Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Newsom Responds to Trump and DOJ’s Stance on National Monuments
California Governor Gavin Newsom has expressed strong criticism of the Trump administration following a recent Department of Justice memo suggesting that national monument status can be rescinded by future administrations. The areas under consideration include two natural sites in California that were designated as protected by former President Joe Biden.
Calls for Maturity Amidst Political Tensions
Newsom reacted pointedly to the possibility of Trump abolishing the Chuckwalla and Sattilla Highlands National Monuments, located near the Joshua Tree National Monument. He stated, “This is just getting petty. Grow up,” highlighting his discontent with the Trump administration’s ongoing conflict with California.
In a separate social media post, Newsom’s office emphasized that it appears like each day brings another chapter in Trump’s perceived war on California.
DOJ Memo Sparks Controversy
The memo issued by the Trump Justice Department claimed that the president’s ability to designate national monuments could be modified or entirely reversed by subsequent administrations. The legal rationale behind this decision challenges an assertion made by former Attorney General Homer Cummings in 1938 that argued presidents lack the authority to rescind such protections.
Environmentalists have responded critically to the administration’s stance, arguing that such changes would enable development and exploitation of valuable natural resources, undermining preservation efforts.
Economic Implications and Federal Control
The Justice Department’s position indicated that the revocation of existing monument designations may arise from a belief that these lands have either never deserved protection or no longer meet the criteria set forth by the Antiquities Act of 1906.
Chief Justice John Roberts previously indicated support for legal challenges that question the use of the Antiquities Act, particularly regarding restrictions on economic activities on federally protected lands and seabeds.
Newsom’s Further Remarks on Political Dynamics
In a humorous dig at Trump, Newsom mocked the idea that a border czar could arrest him for opposing ICE actions in California. He shared a faux advertisement for a podcast featuring Donald Trump Jr., jokingly offering a promo code for “15% off your Trump Phone.” This satirical post highlights ongoing tensions and Newsom’s efforts to engage with the public in a lighthearted manner despite serious political issues.
Allegations of inciting Violence
Newsom also accused Trump of inciting violence in Democrat-led states, claiming the former president seeks to leverage unrest for political purposes. The governor further directed his ire at House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith for suggesting that California should prioritize addressing crime and lawlessness.
In defense, Newsom pointed out that Missouri, Smith’s home state, reportedly has a homicide rate 117% higher than that of California, challenging the narrative that California is failing to address crime effectively.
Response from the White House
The White House responded to Newsom’s comments by criticizing California’s environmental policies. Harrison Fields, a spokesman, argued that Newsom’s energy-related policies have caused significant issues within the state, including energy shortages and skyrocketing prices. Such failures, according to Fields, have benefited political donors at the expense of ordinary Californians.
He added that efforts to free up federal lands as a means to achieve American energy independence are not petty, suggesting that Newsom fails to grasp the significance of such decisions.
Looking Ahead
The ongoing back-and-forth between Newsom and Trump signifies the broader political rifts that continue to challenge environmental and economic policies on a nationwide scale. As discussions about national monument protections evolve, the stakes remain high for California’s natural resources and the political landscape.
This situation raises critical questions about the future of federal land management and state versus federal authority. As both parties navigate these challenges, citizens remain invested in the outcomes that will impact California’s environment and economy.
