California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) is widely known to be angling to be the next Democratic presidential nominee after the implosion of Vice President Kamala Harris. This week, Newsom positioned not just his campaign but also his state as part of the “resistance” for the next four years against the Trump Administration. Newsom pushed a special session to secure a $25 million war chest to take the Trump Administration to court, even before the inauguration and release of policies by the incoming administration.

I wrote earlier about how the loss of both houses, as well as the White House, will mean that lawfare and obstructive efforts will shift to the states. Newsom is moving to out-position governors (and potential primary opponents) like Govs. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan.  Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker moved first in a chest-pounding press conference that he would stop the incoming administration from trying to remove undocumented persons, declaring, “You come for my people, you come through me.”

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) added that he will “fight to the death” against Trump’s agenda.

Newsom has upped the ante by demanding millions to pre-fund litigation against the new administration.  With a massive budget debt burden, Newsom has continued to pile on new debt for politically popular initiatives.

I cannot recall any state pre-positioning funds for the sole purpose of litigating against any incoming administration. The most obvious area of disagreement is the effort to ramp up the enforcement of immigration laws and to carry out deportations. While polls show that the public overwhelmingly supports such enforcement, including deportations, California is seeking to take the lead in court actions designed to slow or frustrate such efforts.

It could prove costly, not just in litigation expenditures. The Trump Administration could seek to withhold federal funding from states and cities obstructing enforcement efforts. In the meantime, sanctuary cities are continuing to face rising costs associated with rising populations of undocumented migrants.

For example, as we previously discussed, Denver Mayor Mike Johnson (D) declared that he was preparing the Mile-High City for its “Tiananmen Square moment” to fight the federal government in any attempt to deport unlawful migrants. Johnson warned that he would have not only Denver police “stationed at the county line to keep [ICE] out” but also “50,000 Denverites.” He later walked back the comments while repeating that the city is positioning itself to be part of the resistance.

Now the Common Sense Institute (CSI), a non-partisan research organization estimated that eight percent of the city’s 2025 budget of $4.4 billion is now dedicated to housing and services for undocumented persons.  If true, that amounts to $356 million or $7,900 per migrant.

California has led other states in offering a wide array of benefits to undocumented persons.

Notably, Californian voters surprised many Democrats this election with almost 40% voting for President-elect Trump over California’s own Vice President Kamala Harris.

There is an obvious political advantage to Newsom in securing these public funds to assume the mantle as the leader of “the resistance” as a foundation for his 2028 campaign. The question is how such an obstructive position will prove to the advantage of Californians. As citizens sought to increase criminal penalties by passing Proposition 36 by over 70 percent (over the opposition of Newsom), the governor is focusing on setting aside millions to fund a high-profile legal campaign against Trump’s administration.

Ultimately, the litigation campaign is unlikely to change federal enforcement efforts significantly. However, Newsom hopes it will significantly change his electoral enhancement efforts.