by Shaun King
I’ve known Gavin Newsom for more than 10 years. He’s one of the most fluent political communicators alive — never met a question he didn’t love, and he usually answers with 1,000 words and three policy cites.
So when my friend and brother Van Lathan simply brought up AIPAC on Higher Learning and said, “I will not vote for a candidate that takes $1 from AIPAC,” I expected a straightforward answer. A yes. A no. A why.
Instead, Gavin short-circuited. He said, “That’s interesting” again and again (Mediaite counted seven), claimed Van was “the first to bring up AIPAC in years,” called AIPAC “not relevant to my day-to-day life,” and tried to pivot to Prop 50, city councils, school boards — anything but a clear stance.
This wasn’t a trap. It was a layup. And he bricked it off the bottom of the rim.
Why ‘I haven’t heard AIPAC in years’ doesn’t pass the laugh test
AIPAC is not obscure. It’s at the center of America’s political argument about Gaza and U.S. complicity. It has spent hundreds of millions in primaries, targeted progressives, and is a litmus test for young voters furious about genocide.
And just to ground this in reality: AIPAC publicly thanked Newsom for traveling to Israel in October 2023 and “standing shoulder to shoulder” with the government. So either he misspoke — or he expects us to believe a phrase he hears regularly is brand new to him. Neither option is reassuring.
What the freeze exposed: the softball culture
The clip went viral not because it was “gotcha,” but because it revealed how rarely our most-protected politicians are confronted with non-softball questions. The second a real question about money and ethics entered the chat, a seasoned communicator stalled.
- Nina Turner wrote, “Governor Newsom is a coward. Good on @VanLathan for pressing him on this question.”
- Matt Duss added, “Anyone hoping to run in 2028 is gonna have to come up with a waaaaay better answer than ‘it’s interesting’… And I’m sorry but Newsom wants us to believe @VanLathan is the first person to mention AIPAC to him in years? Come on.”
Ro Khanna broke the silence — That matters
Then Congressman Ro Khanna did something rare — especially for a California Democrat speaking about a California governor. He didn’t hide behind euphemism when he wrote a public rebuttal:
“This is not ‘interesting.’ It is defining for the future of our party. We must be for human rights, not take PAC and lobbyist money including AIPAC and call out the genocide to win the trust of young voters and have America be a moral leader in the world again.”
That took guts. Members almost never call out a popular governor from their own party and state. Khanna didn’t nibble at the edges; he put the stakes on the table: human rights over donor pressure, no AIPAC money, name the crime, win back young voters with moral clarity. If you want to be a national figure in 2028, start where Khanna stood.
Objection and answer
Objection: He was just thinking out loud — let the man reflect.
Answer: Reflection is fine. Evasion in 2025 — after two years of televised atrocity — is disqualifying. If you need a minute to decide whether you’ll take AIPAC checks, you’ve already decided.
Objection: AIPAC is just another PAC.
Answer: It isn’t. Its money has reshaped primaries, punished dissent, and financed a politics that excuses mass killing as “self-defense.” Voters deserve to know whether you’re financially tied to it — yes or no.
Objection: We should focus on local issues—Prop 50, school boards, city councils.
Answer: We can walk and chew gum. Local fights matter. So does whether a would-be national leader will accept funds from a lobby implicated in genocide. That’s a first-order character question.
What a serious answer could have sounded like
He had a thousand ways to handle it:
- Ethics: “No, I won’t accept AIPAC money. My votes and voice are not for sale.”
- Policy: “I oppose collective punishment. I support conditioning aid on international law and opening Rafah now.”
- Transparency: “Here are my donors. Here’s who I returned checks to. Here’s who I won’t meet with again.”
Instead, we got “that’s interesting.” Seven times.
The one list: Questions every candidate should answer on the record
- Will you accept money from AIPAC or its affiliates? Yes or no.
- Do you support conditioning U.S. aid on compliance with international law?
- Was what happened in Gaza genocide? If not, state your standard.
- Will you back UN-led investigations and prosecutions without exception?
- Will you urge your party committees and aligned super PACs to reject AIPAC funds?
Ask these of every mayor, governor, senator and presidential aspirant. If they freeze, that’s your answer.
This is bigger than Gavin
I’m not writing this to drag a man I know. I’m writing it because Van asked a simple question millions are asking at their kitchen tables — and the governor’s panic told the truth about our politics. Too many leaders want to posture as Trump slayers while failing the moral test of our time. If you can condemn authoritarianism at home but won’t say one honest sentence about the Zionist lobby’s money, you’re not ready for the future the rest of us are already living in.
We don’t need more word games. We need leaders who can say what the money is, what it buys, and why they won’t take it — and who can say it before a podcaster corners them.
The North Star with Shaun King, where this story first appeared, is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support this work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Shaun writes: “I refuse to be silent — and I need you with me. Please become a member today. Your support keeps every Gaza investigation, every media critique and every hard question free for the world to read.”
