This billionaire could be California’s next governor — and he wants to arrest Stephen Miller

The California governor’s race isn’t just important for Californians. At a moment where the federal government is sabotaging American democracy from within, the question of how the leader of the union’s wealthiest and most populous state responds — and the ways they use their powers to challenge federal authority — has major implications for the country.

The current governor, Gavin Newsom, has (at least rhetorically) positioned himself as a leader of the national anti-Trump resistance. But Newsom is on his way out, gearing up for an all-but-assured White House run in 2028. The real policy action will likely be up to his successor — a race that’s currently a toss-up between a handful of plausible candidates, all competing to make it to the runoff round after the June 2 “jungle primary” eliminates all but the two best polling candidates.

Tom Steyer has emerged as a favorite to make it to that final round. Steyer, a billionaire funder of liberal causes — including both an early effort to impeach Donald Trump in the first term and California’s recent gerrymandering to favor Democrats — is trying to solidify himself as the most progressive candidate in the race; he’s won an endorsement from Bernie Sanders’s Our Revolution group for his efforts and has promised to take on the administration, including by investigating ICE agents and even White House leaders for potential crimes. 

But I wanted to understand more about how Steyer understands his role at this moment in American history. What does he think the role of states are in pushing back against the Trump administration? And how does he think about the risks here, either of breaking Americans’ civic trust or pushing the boundaries of law in ways that provoke a dangerous conflict with the federal government?

Steyer took some time to talk to us about all of this on Monday. What follows is a transcript of our conversation, edited for length and clarity.

Do you think the state of American politics right now can be reasonably described as an authoritarian emergency?

I think that we are under absolutely authoritarian threat. It is absolutely a crisis. There is a deliberate attempt by the Trump administration to take away Americans’ democratic rights, including free and fair elections.

There is, this is a model, and we’ve seen it around the world, of authoritarian, anti-democratic parties trying to use the processes of democracy to destroy democracy. Is that going on? Absolutely that is going on. And so, is that a crisis? If you believe in democracy, which I fervently do, then it’s a crisis and it requires people to stand up and oppose it.

And I’ve been very disappointed in the establishment of the United States — however you want to define that — in its unwillingness to take those principled stands.

Obviously I agree with all that. But in the past day or so, I have been thinking about how we talk about these sorts of issues.

What happened at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner was an ordinary American — a Caltech grad, as it happens — who seems to go from seeing real abuses by the government to justify an action that both of us, I’m certain, think is totally indefensible and immoral. So how do you think about talking about democratic emergency in a world where some people take related worries in such directions?

Well, I don’t think there’s any way to describe that except the deep emotional divides in our country, the deep sense that democracy isn’t working, a strong belief that there’s no other choice, and obviously a terrible decision. I think it’s a symbol of how emotional and upset Americans are on both sides of this. I mean yes, what this guy did, but [also] the elected official who was killed in Minnesota with her husband. 

We are in a situation — well, you described it as an authoritarian crisis. Clearly Americans see this as a crisis on both sides and there is a vilification on both sides. And people are resorting to what can only be described as political violence. The whole point of democracy is that we make decisions together and if you don’t like it, you get to go back and sort of lobby your fellow citizens to make a different decision and that’s the way we avoid political violence.

Regime change has happened here for 250 years, mostly peacefully — overwhelmingly peacefully — because we have a system that allows the voice of the people to be heard, and if you don’t like it go back and change the opinions of your fellow citizens.

There’s a way in which violence is an attack on the democratic system itself, right? Attacking the very notion that we resolve political disagreements through democratic mechanisms — voting, discussion, debate — rather than, you know, going shooting people. 

But that does raise a question: You’re running for governor, to make one of those peaceful political changes. How do you think about the role as a governor differently under this administration than you would at any other time in recent US history?

We have policy platforms that are much more specific, much more detailed than anybody else who’s running for governor. But it’s also about explaining the world to people so we have a shared sense of what we’re trying to do and who we are. That is called leadership, and it is going to be really necessary for the next governor of California. Not just to say that the Trump administration is doing bad things, [but to ask] what are you doing? what do we stand for?

I always say to people, “When we fight back, we should be looking at the people who’ve done it well,” — and the people who I look to are the civil rights movement. It’s not just that [our opponents] are terrible; it’s that we’re good. That we stand for democracy and nonviolence and the rule of law and productive citizenship and success. 

I always say to people: Do you want to be on the side of the people who kill four little girls in church or do you want to be on the side of the four little girls in church? In Minnesota, they basically went out in the street and said: Do you want to be on the side of these masked men with assault rifles, shooting Americans with impunity? Or do you want to be on the side of organized nonviolent Americans who believe in democracy and liberty?

I get the analogy, but there’s a fundamental difference in power, right? The civil rights movement was a group of individual citizens who organized against an oppressive system. You’re going to be in political office in the most important state in the country, right? So you’ll have powers available to you that they didn’t, formal ones. How would you plan to use those specifically?

In terms of ICE — I’ve said I’m in favor of abolishing ICE. I consider it a criminal organization. That it is, there’s no point in reforming it. We need immigration services, but you can’t reform an organization like that. You should abolish it and put in a new one. 

“We need immigration services, but you can’t reform an organization like that. You should abolish it and put in a new one.”

And I have a policy about ICE where we will prosecute people for racial profiling, because it’s illegal. We will prosecute people for violence against Californians and the people who send them to do the violence, their supervisors, because it’s illegal. We will have a legal defense fund for people who have been kidnapped or who are under threat of deportation so that the system can be fair. We will insist on inspecting detention centers because they’re within our borders. We have a right to do that. No one can hide that. And lastly, we will have a PR campaign about know your rights so that, in effect, everybody understands that the state of California is standing between the threat of ICE, the terror of ICE, and the people of California.

But I want to push back a little bit on what you said. Because it’s true that the governor of California has powers, and it’s true that those powers need to be used effectively. And we do need to have policies like the one I described. But let me say this to you, when the United States or when the state of California is in crisis, which you described, the other thing that someone needs to do is give people the framework for understanding why we have that policy.

FDR: Was he an executive who put in all those programs and pushed back? Yes, he was. He also re-changed the way people think about the relationship with the government and their fellow citizens. We need someone who can get back to the idea of not just what we aren’t, but who we are and why that works.

I take the point about moral leadership, but I want to go back to ICE for a second. In the plan you have on your website, there’s a very interesting line about not just arresting ICE agents but imposing criminal liability on “their leaders.” 

So do you think if you were governor and your policy were enacted that it would be right for California state agents to arrest, say, Stephen Miller if he showed up there and was shown to be responsible for some of these things that you believe to be illegal actions by ICE agents?

Obviously that’s really hard to do on a legal basis because there’s so many steps in terms of that chain. But do I think that what he’s doing is illegal in terms of inciting criminal behavior in the state of California? Yes. 

I understand how hard it is to make that case. But the point I’m making is these guys aren’t acting on their own — ICE is an organization which is fundamentally set up to break the law. And there’s an assumption, made very clear in Minnesota, [that] we will do what we want. And if that involves shooting innocent Americans, so be it.  And that is not something [ICE thinks] people should be punished for. 

Just so I’m clear: You think that Stephen Miller is engaged in criminal activity right now through his role in directing ICE.

I think that if you set up an organization that racially profiles Americans and uses violence indiscriminately to control them and involves actually killing innocent people for no reason other than your desire to control them, that sounds like the definition of illegal to me. Which part am I missing?

So would you order California state police or the attorney general’s office to open up an investigation into a potential Miller arrest if you were to win office?

We would pursue it. 

And Zack, it’s funny: In this campaign, the first week of the campaign, we talked about breaking the electric monopolies’ power. And this reporter said to me, “Well, do you have a white paper on that, a 50-pager?” And I was like, “This is the first week of the campaign, man.” 

And I would say to you: Dude, this is the primary. Would we in fact pursue this? Of course we would. But how exactly will it work out? You’re asking me, Tom, 59 steps down the road, where are you going to be? And it’s like, well, give me a chance. 

But I am saying — wait, let me ask you a question, Zack. Do you believe that a federal officer has the right to murder an American in cold blood and for no reason, no discernible acceptable reason, and walk away with impunity?

“We are trying to stand up against somebody who is trying to deliberately, intentionally powerfully attack democracy, who has in fact tried to steal an election overtly.”

No, I definitely don’t. The reason I’m pushing this is not because I expect you to have the answer to every problem or to tell me how this investigation will work out, but more as a way of getting into a really hard question about how to deal with an authoritarian federal government at the state level.

I can understand the impulse behind your policy. But at the same time, if you were to really go down that route and follow this logic to its endpoint, you’d end up in this pretty massive confrontation with the federal government.

Well, that is true. That is true. And how to do it really matters. God is in the details. I get that. 

But let me put back to you your initial question. Your initial question is, are we an authoritarian crisis? And you were clearly implying, Tom, you dolt, of course we’re in an authoritarian crisis. 

That was you, not me.

I then say to you: You think you’re getting out of an authoritarian crisis without standing up for something? That’s the whole point of why I said I was disappointed in so many American leaders: They’ve been unwilling to stand up and tell the truth. They’ve been unwilling to tell the truth if it’s going to mean a confrontation or they’re going to be hurt in any way.

You were a big supporter of the California redistricting effort. And I do think there’s a distinction between gerrymandering and counter-gerrymandering — a significant moral one.  On the other hand, I mean, the new California maps really do disadvantage Republican voters living in California.

How do you make the case for that as being worth it?

Look, California had a thing that was a nonpartisan districting [process] designed to be as impartial and fair as possible. And everybody in California supported it. Everybody, that’s what we wanted. That’s who we are.

And they [red states] said, Okay, here’s the deal. You play by the rules, we’re going to cheat. See how that works for you. And it’s like, okay, they are using the processes of democracy to destroy democracy. We’re playing a new game entirely.

If you said to me at this second, Zack, every state will do exactly what California was doing — we’ll have a nonpartisan, fair districting to make it as objective — that’s fine. Done. If we get back to a place where democracy’s not under threat, will I push very hard for that? Done. 

But right now, there’s somebody who is trying to break the rules, who is trying to cheat, and we need to stand up for a good outcome. And are we doing something illegal? No, we are trying to stand up for democracy. That is what we are trying to do. And we are trying to stand up against somebody who is trying to deliberately, intentionally powerfully attack democracy, who has in fact tried to steal an election overtly.

There are many problems with democracy in the United States. I think you and I agree that Donald Trump’s at the forefront of them. But the concentration of wealth seems like it is part of it too. So how do you reconcile the tension here between your personal financial involvement in politics and your own criticism of inequality?

Am I for complete change of the system? Yes. Am I absolutely in favor of getting corporate money out of it? Am I in favor of changing the whole system? I certainly am, but Zack, I’m dealing with the real world right now. I’m the only person running for governor who’s taking them on. I’m the only person they’re worried about. I’m the only person they’re spending a nickel against and they’re spending tens of millions of dollars to stop because they think they run the state. 

And so when you say to me, Tom, doesn’t that seem like a distortion? I’m like, it’s absolutely a distortion. But you know something, that’s the world we’re living in. And if we’re going to stand up and get to the place we need to get to and that working people are going to be represented, and we’re going to take away the privilege of these corporate special interests, someone has to do it — not just talk about it, do it. 

A lot of the arguments you’re making here revolve around the idea of fighting fire with fire, right? It’s that there’s unfairness built into the system right now. 

You think?

And so the thing you got to do about that is you have to respond in kind. There’s no way to remain pure in such a situation.

I think what we’re doing absolutely stands up for what’s right.