Newsom bill could spend tax money to defend illegal immigrants from Trump deportation push: CA lawmaker

California Republican Rep. Bill Essayli is seeking answers from liberal Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration about whether bills introduced in the legislature’s special session to “Trump-proof” the state would thwart the president’s mass deportation program. The proposed bills include a $50 million initiative to bolster the state’s legal defenses against anticipated federal policies from President Donald Trump’s administration.

During a hearing on Tuesday to discuss the two bills that Newsom has proposed, Essayli questioned officials from Newsom’s office about whether the funds would be used “to defend illegal immigrants from deportation.” “It’s not very clear to me, but basically, these groups provide free legal services to illegal immigrants,” Essayli told Fox News Digital in an interview. “And what I wanted to know is, if they’re going to be defending illegal immigrants from deportation who have criminal records, and they could not answer the question. I think the answer is, absolutely they are.”

Essayli asked one of Newsom’s officials if the money would be used to defend criminal illegal immigrants from deportation, to which she responded, “Assembly member, as a budget staffer, I can only tell you what the grant is for, I don’t know that I can get you that level of guarantee.” She later added she’s “not certain about that” when asked further if any funds given to nonprofit organizations would go to defending criminal illegal immigrants.

Newsom’s proposal includes earmarking $25 million to the California Department of Justice to enhance its capacity to sue the Trump administration over policies that could “harm Californians,” including environmental regulations and abortion access. An additional $25 million is designated for nonprofit organizations to defend “immigrant families.”

“All of this is for show, just to say, ‘Oh, we had a public hearing on these bills,’ and then we’re supposed to vote,” Essayli said. “We didn’t get any questions answered.”

A spokesperson for Newsom’s office, Brandon Richards, told Fox News Digital in a statement that “none of this funding will be used to support immigration-related services for criminals. Period.” When questioned further about whether funds would be used to defend any illegal immigrants in California from deportation, Richards repeated his previous statement.

The Trump administration has been actively deporting illegal immigrants who have already been convicted of committing crimes. In the last week, the Department of Homeland Security reported that “law enforcement officials have removed and returned 7,300 illegal aliens.”

Newsom called a special legislative session quickly after Trump’s electoral victory to secure additional funding for the state’s legal defense against the administration. Reacting to the development on his TruthSocial account at the time, Trump criticized Newsom’s efforts, stating, “He is using the term ‘Trump-Proof’ as a way of stopping all of the GREAT things that can be done to ‘Make California Great Again,’ but I just overwhelmingly won the Election.”

California has a history of legal battles with the Trump administration, having filed 123 lawsuits during his first term, primarily concerning environmental, illegal immigration, and healthcare issues. The state was also among the first to establish itself as a “sanctuary state” for transgender transition treatments for minors, a practice that Trump recently barred from receiving federal support through an executive order.

The California Senate has already approved Newsom’s proposal, and the Assembly is set to vote on Thursday. If the Assembly passes the measures without amendments, they will be sent to Newsom’s desk by Friday.

In conclusion, Rep. Bill Essayli is seeking clarity on how the proposed funds will be used in defending illegal immigrants from deportation in California. As the legislative process unfolds, the state’s stance on immigration policies and legal battles with the federal government will continue to be a point of contention.