XPost: alt.politics.trump, alt.politics.liberalism, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns, sac.politics   
   From: democrat-insurrection@mail.house.gov   
      
   https://news.berkeley.edu/2025/01/10/trump-may-be-planning-a-sharp-   
   extended-conflict-with-california-experts-say/   
      
   Donald Trump does not hide his disdain for California and its perceived   
   progressive values. Now UC Berkeley analysts say he may be planning an   
   offensive against the state that extends from public health and climate to   
   immigration, energy and education.   
      
   January 10, 2025   
      
   President Donald Trump and the state of California engaged in low-grade   
   conflict almost continually during his first term in the White House, and   
   hostilities flashed into the headlines again this week as horrifying   
   wildfires brought death and destruction to Los Angeles. Rather than offer   
   words of consolation and support, Trump attacked Democratic Gov. Gavin   
   Newsom — and blamed him for the fires.   
      
   In a social media post, Trump made no mention of intense Santa Ana winds   
   or how climate change might have contributed to the fire. Instead, he   
   claimed that water and environmental policies set by “Gavin Newscum” had   
   precipitated the disaster.   
      
   The signals have been worrisome for months, Berkeley scholars say. During   
   last year’s presidential campaign, candidate Trump charged that Democrats   
   had “destroyed” California and rendered San Francisco “not livable.”   
   Inflation, taxes, gas prices, undocumented residents, the cost of   
   utilities — on these measures and others, Trump claimed, California’s   
   policies are “insane.”   
      
   While that may reflect the bombast of a political contest, the Berkeley   
   scholars warned in recent interviews that Trump and others in his MAGA   
   movement may be willing to take a more extreme approach in his second   
   term. They could press for policy changes that would threaten Californians   
   of every political persuasion — sometimes putting health and economic   
   security at risk.   
      
   He could withhold emergency aid in the event of wildfires, earthquakes or   
   floods. He could slash higher education funding for the state, or   
   aggressively challenge the state’s influential climate and environmental   
   standards. He could attempt to override the state’s protections for   
   reproductive health care and undermine public health policies.   
      
   “The data show that this was a change election — there’s no question about   
   that,” said Berkeley political scientist Henry Brady. “People want change,   
   and Trump is going to try to make change. So why pick fights with   
   California? Well, watch Fox News. California is the boogeyman. California   
   has cities out of control. California is doing all these crazy things with   
   climate change. We are the people who have sanctuary cities and the place   
   where people are woke beyond belief.   
      
   “Punishing California is something that is, from their perspective, a   
   positive good.”   
      
   Brady, like the other Berkeley scholars, said firm predictions about   
   what’s to come are difficult because so much remains unknown. Will Trump   
   unleash revenge against perceived political enemies? Or will he moderate   
   his attacks because California’s economy is such a huge portion of the   
   nation’s economy, or to protect donors in Silicon Valley or supporters in   
   other conservative areas of the state?   
      
   Despite Trump’s campaign pyrotechnics, it’s possible that any showdown   
   will be much more temperate, the sort of state-federal legal conflict   
   that’s been a constant in U.S. history.   
      
   “In some ways, the moment we’re in is exceptional,” said David A.   
   Carrillo, executive director of the California Constitution Center at   
   Berkeley Law. “But the basic principles are unexceptional. The battle over   
   control of policy and power between the states and the federal government   
   has always been with us. It’s been there since the founding of the   
   republic. It’s not a bug — it’s a feature. It’s a design principle.   
      
   “Having the states and the federal government argue over policy decisions   
   is essential to American government.”   
      
   The past is a guide to the future (maybe)   
      
   In trying to forecast the future, Carrillo and others said, the past   
   offers a good starting point.   
      
   In Trump’s first term, from 2017 to early 2021, his administration   
   initiated over 1,000 legal and policy actions on immigration alone, said   
   Caitlin Patler, a sociologist at Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public   
   Policy. Among them was the controversial ban on people from six Muslim-   
   majority countries.   
      
   Ken Alex, director of Project Climate at Berkeley Law’s Center for Law,   
   Energy and the Environment, offered another example: In his first term,   
   Trump withdrew the U.S. from the international Paris Agreement on climate   
   change, and he’s promised to do that again.   
      
   After that first-term decision, California joined New York and Washington   
   state in pledging to uphold the accord within their borders. Meanwhile,   
   California filed 122 lawsuits against the federal government, at a cost of   
   about $42 million. Ultimately, Brady said, the state won about 80% of the   
   cases. California also enacted policies to protect immigrants within its   
   borders.   
      
   That past would seem to augur a new era of conflict fought out politically   
   and in the courts. But Brady, former dean of the Goldman School and former   
   president of the American Political Science Association, suggested Trump   
   and his allies seem to be preparing for a more aggressive approach.   
      
   “I think they’re better organized,” he said, “and I think they’re more   
   clear about what they want to do.”   
      
   Some potential plans are telegraphed in Project 2025, the controversial   
   roadmap developed by top Trump allies to slash at programs perceived as   
   liberal and at the foundations of government itself. For example, the   
   report proposes tracking women who travel to California and other states   
   for abortions.   
      
   Berkeley scholars detailed four areas, in particular, where the new Trump   
   administration could have dramatic, and sometime dangerous, impact:   
      
   Public health: With Trump’s plan to nominate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to the   
   nation’s top health post, many experts are concerned that someone who   
   traffics in vaccine conspiracies and distrust of public health   
   institutions could undercut California’s existing health policies.   
      
   Federal health officials could cripple research by redirecting funding   
   away from specific types of studies, said Arthur Reingold, a professor at   
   Berkeley’s School of Public Health. They might appoint vaccine skeptics to   
   key advisory bodies. Reingold said that would be consequential because   
   state officials often rely on expert guidance from these committees when   
   setting their own rules.   
      
   The federal government sends billions of dollars annually to states for   
   initiatives ranging from childhood vaccines and health screenings to   
   pandemic preparedness and response. Besides upending research and   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)