Newsom faces backlash over 'reckless' post about Kristi Noem after Charlie Kirk's assassination

California Gov. Gavin Newsom faced swift backlash Monday after a cryptic post from his press office on X drew a sharp rebuke from an acting U.S. attorney in California, who called the rhetoric reckless in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. The post read, "Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today. You’re welcome, America," according to Newsom's office. The remarks prompted Bill Essayli to file a Secret Service threat assessment referral, saying he was shocked by the rhetoric and that the language echoed what preceded Kirk’s death.

Essayli, a former federal prosecutor who tracks threats in California, told Fox News that the case represents a nontrivial risk. "They're going to do a full-threat assessment, and they're going to see if there's any danger to the secretary," Essayli said. "I made the referral to the Secret Service." The acting U.S. attorney called the language reckless and indicated investigators would evaluate possible threats to Kristi Noem.

In a separate exchange, Newsom’s press office posted a counter-message on X, arguing that the Trump administration had faced a similar inquiry in 2020 over a reference to Bernie Sanders, and saying the office had referred Trump for investigation in that instance. The remarks underscored a broader political climate in which inflammatory rhetoric around immigration policy has become a flashpoint in California politics.

Separately, California’s new law unmasking most law enforcement officers, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, drew scrutiny from Essayli. The measure, signed by Newsom on Saturday, aims to curb the use of masks or personal disguises by officers during duties, unless undercover or performing a tactical operation that requires protective gear. The bill would also impose a civil penalty for tortious conduct, including false imprisonment or false arrest tied to wearing a facial covering. Essayli said he has directed agencies to disregard the bill, arguing California has no jurisdiction over the federal government.

Our agents, our men and women who… signed up to protect our communities, don't deserve this," Essayli said. "Assaults against them are up over 1,000%, and the left continues to fuel this insanity, hysteria, that the federal government is somehow an illegitimate force, and it's okay to oppose ICE." He added, "What they do is they lay the gasoline and the matches out, and they get people spun up, and they hope that someone does what they want them to do, which is burn the place down because they can't get their way, and we're not putting up with it, and if you try that here, you'll end up in handcuffs."

Newsom argued that due process rights are being stripped away from immigrants and urged agents to reveal their identities, saying authorities should push back against federal enforcement measures. "Unmarked cars, people in masks, people quite literally disappearing. No due process, no rights — no rights in a democracy where we have rights," Newsom said. "We have the right to stand up and push back, and that's what we're doing here today. This is a disgrace. This is an outrage what we have allowed to happen in this country. … To ICE: unmask. What are you afraid of?"

Anti-ICE protests have erupted in major cities across the nation, including in Los Angeles, where activists clashed with police and some protesters were taken into custody as demonstrations continued.

The clash over approach to immigration enforcement comes as California seeks to shape how state and local authorities interact with federal agents. Supporters of the new law say it promotes transparency and accountability for officers who operate in sensitive environments, while critics warn it could expose federal personnel operating under protective protocols to greater risk.

Newsom's office has framed the debate as a test of democratic norms and due process rights, while opponents argue the policy could complicate federal operations and blur jurisdictional lines in a tightly interwoven system of state and federal responsibilities.

As California presses forward with the new law and as political leaders exchange barbs over rhetoric and procedure, observers say the episode highlights the fraught political terrain surrounding immigration, security, and the power of state offices to challenge or cooperate with federal enforcement agencies. The events also underscore the rapid pace at which statements by governors and other high-profile officials can ripple through national conversations about safety, civil rights, and the legitimacy of federal authority in a diverse, politically divided landscape.