Newsom Press Office Referred to Secret Service After Post About Kristi Noem Triggers Threat Assessment

Newsom Press Office in Hot Water After Post on Kristi Noem Referred for Investigation to Secret Service

California Governor Gavin Newsom’s press shop managed to turn a tense national moment into a public relations train wreck, and it did not take long. Within hours of a high-profile assassination that rocked the country and a string of violent incidents, an official account posted about DHS Secretary Kristi Noem in a way many found alarming. The result was a Secret Service referral and predictable outrage from across the political spectrum.

Lawmakers on the right and center reacted with disbelief that anyone in a governor’s office would make a post that could reasonably be read as threatening, given the volatile environment. Even former Democrats and centrist voices criticized the move, signaling how tone-deaf it appeared. This was not a clever political jab; it was reckless and dangerous.

Before the backlash fully settled, the Post Office’s second attempt at damage control only made things worse, amplifying suspicions rather than calming them. Instead of retracting or apologizing, the account pivoted to policy rhetoric about legislation and accountability, which read like tone deaf spin. That follow-up felt like tossing gasoline on a smoldering fire that already had people worried about safety.

From Heated Rhetoric to a Federal Threat Assessment

Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said he was referring the post to the Secret Service and asking for a full threat assessment, a move that underlines how seriously authorities viewed the potential risk. “We have zero tolerance for direct or implict threats against government officials,” Essayli said. When a state’s communication sparks a federal security inquiry, it’s fair to ask who is running the account and why caution was ignored.

Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin blasted the post as well, labeling it bluntly “ugly.” Her next comments landed harder, pointing out the gap between online bravado and real-world courage: “Your keyboard warrior team may hide behind their laptops and spew this kind of vitriol but you would never have the guts to say this to her face,” McLaughlin said. Those words captured why the reaction was so swift and bipartisan.

The Human Toll Behind a Careless Tweet

Noem made clear the post had consequences beyond headlines when she explained that family members reached out, worried about her safety. Her husband and daughter asked if she was okay after seeing the social media activity, which is exactly the kind of fear governors and cabinet members are supposed to avoid provoking. Personal safety is not a game, and public officials should know better than to play with it.

Context matters: this misstep happened amid real violence, including an armed man detained at a memorial site and a shooting at a local TV station. Federal agents have been doxxed and harassed in some places, and many are wearing masks for their protection as a direct response to credible threats. To suddenly advocate unmasking or to mock the agents is to ignore the very threats those agents face.

Shortly after the initial post, the press office published another statement about proposed legislation they said would protect immigrant communities and hold federal actors accountable. That line of messaging sounded like political theater rather than contrition, and it raised new questions about priorities when a communication team opts for policy jabs instead of damage control. Public safety should not be a bargaining chip in a political Twitter spat.

Political Consequences and a Broader Pattern

This episode fits a broader pattern where some Democratic officials and activists escalate rhetoric while publicly claiming to seek calm. The same lawmakers who called for lowering the temperature after a tragedy were also among those who declined to pass a straightforward resolution honoring a targeted conservative figure, revealing a partisan split in how political violence is publicly acknowledged. That inconsistency fuels distrust and widens the divide on how to prevent escalation.

Former Senator Joe Manchin publicly criticized certain progressive figures for their remarks after the assassination, arguing the tone showed why Democrats are struggling to govern responsibly. His critique highlighted a reality many conservatives have been saying for years: when rhetoric turns toxic, policy and public safety suffer. Accountability should not stop at partisan talking points.

On top of the optics, there’s a legal and ethical question about whether a government office should publish anything that can reasonably be interpreted as threatening. Even if intent was to be provocative or satirical, the effect is what counts when people’s safety is potentially at risk. Officials must be held to a higher standard because their words carry weight and consequences.

What This Means Going Forward

Newsom’s office now faces a choice: own the mistake, apologize, and put new safeguards in place for official communications, or keep treating social media like a partisan megaphone. The latter option risks more federal scrutiny, political fallout, and real harm to people who deserve protection. The former could at least start to rebuild trust.

For Republicans watching, this is a clear example of how careless rhetoric from political elites can escalate into security matters that affect everyone. Criticism of policy and robust debate are part of our politics, but targeted public posts that verge on threats cross a red line. Leaders who want to be taken seriously on the national stage should act like it.

Editor’s Note: The mainstream media continues to deflect, gaslight, spin, and lie about President Trump, his administration, and conservatives.

Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.

n

h/t: Red State

n