California Gov. Gavin Newsom is facing a wave of criticism after comments he made on a late-night television appearance were widely interpreted as inflammatory and dangerous in the wake of the tragic assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk.
Newsom, a longtime critic of the Trump movement and its allies, appeared earlier this week on a segment with host Stephen Colbert. While the episode was meant to spotlight his views on immigration policy and his critique of Republican leaders, his remarks quickly sparked backlash across the political spectrum.
The Comments That Sparked Outrage
Speaking with Colbert, Newsom described current immigration enforcement operations by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as a “Code Red” for the country. He suggested that Americans must “wake up” to the threat he believes federal agencies pose under Trump-aligned leadership, warning, “I fear that we will not have an election in 2028. I really mean that. At the core of my soul, unless we wake up to the ‘Code Red,’ what’s happening in this country.”
Critics immediately seized on the language as reckless, noting that Newsom used the term “Code Red” — a phrase that often implies crisis response, urgency, and sometimes violent confrontation. Combined with his recent legislation restricting ICE practices in California, including a ban on agents wearing masks to conceal their identities, many accused the governor of fanning the flames of hostility at a volatile moment.
A Nation on Edge After Charlie Kirk’s Assassination
The context surrounding Newsom’s comments only heightened their controversy. His remarks came just days after the shocking assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who was killed at a public event in Arizona. The attack left political tensions in the United States raw and emotional, with leaders from both parties calling for restraint and unity in the face of rising political violence.
Instead, Newsom’s tone — sharp and combative — struck many as ill-timed. For his detractors, it suggested that he was unwilling to acknowledge how rhetoric can spill over into real-world consequences.
Violence Against ICE Facilities
Adding further urgency, federal investigators reported that an ICE detention center in Dallas was attacked by gunfire less than 24 hours after Newsom’s television appearance. According to authorities, the shooter — described as a radicalized young leftist — killed one detainee, injured two others, and then died by suicide.
Investigators later found ammunition at the scene with “ANTI-ICE” scrawled across the casing. While there is no evidence connecting Newsom’s remarks directly to the attack, critics argue that repeated comparisons of immigration officials to Nazis or Gestapo agents — language used by Newsom and other progressive leaders — creates a permissive environment for violence.
Social Media Backlash
On social media, Newsom faced immediate condemnation. Posts criticizing the governor went viral, with users from both conservative and moderate backgrounds warning that his rhetoric risked inflaming an already dangerous climate.
“For a bunch of people that like to call everyone ‘Nazis,’ they sure do act like Nazis,” one commentator posted, highlighting the irony of Newsom condemning extremism while, in their view, encouraging hostility toward federal agents.
Others argued that while Newsom had every right to criticize Trump and his allies, his words crossed a line by presenting immigration enforcement as a dire national crisis. “At a time when people are dying, leaders need to calm the waters, not stir them,” one journalist noted.
A Pattern of Confrontational Messaging
This is not the first time Newsom has faced criticism for his sharp rhetoric. Throughout his career, the governor has leaned on forceful language to position himself as a defender of progressive values against Republican leadership.
During the Trump administration, he frequently denounced immigration enforcement policies as cruel and inhumane. He has described detention facilities as “concentration camps” and compared deportation operations to historic abuses of power. Supporters say this framing is necessary to rally opposition to policies they view as unjust. Critics counter that such comparisons trivialize history and fuel division.
His recent signing of legislation banning ICE agents from wearing masks — aimed, he said, at increasing accountability — also sparked pushback. Agents argue that the measure puts them at risk by preventing them from protecting their identities during operations, particularly in communities where anti-ICE sentiment runs high.
Political Stakes
The controversy comes at a sensitive political moment for Newsom. While he has not formally declared intentions for a 2028 presidential run, he is widely considered a potential contender. His appearances on national media outlets suggest that he is positioning himself as a leading Democratic voice in the post-Biden era.
Yet incidents like this one raise questions about whether his confrontational style will help or hinder his ambitions. To some Democratic strategists, his willingness to take the fight directly to Republicans could energize the party’s base. To others, it risks alienating swing voters who are weary of political escalation and fearful of the rise in violence.
The Broader Debate on Political Speech
The uproar over Newsom’s comments fits into a wider national conversation about the role of rhetoric in shaping political violence. In recent years, both Republicans and Democrats have accused each other of using dehumanizing or incendiary language that pushes extremists toward violence.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk has brought those concerns to the forefront. Leaders across the political spectrum have called for de-escalation and a recommitment to democratic norms. Yet as the backlash against Newsom illustrates, even well-intentioned warnings can sound like calls to arms when delivered with fiery language.
Looking Ahead
Newsom has not directly addressed the criticism since his appearance, though his office released a statement reiterating his concern for “the survival of American democracy” and defending his description of the situation as a “Code Red.” Supporters argue that the governor is being unfairly targeted for highlighting real threats to the electoral process, while detractors maintain that he crossed a dangerous line.
For now, the fallout underscores the fragile state of American politics in the wake of tragedy. With emotions high and violence no longer a distant possibility but a grim reality, the words of public figures carry more weight than ever.
Conclusion
Gavin Newsom’s late-night remarks have ignited a storm of criticism, raising questions about leadership, responsibility, and the fine line between passionate advocacy and dangerous rhetoric. As the country reels from the assassination of Charlie Kirk and continued violence against federal institutions, the debate over political speech is only intensifying.
Whether Newsom’s words will fade as a momentary controversy or linger as a mark against his future ambitions remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: in today’s America, every phrase, every metaphor, and every warning carries consequences far beyond the stage on which it is delivered.