualify as inhabitants much less residents for purposes of enumeration in the census. Sure the 14 A says ‘persons’ but given the context I’d argue that ‘person’ is the singular of ‘People’ as in ‘We the People’. Almost every lefty will refuse to acknowledge their own logic in opposition to this view by supporting 2A for ‘the people’ as individuals.
They don’t need to be inhabitants, let alone residents. There is no mention of either word in the clause. It says “the whole number of persons in each state”.
Persons means persons. It can’t mean anything else. Slaves were persons. Aliens were persons. Even Indians Not Taxed were persons. So how can illegal aliens not be persons?
Agree. Better to get an accurate count of the whole number of persons without the shenanigans the blue states have employed to inflate their counts.
Milhouse,
You are conflating a human being with ‘Person’. IMO a ‘Person’ is a member of the People as in ‘We the people’. No one (not me anyway) is denying the humanity of an illegal alien, heck some dude in Mexico City, Singapore or London is also a ‘person’ but we don’t count them either….unless they are a US expat or in Govt Service. We should count US Citizens and lawful permanent residents not visitors.
There’s plenty of room to deny temporary visitors and whatever else they are illegal aliens are temporarily here b/c they are one ICE encounter away from arrest, detention and deportation. Common sense would suggest that those voluntarily and temporarily present in a particular place would be excluded from the count of a particular place, which is how the actual enumeration worked. Historically there’s all sorts of leeway granted to conducting the enumeration to rely upon the their own judgement in applying the instructions for conducting each particular census. The varying manner in which merchant mariners and military personnel are counted or excluded as two good examples.
‘Persons’ clearly doesn’t mean what you claim in NY State or CA, at least by its ruling class most all of whom would agree with your 14A view. Otherwise the leadership of NY State and CA would embrace the 2A and ensure that each ‘Person’ was able to procure, possess and carry arms in accordance with the 2A ‘….the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’…but they don’t, b/c they themselves don’t believe that person means every adult human being.
Not to worry. Let’s apply your view BUT only with an actual enumeration. We can revert back to having the US Marshals conduct the enumeration as they did until the late 1800s. If an illegal alien doesn’t answer when they show up at the door for fear of arrest, detention and deportation (which should definitely be the action taken by the US Marshals then and there) then they don’t get included. Heck send ICE alongside the Marshals.
Chief, you know very well that “person” Is the same thing as “human”, at least until we encounter non-humans with personhood. Certainly in the 18th century the only definition of “person” was “human”.
And it is dishonest to pretend that in this one case they somehow meant something else by “persons”. They left no room for any doubt what they meant. Aliens were persons; slaves were persons; “Indians not taxed” were persons. None of those were members of “we, the people of the United States”, and yet they were persons. So how can illegal aliens suddenly not be persons?
“Some dude in Mexico City, Singapore or London” is indeed also a person. I’m astonished that you suppose he might not be. He’s not counted because he’s not in a state. If the exact same person were to be in a state, he would have to be counted. US expats and government workers should not be counted, because they are not in a state. “In” means in, just as “person” means person.
And no, the 2nd amendment doesn’t say “persons”, it says “the people”, just as do the first and fourth amendments. Not “people”, but “the people”. One can argue that aliens (legal or illegal) are not part of that “people”; but one must make the same distinction in all three amendments. If aliens have no RKBA then they also have no right to assemble or petition, and no right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The anti-2A states are not reading some fancy meaning into “the people”. They simply don’t accept that the 2A is binding on them. They don’t care about it, they regard it as not really being in the constitution, and so far the courts are letting them get away with it. You can know this because they’re not discriminating against aliens, not even illegal ones. They’re treating everyone the same, and denying everyone the RKBA, as much as the courts allow, which is almost all the way.
And your suggestion for deliberately undercounting a state’s numbers doesn’t work, because any such census would not be an accurate enumeration. The constitution requires an enumeration of all persons, not just those who are willing to come to the door. Total accuracy is of course impossible, but we must come as close as we can.
Milhouse
I didn’t propos a ‘deliberate under count’ but instead to follow the Constitutional requirement and history:
‘The actual enumeration SHALL be made….’
The US Marshals conducted the Census for the first 100 years post founding. They went door to door to get the data. This isn’t some new scheme. Obviously they could go more than once but at some point if nobody answers the door then they gotta end efforts to gather data for the ‘actual enumeration’ (an eyes on head count) they are conducting. To argue otherwise is to advance an abused notion that the Census end reporting be delayed indefinitely.
Lets also not gloss over the ‘Indians not taxed’. This is present both in the enumeration clause of ART 1 and 14A. Obviously it carries weight. Whay does it mean? Well they weren’t counted not b/c they were ‘Indians’ or b/c they weren’t taxed. Lots of people don’t pay tax; children, infirm elderly, indigent, homeless weirdos, drug dealers.
So if it wasn’t their ethnicity as ‘Indians’ or lack of taxation what was it about this category? IMO it was about their status as members of a separate polity; they owed their political allegiance not to the USA but to a separate sovereign; their Tribe. This IMO is also the case with illegal aliens who allegiance not to the USA but to their home Nation. Elk v Wilkins endorsed this view (as well as the view I presented about We the People and Person) and not only hasn’t been overturned so still valid precedent but in 1924 Congress itself and the Executive passed and signed the Indian Citizenship Act to grant Tribal members US Citizenship.
Illegal aliens are very much analogous to Tribal members in that they don’t owe political allegiance to the USA but to a separate sovereign. Given the context of when the 14A was passed and its primary purpose to include former slaves as full Citizens it isn’t an extreme view to argue these points. The Insular cases and the Indian Citizenship Act both buttress the claims about ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ meaning not just a ‘potential for arrest’ (even diplomats can be detained/arrested though later released) but rather owing political allegiance and incurring Civic duties; service on a jury, service in the militia, service in Sheriff Posse..none of which illegal aliens can do. Even Selective Service requirements aren’t applicable for a non Citizen unless they attempt to remain permanently v temporarily and would only cover Men 18-26 excluding other males and all women so not a universal argument for these non Citizens to be counted…unless you also accept that only those required to register would qualify.
Greasy Gavin, the skinny blowhard, at it again, performing to the best of his ability, showing why he is totally unfit to be president, but maybe George Clooney needs a stand-in.
“Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad” The person who wrote that had people like Newsom in mind. He’s gone off his rocker. He’s term limited and his state is falling apart. I Think he has little hope of getting the nomination in 2028 let alone winning the election. His party is going full communist, and Newsom has a lot of his own baggage weighing him down. He probably knows all this and simply doesn’t know what to do, so he lashes out. Like a chess player who sees mate coming, but won’t resign. When mate comes he will kick over the table, scream and walk out.
Hence why he’s trying to get out in front on this issue, and a few others.
To paraphrase a line in a certain well known movie:
I love the smell of political panic in the morning.
.
Eat a buffet of d*cks, Newsome!
I’m sure that it being California and all, there’s a French Dick Laundry somewhere.
State issue; president has no say. Much like states aren’t allowed their own immigration policy.
Of course California’s current map violates this requirement, but the violation is not blatant enough that a Dem-controlled state court would have no choice but to throw it out. (Federal courts have no role here.)
We can be confident that the Dems did their research well, and had their “independent” commissioners draw the current map as close to the line as they felt they could get away with. Therefore by definition any redrawing to favor the Dems even more than the current one does would be so blatant that it would have to be struck down, unless the constitution is amended to delete that requirement. He can try doing that, but it takes time, and since it requires voter approval he might not succeed. CA voters have a way of not doing what their Dem masters tell them.
One hopes. Fortunately, as you say, “It takes time.” I doubt that even with the best wishes of the 9th Circuit the fight could resolved in time for the 2026 elections. For example, would there be time left after the legal battle for elections for the representatives of the new districts?
As for 2028, if Trump can get the economy sorted well enough and get crime under some sort of control, Vance should win easily.
If Trump fails, and failure be apparent by the 2028 elections people will vote the Republicans out and the Democrats will be able to put…..put…. uh, Somebody, Anybody in the White House.
1. The 9th circuit wouldn’t be involved, because there is no federal issue here. It would be the state courts, which are Dem-controlled, but still need to at least appear to be fair.
2. This has nothing to do with presidential elections. California’s allotment of congressional seats, and therefore electors, is fixed (unless there’s a new valid census that counts all persons who are actually in CA, but not fictional people who are not there). Redrawing the map won’t change it.
Thanks
Gentle correction: the 9th Circuit WOULD be involved, long enough for it to say that it has no role, in that the Voting Rights Acts and Civil Rights Acts have not been violated (which is what a plaintiff would have to allege).
Say the man running one of the 5 most liberally gerrymandered states
It’s over in Texas.
Dems are going home.
Texas Democrats have apparently surrendered. Game on.
Game over
Actually, it’s just starting, in Texas and elsewhere.
Does he not understand that district layout is a state matter?
Yes, he understands it, which is why he’s threatening to do it in CA (a mostly empty threat, as we have discussed). He believes that the Texans are doing this at Trump’s behest, and Trump can tell them to stop. I don’t know why he believes that, though Trump has certainly been cheering TX’s effort from the sidelines, as well he ought to.
And then he stomped his feet and held his breath until he turned blue.
He was assigned blue at birth.
I object to this wording; “desperate little man” on behalf of all of the desperate little men out there that have done nothing to warrant being compared with Gavin Newsom.
California is a grand master of partisan gerrymander, what exactly will he do ask a commission to try to dilute Orange County again to roughly the same map as it is now thanks to how gerrymandered things already are?
Like MA California already pulled the trigger, it has no leverage.
What he’s threatening is to change the constitution to allow the legislature to redistrict without the commission.
In one of a few state gerrymandered to death by the left
Who’Some?
Redistricting is a state matter. DJT is a Federal officer. He has no legal responsibilities in the matter. Newsom took an oath to the Constitution. Either he hasn’t read the Constitution, or his oath means nothing, or both.
CA is gerrymandered to the max, 82% voting dem.
Newscum is such a fraud.