Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) is continuing a familiar pattern of shifting attention away from the Pacific Palisades fire, this time focusing on climate change and insurance access instead of addressing his administration’s role in the disaster.
At an event this week, Newsom described California as both “blessed and cursed” in terms of climate risk, claiming the state is “on the tip of the spear of climate change.” He cited “simultaneous droughts and simultaneous floods,” and emphasized that “the hots are getting a lot hotter” and “the dry is drier.”
In referencing the Palisades fire, Newsom stated: “You saw one of the most devastating wildfires in American history in the middle of winter in Los Angeles in January, 100-mile-an-hour winds attached to fire, and as we rebuild, the number one concern people have: how do I get my home insured?”
Newsom’s remarks arrive as victims and lawmakers continue to question his leadership and accountability in the wake of a fire that destroyed nearly 7,000 structures and killed 12 people in the Pacific Palisades and Malibu areas alone. Newsom has faced scrutiny from federal officials, legal challenges from displaced residents, and intense criticism from those who accuse his administration of negligence, obstruction, and policy exploitation in the aftermath of the blaze.
In the days immediately following the fire, Gov. Newsom deflected responsibility during a visit to the evacuation zone, placing blame on residents who had not yet fled. “The fact that people were still not evacuated, still did not heed the warning, were just coming down the canyon,” he remarked, “is a reminder of how serious this moment is, and how important it is you listen to these evacuation orders.”
Yet reports later revealed that residents had been trapped by gridlock and poor planning. Roads were choked with traffic, and police presence was limited because many officers had been reassigned to protect President Joe Biden during his visit to Los Angeles. Some residents were forced to abandon their vehicles and flee on foot. Fire crews eventually had to clear abandoned cars with bulldozers before engines could reach the flames. Officials also confirmed that fire engines had not been pre-deployed, citing budget restrictions and local leadership decisions.
The governor’s office responded to a lawsuit filed by dozens of residents, arguing that the state was not obligated to monitor the burn scar left by the January 1 Lachman Fire. Although that fire was believed to have been extinguished, it reignited on January 7 under high winds, triggering what became known as the Palisades Fire.
Through a spokesperson, Newsom dismissed the plaintiffs as “opportunistic” and maintained that “The state didn’t start this fire.” The administration instead pointed to alleged arsonist Jonathan Rinderknecht, whose arrest, according to Newsom, would bring “closure.”
However, residents and attorneys pushed back. Plaintiffs maintained they had “smoking gun” video evidence showing visible smoke on the morning of January 7, hours before high winds fanned the flames. Local attorney Alexander Robertson, who asserted the state “just didn’t do their job” of monitoring the fire site, added, “He threw the firefighters under the bus. He took no responsibility.”
Advocates and victims also pushed back on the notion that the fire was unpreventable. Spencer Pratt, who lost his home in the fire and has since become a vocal opponent of the state’s response, said the community could have been spared if basic preventative measures had been taken. Pratt specifically pointed to the failure to clear brush in Topanga State Park, where the fire reportedly reignited. While acknowledging there may have been issues on federally managed land as well, Pratt stressed that Newsom was directly at fault for neglecting the state-managed property where the disaster started.
Read the full article here