Gavin Newsom’s characterization of the Abrego García deportation as a “distraction” represents a catastrophic failure of moral clarity and constitutional understanding.
This isn’t a distraction. This is the constitutional foundation of our Republic hinging on a single case.
Let’s be absolutely clear about what’s at stake: The Supreme Court has issued a unanimous 9-0 order demanding that the administration facilitate the return Abrego García to the United States. A 9-0 ruling. In today’s polarized Court. This isn’t partisan; it’s fundamental. The President, bound by oath and the Constitution to “faithfully execute the laws,” is openly defying the highest judicial authority in the land.
If a President can simply ignore a direct, unanimous Supreme Court order with no consequences, then what remains of checks and balances? What remains of the separation of powers? What remains of the rule of law itself? This is not hyperbole—this is the actual constitutional crisis we were warned about, happening in real time.
The so-called “pragmatists” like Newsom who suggest we focus on “kitchen table issues” instead reveal a profound misunderstanding of what’s at stake. They present a false choice between economic concerns and constitutional principles—as if Americans cannot care about both their retirement accounts and whether we still have a functioning constitutional republic.
Perhaps Governor Newsom should visit Abrego García’s children—two with autism, one prone to seizures—and explain to them that their father’s wrongful imprisonment and torture in El Salvador is a “distraction” from more important matters. Perhaps he should tell these American citizens that the erroneous deportation of their father, in direct violation of his legal protections, is less important than poll-tested talking points about tariffs.
This is the Theater of Neutrality in its most shameful form—pretending that constitutional crises are merely political disagreements, that fundamental questions of rule of law are just one “issue” among many. It’s the cowardly posture that treats moral clarity as a political liability rather than a governing necessity.
What’s particularly galling is how Newsom frames this as political strategy: “Are they defending MS-13?” he asks, parroting the administration’s falsehoods even after a federal judge found that the gang allegations against Abrego García were based on a discredited database and testimony from a disgraced detective.
No, Governor. They’re defending the Constitution. They’re defending due process. They’re defending the principle that no one—not even a President—is above the law. They’re defending the idea that when the Supreme Court issues a unanimous order, it must be followed, not mocked or ignored.
Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And if we cannot summon the moral clarity to stand firmly against a President openly defying a direct Supreme Court order, then we have already surrendered the constitutional republic we claim to cherish.
The center must be held—not because it is easy, but because it is ours to hold. And holding it requires recognizing that some issues aren’t distractions but foundations. The rule of law isn’t a policy preference. It’s the condition that makes all other governance possible.
The ground approaches. And in this moment of constitutional gravity, those who cannot find their moral compass may find themselves remembered among those who stood aside while the Republic itself was undermined.
At this point, I’m not sure Gavin Newsom remembers what’s real.
