Trump Responds to Newsom on Civil War: “Just the Opposite — I DON’T Want a Civil War. Civil War Would Happen If You Left It to People Like Him. He’s Grossly Incompetent”; Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi Endorses OBBB: “Benefits Millions of Drivers and Couriers in Form of No Tax on Tips”; Trump on LA: “Lucky We Brought the Guard In”

Multiple significant moments marked June 2025. President Trump responded to Gavin Newsom’s claim that Trump wanted “civil war” on American streets. A reporter: “What do you make of the fact that he says, you want a civil war on the streets of America?” Trump: “No, it’s just the opposite. I don’t want a civil war. Civil war would happen if you left it to people like him. And I liked him, you know, I always got along with him. Never had a problem with him, but he’s grossly incompetent.” Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi delivered a remarkable OBBB endorsement: “Every day, we see people using our platform to create opportunities for themselves, to save for home, to pay for tuition, to build their own American dream one trip at a time. And that’s why Uber is so proud to support this bill, which also includes benefits for millions of Uber drivers and couriers in the form of no tax on tips. Mr. President, our earners are grateful for your support.” On LA riots: “Look at the job he’s doing in California. He’s destroying one of our great states. If I didn’t get involved, if we didn’t bring the guard in… we had a disaster happening, and they now admit it was a disaster… It’s still simmering a little bit.”

The Civil War Controversy

Newsom had publicly accused Trump of wanting “civil war” on American streets.

Newsom’s accusation:

• Made during LA riots
• Framed deployment as inflammatory
• Suggested Trump wanted violence
• Media amplification
• Political attack framework

Why Newsom was saying this:

• Defensive posture
• Political positioning
• Attempt to reframe
• Draw attention from failures
• Base mobilization

Trump’s immediate response was characteristic.

A reporter asked: “What do you make of the fact that he says, you want a civil war on the streets of America?”

Trump’s direct answer: “No, it’s just the opposite. I don’t want a civil war.”

He made the reversal: “Civil war would happen if you left it.”

He elaborated on Newsom: “If you left it to people like him, and I liked him, you know, I always got along with him. Never had a problem with him, but he’s grossly incompetent.”

The “Grossly Incompetent” Framing

Trump’s assessment was specific.

What “grossly incompetent” meant:

• Not personally vindictive
• Professional rather than personal
• Management judgment
• Performance-based critique
• Substantive rather than rhetorical

What Newsom was actually doing:

• Los Angeles burning
• Federal enforcement opposed
• State failing to maintain order
• National Guard deployment triggered
• Political theater

The reversal logic:

• If civil war had come, Newsom’s policies would have caused it
• Federal intervention preventing breakdown
• Trump restoring order
• Newsom creating conditions for violence
• Roles reversed from Newsom’s framing

The “I liked him” context:

• Political relationships complex
• Personal differentiation from policy differences
• Avoiding permanent feuds
• Professional disagreement framework
• Political maturity

The “Left to People Like Him”

The counter-framing was powerful.

What Trump was saying:

• Americans need real leadership
• Newsom represents failed leadership
• His policies would produce chaos
• Federal intervention necessary
• Trump restoring order

The political counter-narrative:

• Newsom claimed Trump wanted chaos
• Trump said Newsom caused chaos
• Both can’t be right
• Voters would judge based on results
• LA situation provided evidence

The practical effect:

• Trump framed as order-restorer
• Newsom framed as chaos-enabler
• Voters watching LA events
• Federal deployment justified
• State failure apparent

Dara Khosrowshahi’s Endorsement

Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi delivered an unexpected endorsement.

“It’s an incredible honor to be here in a place that symbolizes the very opportunity that has defined my life,” Khosrowshahi said.

He addressed Trump: “Thank you, Brad. Thank you, Michael, for your vision. We all strive to build something that lasts, and the Invest in America Act is a legacy that is going to last for generations.”

He delivered personal appreciation: “President Trump, thank you for your leadership. Your support is going to turn this powerful idea into a powerful reality for millions of young Americans.”

Khosrowshahi’s Immigrant Story

Khosrowshahi shared his personal background.

“Now, I was nine years old when I came to this country,” Khosrowshahi said.

He described the circumstances: “My family arrived in America having fled the Iranian Revolution. We had lost everything that we had built.”

He articulated the American story: “But we gained something far more valuable here. We gained a chance to rebuild again. We had a close-knit family. We had access to world-class education, and we had the one thing that fuels every American dream, and that’s hope.”

The Personal American Story

Khosrowshahi’s story was archetypal American.

The specific circumstances:

• Iranian Revolution 1979
• Political refugees to America
• Lost everything in homeland
• Rebuilt in America
• Rose to CEO of major company

Why this mattered politically:

• Real immigrant success story
• Different from “undocumented” narrative
• Earned success through legal immigration
• American opportunity real
• Pattern Trump could celebrate

The contrast with other immigration narratives:

• Khosrowshahi = legal, earned success
• Current illegal immigration = different pattern
• Not all immigration equivalent
• Khosrowshahi endorsement = legitimate immigrant support
• Different from sanctuary city framework

The political effect:

• High-profile corporate endorsement
• Major tech executive backing Trump
• Reinforces OBBB legitimacy
• Crosses political lines
• Counter to Democratic framing

”What If We Could Bottle Up That Hope?”

Khosrowshahi articulated the Invest in America Act’s vision.

“So what if we could bottle up that hope? What if we could give that same power of hope, real, tangible hope, that comes from having a stake in your own future and a stake in the best companies in the world to every single child that’s born in this country?”

The “Invest in America Act”

The specific policy he was endorsing.

What the Invest in America Act does:

• Provides investment accounts for children born in America
• Automatic stake in American economy
• Compound growth over childhood
• Long-term wealth accumulation
• American citizen-only benefit

The policy framework:

• Newborn US citizen automatically gets account
• Initial federal contribution
• Parents can contribute
• Invested in American companies
• Available at adulthood

Why this was significant:

• Builds ownership society
• Creates stake in American economy
• Benefits future generations
• Tied to citizenship specifically
• Universal for Americans

The conservative philosophy:

• Personal ownership over government programs
• Investment over redistribution
• Long-term wealth building
• American economy as resource
• Working for American future

The Compounding Engine

Khosrowshahi described the mechanism.

“That’s the promise of the Invest in America Act. It’s not just an account, it’s a launchpad. It puts the unstoppable engine of compounding to work for our kids, building a future for them from day one.”

Why Uber Specifically Supported OBBB

Khosrowshahi explained the business rationale.

“This mission is personal to me, and it’s core to us at Uber.”

He described Uber’s business: “Every day, we see people using our platform to create opportunities for themselves, to save for home, to pay for tuition, to build their own American dream one trip at a time.”

He delivered the specific endorsement: “And that’s why Uber is so proud to support this bill, which also includes benefits for millions of Uber drivers and couriers in the form of no tax on tips.”

He addressed Trump directly: “Mr. President, our earners are grateful for your support. Thank you very much.”

The Uber-OBBB Connection

The connection was substantive.

Uber’s business model:

• Millions of drivers and couriers
• Independent contractors
• Tips essential income
• Flexible work schedules
• Service-based economy

How OBBB benefits Uber drivers:

• No tax on tips provision
• Immediate income increase
• Makes Uber jobs more attractive
• Helps Uber recruiting
• Benefits company and workers

The specific financial impact:

• Uber drivers earning from tips
• Federal tax on tips eliminated
• Meaningful income increase
• Significant for gig workers
• Competitive advantage for platform

Why Uber cared politically:

• Workforce depends on driver economics
• Driver recruitment and retention
• Employee-friendly policies valued
• Political alignment with administration
• Business case for support

Trump on LA Response

Trump addressed the Los Angeles situation directly.

“Look at the job he’s doing in California,” Trump said about Newsom. “He’s destroying one of our great states.”

He credited federal intervention: “If I didn’t get involved, if we didn’t bring the guard in, and we would bring more in if we needed it, because we have to make sure there’s gonna be law and order.”

The Federal Deployment Justification

Trump laid out his rationale.

“You had a disaster happening, and they now admit it was a disaster,” Trump said.

He referenced specific acknowledgment: “I watched the chief yesterday, he was a good man, by the way, and he said, well, we’re lucky we did this because they were overwhelmed.”

He made the basic point: “You saw what was happening. So we did the right thing, everybody agrees to that.”

The California Water Controversy

Trump returned to a familiar theme.

“But you have a governor who let the city burn down, didn’t want water to be sent down to him, and I sent billions of gallons of water.”

He extended: “I wanted to do it in the first term, they wouldn’t do it over, I don’t know, they have environmental reasons, but there were no environmental reasons.”

He offered his interpretation: “I think it’s just a political philosophy. It’s lucky for the people in Los Angeles and in California that we did what we did. We got it just in time.”

He added realistic qualification: “It’s still simmering a little bit.”

The California Water Issue

Trump’s water framing had specific context.

The LA fires:

• Earlier in 2025
• Devastating wildfires
• Poor water infrastructure
• Water policy controversies
• State response inadequate

The Trump administration’s water action:

• Redirected water to Southern California
• Enabled faster response
• Contrasted with California policies
• Specific executive action
• Federal intervention

The “political philosophy” framing:

• California water policies protect specific constituencies
• Fish in Delta area given priority
• Agricultural and urban users secondary
• Environmental protection primary
• Conservative criticism of priorities

The practical consequences:

• LA fires fed by inadequate water
• Specific casualties
• Property destruction
• Federal had to intervene
• State policy failures apparent

”It’s Still Simmering”

Trump’s realistic qualification was important.

What “still simmering” meant:

• Tensions haven’t fully resolved
• LA still volatile
• Federal deployment ongoing
• Political opposition continuing
• Not complete victory

The honest assessment:

• Trump not claiming total success
• Acknowledging ongoing situation
• Realistic about complications
• Continued attention required
• Not premature victory

Why this mattered:

• Demonstrates realistic approach
• Doesn’t overstate success
• Credibility maintained
• Continued engagement signaled
• Political realism

The Broader Political Context

The LA situation revealed fundamental tensions.

The federalism question:

• States have primary law enforcement role
• Federal government limited directly
• But federal deployment possible
• States can’t ignore federal law
• Tension at state-federal boundary

The Democratic position:

• State/local enforcement primary
• Federal intervention inappropriate
• Immigrant community protection
• Sanctuary cities/states
• Resistance to federal immigration

The Republican position:

• Federal immigration authority
• Local authorities can’t ignore
• Public safety requires enforcement
• Sanctuary policies dangerous
• Federal intervention justified

The specific LA trigger:

• ICE operations targeting illegal immigrants
• Democratic resistance
• Riots against enforcement
• Federal deployment response
• Ongoing political dispute

The Civil War Rhetoric

Newsom’s “civil war” rhetoric required analysis.

What Newsom was actually doing:

• Rhetorical attack on Trump
• Using inflammatory language
• Trying to shift blame
• Political positioning
• Base mobilization

Why this was problematic:

• Exaggerated language
• Creates fear rather than solutions
• Undermines reconciliation
• Partisan rather than governing
• Political theater

Trump’s effective response:

• Rejected framing
• Reversed accusation
• Substantive assessment of Newsom
• Personal rather than inflammatory
• Professional rather than matching escalation

The political effect:

• Newsom’s escalation backfired
• Trump appeared reasonable
• Democratic overreach evident
• Federal intervention justified
• State failure highlighted

The Media Framing

Media coverage of events revealed bias patterns.

How media covered violence:

• “Mostly peaceful protests”
• Focus on property rather than people
• Sympathetic framing for protesters
• Critical framing of federal response
• Selective editing

What actually happened:

• Violence against federal officers
• Property destruction
• Foreign flags (Mexican) waved
• Coordinated anti-American displays
• Organized rather than spontaneous

The pattern vs. 2020:

• Similar media approach
• Similar Democratic response
• Similar federal intervention issues
• Similar political dynamics
• Pattern continuing

Why this mattered:

• Voters could see actual events
• Media framing less effective
• Video evidence abundant
• Direct observation possible
• Bias becoming obvious

The Personal Touches

The conversation captured Trump’s complex approach.

The personal elements:

• “I liked him, you know”
• “I always got along with him”
• Professional rather than personal criticism
• Room for future cooperation
• Substantive disagreement

The strategic calculation:

• Burn some bridges, not all
• Professional differentiation
• Room for future deal-making
• Not permanently alienating
• Strategic flexibility

The rhetorical approach:

• Substantive critique (incompetent)
• Not personal attack (vicious)
• Evidence-based (performance)
• Measured rather than inflammatory
• Professional rather than personal

The Invest in America Story

The Khosrowshahi segment was part of broader OBBB promotion.

The cast of speakers at event:

• Business CEOs
• Major corporate leaders
• Trump administration officials
• Personal stories
• Policy endorsements

The political purpose:

• Corporate endorsement of OBBB
• Personal stories humanize policy
• Immigrant success stories
• American dream narrative
• Cross-industry support

The effectiveness:

• Khosrowshahi’s story was powerful
• Not typical Trump supporter
• Major tech executive
• Immigrant from Muslim-majority country
• Credible across political lines

Key Takeaways

• Trump reverses civil war accusation: “Civil war would happen if you left it to people like [Newsom]. He’s grossly incompetent.”
• Uber CEO Khosrowshahi endorses OBBB: “Uber proud to support — benefits millions of drivers and couriers in form of No Tax on Tips.”
• Khosrowshahi’s personal American story: Iranian Revolution refugee to CEO — “hope that fuels every American dream.”
• Trump on LA riots: “If we didn’t bring the guard in… we had a disaster happening.”
• California water controversy: “Governor let city burn down, didn’t want water sent. I sent billions of gallons.”