Former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter is the latest politician joining the competitive 2026 race for California governor. All eyes are on former Vice President Kamala Harris.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Katie Porter, the former Democratic congress member from Orange County who became a progressive star with her vigorous interrogations during committee hearings, is running for governor of California.

After months of hinting that she would run, Porter formally launched her 2026 gubernatorial campaign today with a video posted to social media in which she touts her independence from corporate interests and lambastes President Donald Trump.

“I first ran for office to hold Trump accountable. I feel that same call to serve now to stop him from hurting Californians,” Porter said in the video. “As governor, I won’t ever back down when Trump hurts Californians — whether he’s holding up disaster relief, attacking our rights or our communities, or screwing over working families to benefit himself and his cronies.”

Her announcement follows just a year after her unsuccessful bid for U.S. Senate. That race ended acrimoniously when Porter, who finished a distant third in the primary, called the election “rigged by billionaires,” for which she received enormous criticism.

But the national exposure has helped make her an immediate frontrunner to replace the termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Several independent polls since last fall show Porter with a clear lead over other announced and expected gubernatorial candidates. She also begins with more than $1.4 million left over from her Senate campaign — though the race for governor could ultimately require tens of millions of dollars in fundraising.

Porter, who flipped a Republican seat in 2018, left Congress in January after three terms and returned to teaching at the UC Irvine School of Law.

Porter aims to protect Californians from Trump

Though she’s touting “fresh blood and new ideas,” her platform is so far light on specifics. In her campaign launch video, Porter mentions protecting abortion rights, LGBTQ rights and immigrant communities and never letting “big banks, Big Pharma or Big Oil screw people over.”

“I’ve only ever been motivated by one thing: Making Californians’ lives better,” she said. “And I’ll go toe-to-toe with anyone who tries to hurt Californians. Because that’s what it means to have the courage to solve our toughest problems.”

Her focus on the ongoing ideological and political clashes between California and the federal government could position Porter as the state’s leading anti-Trump voice as Newsom instead tries to curry favor with the president to secure federal disaster aid for the devastating January fires in Los Angeles. Fewer than a third of adults approve of Trump in heavily Democratic California.

That might bolster Porter in a crowded race where the major Democratic candidates — Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former state Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former Controller Betty Yee — have so far mostly leaned into their personal biographies and messaging about affordability.

Attorney General Rob Bonta, who has already sued the new Trump administration more than a half dozen times, recently announced that he would forgo a run for governor and seek re-election.

Candidates wait for Harris decision

But the possibility that former Vice President Kamala Harris, who lost to Trump in November, could still enter the field looms large. Politico reported last week that Harris plans to decide by this summer whether she will run for governor — a decision that would likely force other candidates out of the race because of her advantages in fundraising and name ID.

The June 2026 gubernatorial primary is an open election from which the top two candidates will advance to a runoff, regardless of their party affiliation. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, and moderate Democrat Stephen Cloobeck, the founder of a timeshare company, are among the other announced candidates.

Alexei Koseff covers Gov. Gavin Newsom, the Legislature and California government from Sacramento. He joined CalMatters in January 2022 after previously reporting on the Capitol for The Sacramento Bee...

Gov. Gavin Newsom today approved $25 million for anticipated legal challenges against the Trump administration, positioning California to once again lead the resistance to the MAGA movement — just as the state is seeking federal assistance for the Los Angeles region’s recovery from devastating fires.

This story first appeared at Cal Matters.

When Newsom first unveiled what came to be known as the state’s “Trump-proofing” plan, he did so with a high-profile announcement just two days after the November election. But he signed the funding bill today in decidedly more low-key fashion, eschewing a public ceremony and issuing only a brief press release late on a Friday afternoon, a traditional dumping ground for news. It included no signing statement from the governor.

The decision to underplay what initially seemed to be a major priority for Newsom — one set to catapult him to the forefront of the Democratic ranks as the party struggled to respond to President Donald Trump’s re-election — underscores the awkward position that the governor now finds himself in.

Earlier this week, Newsom flew to Washington, D.C., to lobby for disaster aid, which Trump and other Republican leaders have repeatedly threatened to withhold unless California overhauls its water and elections policies. Newsom told the Los Angeles Times that he discussed the legal funding with the president during a lengthy meeting at the White House on Wednesday, though he declined to share how Trump responded when Newsom warned that he would sign the bill.

“As you would expect,” the governor said. “I won’t get into it. But it’s why it was an extended period of conversation.”

Newsom returned from his trip touting “a strong path forward for disaster aid,” but with no firm commitments from the federal government to help Los Angeles, which experienced tens of billions of dollars in damage. Congressional Republicans appear to still be adamant about setting conditions for any aid.

Though not unexpected, it means Newsom will likely have to continue playing nice with Trump for at least a while longer, even as other Democrats across the country increasingly speak out against the president.In California, Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office will receive the $25 million lawsuit fund, has recently taken the lead. He sued twice during Trump’s first two weeks in office, over executive orders to eliminate birthright citizenship and freeze all federal funding.

Newsom signed a second bill today that provides another $25 million for legal services for people caught up in the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.

Republicans have fiercely criticized both measures, which received final approval from the Legislature on Monday, arguing that they unnecessarily poke at Trump when the state needs his help.

“This slush fund isn’t about solving any real problems — it’s a political stunt designed to distract from the urgent issues our state faces and it won’t bode well for fire victims,” Senate Republican Leader Brian Jones of San Diego said in a statement.

When Newsom called for a special legislative session in November to “safeguard California values,” the money was supposed to be appropriated before Trump took office last month. But with dozens of new members getting their bearings, hesitation among Democrats about how much to lean into opposing a president who gained some ground in California this election, and the holidays looming, the Legislature was slow to take action. By the time members returned to Sacramento in January to begin work, the fires were breaking out in Los Angeles and the focus of the entire state government shifted.

Seeking to repair his relationship with the president — whom he spoke with for the first time in years when Trump briefly visited Los Angeles last month to survey the fire damage — Newsom has taken pains to distance himself from the “Trump-proofing” label.

But he and other Democratic leaders in California continue to defend the funding, which they contend is a sensible precautionary measure given Trump’s history of attacking California and the policies that it supports. The state sued more than 120 times during his first term, winning about two-thirds of the cases.

“Our job, above all else, is to protect our residents,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, a Salinas Democrat, said in a floor speech before Monday’s vote. “And let me be blunt: Right now, Californians are being threatened by an out-of-control administration in Washington that doesn’t care about the Constitution, that thinks there are no limits to its power.”

“We must ensure that our residents receive the federal services, the federal benefits, that they have contributed to and that they deserve,” he added. “Given the many executive orders that have been issued over the past two weeks, I can say with clarity: We do not trust President Donald Trump.”

In summary

The federal government typically covers 75% of rebuilding costs after a major disaster. President-elect Trump has threatened to withhold firefighting money from California.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

As wildfires erupted in Southern California, so did a years-long feud between incoming president Donald Trump and Gov. Gavin Newsom.

On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly threatened to cut off disaster funding for California.

He stopped short of that on Wednesday, but in a social media post, he called Newsom “Newscum” and blamed his water policies for the three fires that have destroyed hundreds of homes, killed at least five people and displaced tens of thousands of Californians. Due to environmental regulations, he said, not enough water has reached Southern California and fire hydrants went dry as a result.

“Now the ultimate price is being paid,” he said. “I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA. He is to blame for this.”

The Newsom administration called Trump’s post “pure fiction.” Climate and wildfire specialists say eight months of drought — and blowing embers driven by Santa Ana winds gusting as high as 75 mph — are to blame.

“You’ll never have enough water to put out a Santa Ana fire,” said Zeke Lunder, a California wildfire expert who’s been tracking and mapping the fires’ progress.

The bigger question looming over California is whether Trump’s feud with Newsom will cause him to act on his promise to cut federal disaster aid to the state when he takes office on Jan. 20.

On the campaign trail last year, Trump vowed that “we won’t give (Newsom) money to put out all his fires” unless the Democratic governor agreed to divert more water to California farmers. Two former Trump administration officials later told Politico that Trump initially withheld approval for disaster aid for California’s deadly 2018 wildfires, until aides showed him that many of the residents of the affected areas had voted for him.

A president can slow down the process of approving aid, or not declare a disaster, a decision critical to a state receiving federal relief funding. A 2021 federal report found that the Trump administration delayed $20 billion in disaster aid to Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria in 2017.

Federal funding typically pays for around 75% of the costs of rebuilding public infrastructure such as roads, sewers, water systems, parks and fire stations, officials say. That means California would have to come up with billions of dollars in additional money after major disasters if Trump follows through on his campaign rhetoric.

Federal disaster funds also help those who’ve lost their homes find temporary living quarters. Federal programs can help with home-rebuilding costs not covered by private insurance.

Newsom preparing for uncertain disaster funding

Newsom has taken Trump’s threats seriously enough that, in the fall, his administration began developing plans to establish a backup emergency response fund that the state could draw from if Trump refused to make federal aid available. It’s unclear if Newsom will follow through with the idea in his formal budget proposal, which is expected Friday.

“What you see with the president-elect is, you know, fire and fury often signifying something. You see fire and fury often signifying nothing,” Newsom said at a press conference Monday, where he cautioned that California’s fiscal stability is uncertain under the incoming Trump administration. “And you have to sort of work through all of that.”

On Wednesday, the outgoing Biden administration pledged federal help and is already sending disaster aid to the state, thanks to the $100 billion Congress approved in December.

President Joe Biden, who was already in California to designate a new national monument and for the birth of his great-grandson, made a brief public appearance at a Santa Monica fire station on Wednesday morning to pledge his support for the response.

“We’re prepared to do anything and everything, as long as it takes, to tame these fires and help reconstruct and make sure we get back to normal,” Biden said. “It’s going to be a hell of a long way. It’s going to take time.”

Newsom, who joined Biden, said the president’s quick declaration of a major disaster “means the world to us.”

“It’s impossible for me to express the level of appreciation and cooperation we received from the White House and this administration,” Newsom said. “So on behalf of all of us, Mr. President, thank you for being here. And not just being here today. Thank you for being here since the minute of this incident.”

Most of California’s congressional delegation — including U.S. Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff and 47 House members, both Democrats and Republicans — signed onto a letter urging Biden to approve the declaration Wednesday.

“The severity of these wildfires requires additional coordination and a wider range of long-term federal recovery programs,” the lawmakers wrote.

When asked Wednesday about Trump’s past threats to withhold disaster aid to California, Padilla warned that “our response to these disasters cannot become a partisan issue, and I will continue fighting to secure the necessary resources for our state’s recovery.”

How federal money rebuilt Paradise, Santa Rosa

In communities such as Paradise and Santa Rosa that suffered through similar catastrophic fires within the past decade, officials there said their communities wouldn’t have been able to rebuild without federal help.

“If we hadn’t had those types of funds to do the basic infrastructure that we’ve already done and are currently doing, I don’t think we would have recovered at all. It is such a significant piece of recovery,” said Collette Curtis, the recovery and economic development director for the town of Paradise. An early morning fire on Nov. 8, 2018 pushed by powerful winds destroyed most of the town in a matter of hours. Eighty-five people died; 18,000 buildings were destroyed.

Curstis estimates that Paradise has received at least $375 million in federal aid since the fire.

A year before the Paradise fire, thousands of homes in the city of Santa Rosa and surrounding communities burned in the Tubbs Fire – another wind-driven inferno that killed 22 people.

The federal government provided at least $366 million in direct aid to communities affected by the Tubbs Fire and other fires that year, according to estimates from the office of U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson, a Democrat who represents the region. Santa Rosa alone received $218 million, said Assistant City Manager Jason Nutt.

Without that much federal help, Santa Rosa wouldn’t have recovered, said the city’s former mayor, Chris Rogers, who was just sworn in as the region’s Democratic Assemblymember.

“Without the help of the federal government, not only would we potentially not have been able to rebuild, but we certainly wouldn’t have been able to rebuild as quickly,” Rogers said.

Rogers called Trump’s threat to cut disaster funding for California communities “inhuman.”

“This is a time when people need the most support, when they’ve lost everything,” Rogers said. “That’s the time when they need government to function for them. And so, to me, it’s completely unconscionable that you would choose that as not just to make a statement, but as a leverage point to try to get other things that you want. It’s wildly inappropriate.”

CalMatters reporters Stella Yu and Alastair Bland contributed to this story.