California Governor Gavin Newsom has found himself at the center of a political storm this October, facing sharp criticism from within his own party and navigating the complexities of new legislation targeting antisemitism in the state’s schools. The twin developments—public rebukes from San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan and the signing of Assembly Bill 715 (AB715)—have cast a spotlight on the governor’s priorities and leadership as he continues to build a national profile ahead of his 2026 term limit.
Mayor Matt Mahan, a Democrat like Newsom, has not minced his words in recent months. According to Politico, Mahan has repeatedly called out the governor’s approach to persistent state-level issues, including homelessness, drug addiction, and even Newsom’s conduct online. Mahan’s concern is clear: he believes Newsom is prioritizing his own national ambitions—potentially a 2028 presidential run—over what he sees as the urgent needs of Californians. In his words, Mahan told Politico that his “disagreements with the governor are not personal and they’re not particularly political—they are practical,” emphasizing his wish for Newsom to “be laser focused on addressing the basics.”
One area where Mahan has pressed for more state intervention is retail theft and drug use, particularly in the wake of Proposition 36, which voters passed in November 2024. Mahan has called for greater action and funding from Sacramento, arguing that the state government needs to do more to tackle these pressing problems. The mayor’s critiques have reportedly vexed some of Newsom’s advisors, though Bob Salladay, a spokesperson for Newsom, attempted to downplay any rift, stating, “we’re all in this together” and insisting that the governor’s office is “not at war with the mayor.”
Reactions within Democratic circles have been mixed. Some Newsom allies have dismissed Mahan’s comments as little more than attempts to draw attention. One anonymous advisor suggested that the San Jose mayor is “trying to get attention,” while veteran Democratic strategist Garry South went further, characterizing Mahan as “playing way out of his league.” Yet, not all strategists are so dismissive. Steven Maviglio, another experienced Democratic hand, commended Mahan for giving voice to the complaint that Newsom “has neglected his job as governor and is totally focused on his presidential ambitions.” The debate highlights a growing tension within the party over the direction of state leadership and the balance between local and national priorities.
Amid this backdrop of internal party friction, Newsom took decisive action on another front by signing AB715 into law on October 7, 2025. The legislation, aimed at eliminating antisemitism in California schools, will take effect next year. AB715 establishes a new Office of Civil Rights within the state’s education system, along with an antisemitism prevention coordinator tasked with reviewing discrimination complaints and recommending corrective actions. The law’s reach extends to a range of allegations, including those asserting that a teacher has unfairly criticized Israel’s government—a point that has sparked considerable debate.
The timing of the bill’s signing was loaded with symbolism, coinciding with the second anniversary of Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, which killed 1,200 Israelis and triggered an Israeli counter-offensive resulting in more than 67,000 Palestinian deaths. In a statement marking the signing, Assembly Member Rick Chavez Zbur, one of the bill’s lead authors, declared that the law “reaffirms California’s commitment to inclusion and standing up against bigotry in all its forms.” Newsom echoed this sentiment, stating that California “is taking action to confront hate in all its forms” at a time when “antisemitism and bigotry are rising nationwide and globally.”
Supporters of AB715, including the Legislature’s Jewish Caucus co-chairs Sen. Scott Wiener and Assembly Member Jesse Gabriel, praised the law for sending a message that “hate has no place in our schools.” The Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California, a key sponsor, cited incidents reported by the state Department of Education—such as a San Jose high school teacher in 2023 telling students that Israel was a settler-colonial state, and a Marin County instructor’s comment about school holidays—that underscored the need for clearer policies on antisemitism in education.
Yet, the law’s passage was not without controversy. AB715 sailed through the Legislature on unanimous votes, but it faced opposition from the California Teachers Association, the California School Boards Association, and the American Civil Liberties Union. Critics argued that the bill’s lack of a clear definition for antisemitism could chill classroom discussion and put any commentary on Israel’s government under scrutiny. The anti-Zionist group Jewish Voice for Peace and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) also voiced strong objections. Seth Morrison, a leader of Jewish Voice for Peace’s Bay Area chapter, warned that the law would make teachers too fearful to even discuss Israel and Palestine with students. He further accused Newsom of hypocrisy, saying the governor’s “claim to be truly progressive and the opposite of Trump is deeply disappointing.”
CAIR’s California chief executive, Hussam Ayloush, echoed these concerns, stating, “This is the same censorship playbook used by the Trump administration: weaponize vague standards, target teachers, and erase Palestinian history and human rights from curricula.” The final version of AB715 was amended to endorse a Biden administration strategy on antisemitism, which draws from 2016 International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance standards. While these standards classify certain delegitimization of the Israeli state as antisemitic, the Biden strategy also clarifies that criticism of Israel and its policies is not inherently antisemitic—a nuance meant to address some opponents’ fears.
The legal battle over the boundaries of free speech and antisemitism in California classrooms may not be over. Opponents have suggested that the law could face court challenges, particularly over its lack of a precise definition. Meanwhile, the issue has become entangled with national politics. Former President Donald Trump has targeted California’s educational institutions with accusations of antisemitism, demanding $1 billion from the University of California to settle complaints about its handling of such cases at UCLA. Newsom, for his part, has promised to contest Trump’s demand in court. UC Berkeley has reported providing the Trump administration with names of 160 students, faculty, and staff in connection with federal investigations into alleged antisemitism.
As California moves forward, Governor Newsom finds himself balancing the demands of local leaders like Mahan, the expectations of a diverse electorate, and the scrutiny that comes with national ambitions. The debates over AB715 and the governor’s focus reveal the deep complexities of governing a state as large and varied as California—where every policy move is watched, weighed, and, inevitably, contested.
For Newsom, the coming months will likely bring more challenges, both from within his party and from those who question the boundaries of free speech and civil rights. The eyes of California—and perhaps the nation—remain fixed on Sacramento as these debates continue to unfold.
