JD VANCE SLAMS NEWSOM AS “GROSSLY INCOMPETENT”! 😤

Did California’s governor ignite LA’s violent protests?

Vance’s fiery takedown has everyone talking!

Click to dive into the heated clash! 👉

In early June 2025, Los Angeles erupted in violent protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation raids, setting the stage for a heated clash between Vice President JD Vance and California Governor Gavin Newsom. On June 9, President Donald Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to quell the unrest, prompting Newsom to accuse him of inciting chaos. Vance fired back on social media, labeling Newsom “grossly incompetent” and accusing him of encouraging the riots that saw cars burned and police pelted with rubber bullets. The “shuts down” narrative, suggesting Vance decisively rebuked Newsom, has fueled online debate, but the reality is more complex, rooted in political posturing and a divided nation. This article examines Vance’s accusation, the Los Angeles protests, Newsom’s response, and the broader implications of their feud in a polarized America.

The Los Angeles Protests: A City on Edge

The protests began on June 6, 2025, after ICE conducted sweeping deportation raids across Los Angeles, arresting at least 44 individuals, including some U.S. citizens mistakenly targeted. Demonstrators, part of the broader “No Kings” movement opposing Trump’s immigration policies, took to the streets, blocking freeways and clashing with law enforcement. By June 7, scenes of anarchy emerged, with protesters setting cars on fire at Atlantic Avenue and East Alondra Boulevard and police deploying tear gas and rubber bullets. Reports estimate 5,000 protesters on peak days, with injuries reported on both sides, including a journalist hit by a rubber bullet. The unrest, centered in Democratic strongholds like Compton and South LA, reflected deep frustration over family separations and federal overreach.

On June 9, Trump federalized the California National Guard under Title 10, deploying 2,000 troops to LA without Newsom’s consent, a move not seen since the 1992 riots. Newsom, on X, called it an “unmistakable step toward authoritarianism,” urging peaceful protests to avoid giving Trump an “excuse” for further escalation. His June 10 emergency declaration, aimed at addressing LA’s 6.1% crime surge and 75,312 unhoused population, redirected federal aid to local priorities, but critics argued it emboldened protesters. The protests, while rooted in immigration grievances, overlapped with local issues, amplifying accusations against Newsom’s governance. web:0,9,13 post:0,3

Vance’s Accusation: “Grossly Incompetent”

Vance entered the fray on June 9, responding to Newsom’s criticism of Trump with a blunt X post: “Do your job. That’s all we’re asking.” By June 10, he escalated, posting photos of burning cars predating the Guard’s deployment, writing, “Gavin Newsom says he didn’t have a problem until Trump got involved. Does this look like ‘no problem’?” He accused Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass of “fomenting” riots, labeling Newsom “grossly incompetent” and blaming his policies, like Medi-Cal expansions for undocumented immigrants, for attracting illegal migration. Vance’s 269-word statement claimed Newsom’s leadership created a “magnet” for migrants, endangering border patrol and fueling unrest.

Vance’s rhetoric, echoed by Trump’s claim that Newsom should be arrested by border czar Tom Homan, framed California’s leaders as complicit in anarchy. Supporters on X praised Vance’s directness, with one user calling him “the voice of reason” against Newsom’s “failure.” However, the “inciting violence” charge lacks evidence. Newsom’s X posts urged calm, stating, “Don’t take Trump’s bait. Stay peaceful.” His emergency order increased LAPD funding by $50 million and deployed 800 officers, actions aimed at stabilizing LA, not encouraging riots. The “shuts down” narrative, implying Vance silenced Newsom, overstates the exchange, as Newsom continued to counter with lawsuits and public statements. web:1,17,18 post:0,4

Newsom’s Response: Defending California

Newsom’s rebuttal was swift. On June 10, he replied on X, “Do YOUR job. We didn’t have a problem until Trump got involved. Rescind the order. Return control to California.” He argued the Guard’s deployment, without state consultation, violated constitutional norms, filing a lawsuit claiming Trump’s action was “illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional.” Newsom disputed the severity of the protests, noting LA authorities had sufficient resources, including mutual aid from nearby counties. He accused Trump of “manufacturing a crisis” to justify federal overreach, a view shared by LA Mayor Karen Bass, who called the deployment a “chaotic escalation” on X.

Newsom’s emergency declaration, separate from the protests, addressed LA’s crime and homelessness, with measures like shelter expansions and gang task forces. Critics, including Vance, misrepresented it as enabling unrest, but the order’s text focuses on local governance, not protest management. Newsom’s comparison of Alabama’s 14.9% homicide rate to California’s 5.9% in 2022, posted on X, aimed to deflect GOP attacks, though it sidestepped LA’s specific challenges. His defiance, while rallying Democrats, deepened polarization, with 53% of Californians disapproving of his leadership in a June 2025 poll, up from 47% in 2024. web:17,22 post:0,7

The Political Context: A 2028 Preview?

The Vance-Newsom feud is widely seen as a prelude to the 2028 presidential race, with both positioned as likely candidates. Vance, heir to Trump’s MAGA movement, leverages the LA protests to paint Newsom as a failed progressive, appealing to GOP voters wary of immigration and urban chaos. Newsom, term-limited in 2026, uses his Trump resistance to bolster his national profile, casting himself as a defender of state rights and compassion. Reports note their June 2025 exchange as a “fiery matchup,” with Vance’s attacks on Newsom’s Medi-Cal policies and Newsom’s lawsuit against Trump signaling early campaign strategies.

The protests’ timing, amid Trump’s immigration crackdowns and “No Kings” rallies, amplified their clash. The ICE raids, targeting 44 individuals but splitting families, sparked genuine anger, but the violence—car fires, freeway blockades—undermined the cause, as even Democratic Senator John Fetterman condemned the “anarchy” on X. Vance’s focus on Newsom’s policies, like cashless bail and healthcare expansions, taps into conservative fears of unchecked migration, but his claim that Newsom incited violence lacks direct evidence, relying on guilt by association. Newsom’s emergency order, while poorly timed, aimed to address local crises, not escalate protests, complicating the “incompetent” label. web:1,13,18 post:5

Media and Social Media: Amplifying the Divide

Social media played a pivotal role in the feud’s spread. Vance’s X posts, including riot photos, garnered thousands of shares, with supporters calling Newsom a “disaster.” Critics, however, accused Vance of hypocrisy, citing his defense of January 6 rioters, with one X user writing, “Vance calls LA protesters ‘insurrectionists’ but not J6? Laughable.” Newsom’s posts, urging peace and slamming Trump’s “Orwellian” tactics, rallied progressives but drew scorn from conservatives, who labeled him a “cuck” and enabler of “domestic terrorists.” The “grossly incompetent” phrase, borrowed from Trump’s rhetoric, became a meme, but its impact was diluted by the ongoing back-and-forth.

Media coverage, while detailing the protests’ violence and Guard deployment, often leaned into sensationalism. Reports highlighted Vance’s “savage” takedown and Newsom’s “defiant” response, framing the feud as a spectacle rather than a policy debate. The “shuts down” narrative, implying Vance prevailed, lacks substance, as Newsom’s lawsuit and emergency measures kept him in the fight. The polarized X sentiment—pro-Vance posts versus pro-Newsom defenses—mirrors broader U.S. divides, with 62% of Americans in a 2025 poll viewing political rhetoric as dangerously inflammatory, a context that amplifies both men’s words. web:0,21 post:0,1

Broader Implications: Governance and Polarization

The feud highlights the challenges of governing in a polarized era. Newsom’s $288.2 billion budget, passed June 2024, cut $11.2 billion from healthcare and $2 billion from education to close a $47 billion deficit, drawing criticism for straining services. His EV mandate, requiring 100% zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035, and crime policies, like supporting cashless bail, face backlash for LA’s 2,173 homicides in 2024, up 5.8%. Yet, these are policy disputes, not evidence of incitement. Vance’s accusations, while resonant with GOP voters, oversimplify California’s complex issues, ignoring federal policies’ role in migration surges.

The LA protests, while violent, reflect legitimate grievances over ICE raids, but their escalation—enabled by a minority of agitators—undermines Newsom’s call for peace. Vance’s “incompetent” label exploits this, but his own rhetoric, like defending controversial immigration claims, risks inflaming tensions. The feud, fueled by X’s echo chambers, risks diverting focus from solutions, like coordinated state-federal immigration reform or LA’s crime strategies. The Minnesota shootings, where a suspect targeted Democrats, underscore the stakes, with Newsom’s June 15 press conference warning that “violence cannot be the norm.” web:6,9,17 post:4

Conclusion

JD Vance’s accusation that Gavin Newsom is “grossly incompetent” for inciting LA’s June 2025 violence is a politically charged claim lacking direct evidence. The protests, sparked by ICE raids, saw real unrest, but Newsom’s emergency declaration and calls for peace counter the incitement charge. Vance’s “shuts down” moment, amplified by X and media, exaggerates his impact, as Newsom’s lawsuits and governance continue. Their feud, a likely 2028 preview, reflects America’s polarization, where rhetoric overshadows policy. Like other high-profile disputes, this saga demands scrutiny over sensationalism, urging focus on California’s challenges—crime, migration, budgets—rather than viral barbs. As LA recovers, clarity and restraint are needed to bridge divides, not widen them.