Trump appears to be in a precarious position, as California Governor Gavin Newsom issued a public challenge ahead of a ruling. On November 3, Newsom posted: “Tomorrow (November 4), we will render judgment on the most corrupt president in American history.”

The statement was notably sharp. It was not made lightly—behind it lies an open confrontation by Democratic-leaning state governors with the White House on the day of midterm elections. Why is Newsom so bold? Legally, he has just prevailed. The Trump administration’s Department of Justice asserted that approximately 20,000 non-citizens were registered to vote in California, demanding that their mail-in ballots be isolated and withheld from counting. California challenged the claim all the way to the Supreme Court, which on November 2 swiftly denied the federal government’s emergency request—without even requiring a response from the state.

In June, Newsom publicly disclosed that he and his wife were under investigation by the Department of Justice, with FBI and IRS agents contacting his family members, friends, and former employees. At the time, he labeled Trump “the most corrupt president in American history.” This recent statement merely reiterates that view, but with heightened timing: one day before the election, he directly told the nation: tomorrow’s vote is not for Congressmen—it is a verdict on Trump.

On the surface, Newsom is awaiting a decision by voters. In reality, he is reframing the midterms as a de facto national referendum on Trump. As a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, this move serves three purposes simultaneously: securing California’s electoral base, reinforcing his image as a leading opponent of Trump, and setting a precedent for other Democratic governors nationwide.

Notably, the U.S. system increasingly resembles a closed loop of judicial politicization and political judicialization: Trump leverages the Department of Justice to target political opponents; Newsom uses the courts to resist DOJ overreach. Both sides are treating law as a weapon, with moral authority claimed by whoever speaks louder first.

Original: toutiao.com/article/1880817486309507/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.