In the wake of the devastating Pacific Palisades fire, California Governor Gavin Newsom has once again shifted the spotlight away from his administration's role in the disaster, choosing instead to focus on climate change and insurance access.
This pattern of deflection has become a familiar tactic for the Democratic governor, raising questions about his leadership and accountability.
According to Breitbart, Newsom, speaking at a recent event, painted a grim picture of California's climate situation, describing the state as both "blessed and cursed." He pointed to the state's vulnerability to climate change, citing "simultaneous droughts and simultaneous floods," and emphasized that "the hots are getting a lot hotter" and "the dry is drier."
Newsom's comments came as he referenced the Palisades fire, stating: "You saw one of the most devastating wildfires in American history in the middle of winter in Los Angeles in January, 100-mile-an-hour winds attached to fire, and as we rebuild, the number one concern people have: how do I get my home insured?"
These remarks, however, have done little to quell the growing discontent among victims and lawmakers who continue to question his leadership in the aftermath of the fire. The blaze, which destroyed nearly 7,000 structures and claimed 12 lives in the Pacific Palisades and Malibu areas alone, has led to scrutiny from federal officials, legal challenges from displaced residents, and intense criticism from those who accuse his administration of negligence and policy exploitation.
In the immediate aftermath of the fire, Newsom visited the evacuation zone, where he deflected responsibility onto residents who had not yet fled. He stated: The fact that people were still not evacuated, still did not heed the warning, were just coming down the canyon, is a reminder of how serious this moment is, and how important it is you listen to these evacuation orders.
However, subsequent reports revealed that residents had been trapped due to gridlock and poor planning. Roads were congested with traffic, and police presence was limited due to officers being reassigned to protect President Joe Biden during his visit to Los Angeles. Some residents were forced to abandon their vehicles and flee on foot. Fire crews had to clear abandoned cars with bulldozers before they could reach the flames. Officials confirmed that fire engines had not been pre-deployed, citing budget restrictions and local leadership decisions.
Newsom's office responded to a lawsuit filed by dozens of residents, arguing that the state was not obligated to monitor the burn scar left by the January 1 Lachman Fire. That fire, believed to have been extinguished, reignited on January 7 under high winds, triggering the Palisades Fire.
Newsom dismissed the plaintiffs as opportunistic and maintained that The state didnt start this fire. The administration instead pointed to alleged arsonist Jonathan Rinderknecht, whose arrest, according to Newsom, would bring closure.
Yet, residents and attorneys pushed back. Plaintiffs claimed they had smoking gun video evidence showing visible smoke on the morning of January 7, hours before high winds fanned the flames. Local attorney Alexander Robertson, who asserted the state just didnt do their job of monitoring the fire site, added, He threw the firefighters under the bus. He took no responsibility.
Victims and advocates also disputed the notion that the fire was unpreventable. Spencer Pratt, who lost his home in the fire and has since become a vocal opponent of the states response, argued that the community could have been spared if basic preventative measures had been taken.
Pratt specifically pointed to the failure to clear brush in Topanga State Park, where the fire reportedly reignited. While acknowledging there may have been issues on federally managed land as well, Pratt stressed that Newsom was directly at fault for neglecting the state-managed property where the disaster started.
Login