On August 19, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom’s office fired back at the federal government, responding pointedly to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s recent threats against state and local officials over California’s sanctuary policies. The move came amid a heated national debate over the boundaries of state sovereignty, the role of federal law enforcement, and the integrity of democratic processes in the United States.
Governor Newsom’s response was triggered by a letter from Attorney General Bondi, in which she threatened criminal prosecution for state and local officials who, in her words, used their official positions to “obstruct federal immigration efforts and facilitate and induce illegal immigration.” Newsom’s office, however, was quick to remind the Department of Justice (DOJ) of the ethical obligations that bind its lawyers, emphasizing that California’s Rules of Professional Conduct generally prohibit bringing claims or positions in litigation without probable cause and for the purpose of harassment or injury.
“We will not be bullied into relinquishing our sovereignty,” Governor Newsom declared, according to the official statement from his office. “This is yet another attempt by the federal government to pressure states into bending the knee and accepting their authoritarian tactics.” The statement underscored that the courts have reaffirmed the validity of California’s laws time and again, referencing the Ninth Circuit’s 2019 decision in United States v. California. That ruling upheld California’s Senate Bill 54, confirming that states have the right—under the Tenth Amendment and its anti-commandeering rule—to decline to enforce or adopt federal policies using their own resources.
The governor’s office went further, warning that threatening criminal prosecution for conduct that courts have expressly found lawful could constitute malicious prosecution. “Any California-licensed US DOJ attorney involved in threatening or initiating such a prosecution in California may therefore risk facing an ethics complaint to the California State Bar,” the letter stated, making clear that the state was prepared to defend its officials and its laws on both legal and ethical grounds.
California’s sanctuary policies, often a lightning rod in national politics, do not impede criminal investigations or the sharing of information about individuals’ criminal histories, the governor’s office explained. In fact, since 2019, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has coordinated with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on more than 11,300 cases—including individuals convicted of murder, rape, child molestation, and other serious felonies. State law, Newsom’s office argued, prioritizes public safety by allowing coordination with ICE for those convicted of or credibly charged with violent or serious felonies, or other crimes that threaten public safety. At the same time, the laws are designed to ensure that all Californians, including vulnerable populations such as victims of human trafficking or domestic violence, feel safe reporting crimes to the police without fear of immigration consequences.
“State law helps ensure that all Californians are not scared of reporting crimes to the police, such as victims of human trafficking or domestic violence, and that local law enforcement cooperates with federal law enforcement to protect public safety,” the statement said. There are, according to the governor’s office, more than 30 crimes—serious, violent, and specific categories—that allow for communication and coordination for federal immigration enforcement purposes at the local level.
The political and legal clash over immigration enforcement has been accompanied by growing concerns about the use of federal law enforcement and military personnel in domestic affairs. On August 19, 2025, Governor Newsom’s office announced that it had filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to investigate the circumstances around the appearance of dozens of federal agents near his press conference at the Democracy Center in Los Angeles on August 13. The event, where Newsom unveiled a plan to hold a special election for voter approval of new congressional district maps, was marked by the unexpected presence of federal law enforcement outside the venue.
According to FOX40 and the Associated Press, an official with Border Patrol said he was unaware that Newsom was holding an event inside the building. Nevertheless, the governor’s office saw the presence of federal agents as an attempt at intimidation. “Trump’s use of the military and federal law enforcement to try to intimidate his political opponents is yet another dangerous step towards authoritarianism,” Newsom said. “Trump is attempting to advance a playbook from the despots he admires in Russia and North Korea. We will not back down in our defense of democratic freedom, and the Trump administration should answer for this pathetic and cowardly behavior.”
Newsom’s FOIA request seeks all documents, communications, and records concerning the deployment of federal agents outside public places during the August 13 event. The governor’s office also demanded information about the total cost to taxpayers for the federal activation of the U.S. Marines and National Guard since June 7, 2025, following reports of military deployments and immigration raids across California. Newsom described the Trump Administration’s actions as an effort to intimidate those defending a fair electoral process and as targeting individuals perceived by Trump as political threats.
The economic impact of these federal actions has not gone unnoticed. According to the governor’s office and a UCLA Anderson forecast, the military deployment and subsequent immigration raids have cost taxpayers millions, with private sector work attendance in California dropping by 3.1%—a level not seen since the COVID-19 lockdowns. The forecast projects that Trump’s actions, including global tariffs and immigration raids, could contract California’s economy later this year, with particularly harsh effects on construction, hospitality, and agriculture.
Perhaps most striking, mass arrests, detentions, and deportations in California could cost the state’s economy up to $275 billion and eliminate $23 billion in annual tax revenue, according to the figures provided by Newsom’s office. The loss of immigrant workers, both undocumented and those losing lawful status, would jeopardize critical projects—such as rebuilding after wildfires in Los Angeles—reduce the food supply, and drive up costs. In 2022, undocumented immigrants contributed $8.5 billion in state and local taxes, a figure that would rise to $10.3 billion if they could work lawfully.
As the standoff between California and the federal government intensifies, the legal, economic, and political ramifications are likely to reverberate far beyond the state’s borders. The Newsom administration’s latest actions signal a determination to defend both the letter and the spirit of California’s laws, even as the federal government ramps up pressure and scrutiny.
For now, the battle lines are drawn—California’s leaders are standing firm, invoking both legal precedent and ethical obligations, while the Trump administration pursues a hardline approach to immigration and federal authority. With FOIA requests pending and the courts watching closely, the next chapter in this high-stakes confrontation will be written in the weeks and months to come.
