Stunning Photos Surface Refuting Newsom’s ‘Everyman’ Claims
Photos of a young Gavin Newsom have surfaced online that refute a claim he made during a book tour stop in Georgia earlier this week, during which he also remarked a mostly black audience that many viewed as highly racist.
When sharing a stage with Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens, Newsom said, “I’m not trying to impress you. I’m just trying to impress upon you, ‘I’m like you.’ I’m no better than you. I’m a 960 SAT guy.” But photos that have since surfaced on social media indicate that Newsom’s family was extremely privileged, well-to-do, and highly connected to people like the oil magnate Getty family.
Meanwhile, Newsom is also facing backlash after remarks he made about his SAT score.
Speaking Sunday night at an event promoting his forthcoming memoir, “Young Man in a Hurry,” Newsom reflected on his academic struggles and sought to draw a point of relatability.
In addition to his remark about his SAT score, Newsom added: “And I’m not trying to offend anyone. I’m not trying to act all there if you got 940 … You’ve never seen me read a speech because I cannot read a speech.”
The remarks quickly sparked criticism online, with detractors arguing that Newsom’s attempt at self-deprecation veered into offensive territory.
Warning: Strong language:
Several prominent Republicans and commentators accused Newsom of perpetuating stereotypes.
Sen. Ted Cruz wrote that Newsom was engaging in “the soft bigotry of low expectations,” reposting a message from political scientist Carol M. Swain that read, “Liberal racism on display.”
Sen. Tim Scott criticized the governor on X, writing, “Black Americans aren’t your low bar. We’ve built empires, created movements, outworked, outhustled and outsmarted people like you.”
Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) also weighed in, claiming Newsom had implied he was “like a black person because he got a bad SAT score and can’t read.”
Music artist Nicki Minaj criticized the governor as well, writing that his “way of bonding with black ppl is to tell them how stupid he is & that he can’t read.”
As President Donald Trump put a snarky post on Truth Social, “Wow! Gavin Newscum just dropped out of the Presidential Race!!!”
The criticism spread rapidly across social media, with conservative commentators mocking the remarks and questioning Newsom’s political judgment as he is widely viewed as a potential 2028 Democratic presidential contender.
According to 2024 data from the College Board, the average SAT score for Black or African American test takers — who make up roughly 12% of participants — is 907 out of 1600. White test takers averaged 1083.
Newsom, 58, is a 1989 graduate of Santa Clara University. He has written in his memoir that he struggled academically and has spoken openly about dyslexia. He previously told The New York Times that he believes he was admitted to Santa Clara in part due to a partial baseball scholarship, downplaying the significance of a recommendation letter from former California Gov. Jerry Brown, who had appointed Newsom’s father to a state appellate judgeship.
“I don’t think it’s relevant at all,” Newsom said earlier this month regarding the Brown letter. “The ticket to Santa Clara came through the baseball, not anything else.”
After Fox News host Sean Hannity highlighted the controversy, Newsom fired back on X, referencing his dyslexia and accusing critics of selective outrage.
“You didn’t give a s— about the President of the United States of America posting an ape video of President Obama or calling African nations s—holes — but you’re going to call me racist for talking about my lifelong struggle with dyslexia?” Newsom wrote. “Spare me your fake f—ing outrage, Sean.”
The episode adds to mounting scrutiny of the governor’s national profile as he continues to make appearances outside California and promote his book ahead of what many expect to be a larger role in Democratic politics.
U.S.–CANADA WATER TENSIONS? OTTAWA SIGNALS SOVEREIGNTY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE…
U.S.–CANADA WATER TENSIONS? OTTAWA SIGNALS SOVEREIGNTY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE…
Tensions between Washington and Ottawa have taken an extraordinary turn — not over trade, defense, or tariffs — but over water.
Amid deepening drought conditions across the American West, President Donald Trump raised the idea that Canada’s vast freshwater reserves could help alleviate shortages in states like California, Arizona, and Nevada. While he stopped short of issuing a formal demand, his remarks suggesting Canada’s water could act like a “large faucet” for the United States ignited immediate controversy.
Ottawa’s response was swift — and unequivocal.
Prime Minister Mark Carney rejected any suggestion that Canada’s freshwater resources are up for negotiation, declaring them a sovereign public trust and “not a commodity to be controlled or transferred under external pressure.”
The exchange has exposed a deeper fault line in North American relations: how nations respond to resource scarcity in an era of climate stress.
The Drought Reality in the American West
The American Southwest is facing sustained water pressure:
The Colorado River system is under historic strain.
Lake Mead and Lake Powell remain below long-term averages.
Rapid population growth continues in water-stressed regions.
Agriculture in California and Arizona is increasingly vulnerable.
Cities including Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles are investing heavily in conservation, wastewater recycling, and desalination. But long-term projections show continued volatility as climate change alters snowpack and runoff patterns.
In that context, Trump’s comments about Canada’s freshwater abundance resonated with some U.S. observers who see continental resource sharing as pragmatic.
What Canada Actually Controls
Canada holds roughly 20% of the world’s freshwater resources — though much of that is locked in glaciers, remote watersheds, or flows northward away from population centers.
The two countries already cooperate extensively on shared water systems, most notably through:
The Great Lakes agreements
The Boundary Waters Treaty (1909)
The Columbia River Treaty
British Columbia recently confirmed that discussions regarding the modernization of the Columbia River Treaty are under review by the U.S. administration — though no formal collapse of agreements has occurred.
What has not happened is any formal U.S. demand for ownership or control of Canadian water infrastructure. The dispute remains rhetorical — but politically charged.
Why Ottawa Drew a Hard Line
Carney’s refusal reflects longstanding Canadian policy.
Canada has historically resisted:
Bulk freshwater export proposals
Cross-border water diversion megaprojects
Treating freshwater as a tradable commodity under trade agreements
The concern in Ottawa is not short-term sales — it’s legal precedent. If water were formally commodified, it could fall under international trade dispute mechanisms, potentially limiting Canada’s ability to regulate its own supply in the future.
Canadian leaders across party lines have traditionally viewed water sovereignty as non-negotiable.
Carney framed the issue in environmental and strategic terms:
Climate volatility affects Canadian watersheds too.
Glacial melt is accelerating in Western Canada.
Long-term ecological impacts of diversion are unpredictable.
The argument is not simply nationalist — it’s precautionary.
The Infrastructure Reality
Large-scale water transfers from Canada to the U.S. Southwest would require:
Thousands of miles of pipeline or canal systems
Massive pumping energy requirements
Multibillion-dollar capital investment
Complex environmental approvals
No such project is currently under construction or formally approved.
Policy think tanks have studied water diversion concepts for decades, but they remain economically and politically contentious.
The Philosophical Divide
At the heart of the controversy is a deeper debate:
Is water an economic asset that can be traded like oil or gas?
Or is it a protected public trust insulated from market forces?
In the United States, market-based allocation of water resources is more common. In Canada, water governance is more closely tied to public stewardship and provincial authority.
That philosophical difference is now colliding with climate pressure.
What This Means Geopolitically
Despite heated rhetoric, this is not a military standoff. It is a policy divergence amplified by climate stress.
Still, the symbolism matters.
For decades, U.S.–Canada relations have been defined by:
Deep integration
Predictable cooperation
Quiet dispute resolution
Public disagreement over water — a resource fundamental to survival — marks a notable escalation in tone, if not yet in formal policy.
Experts warn that as climate change intensifies:
Water diplomacy will become as important as energy diplomacy.
Resource security will increasingly shape alliances.
Infrastructure vulnerability will redefine leverage.
The Path Forward
Realistically, any future cooperation would likely take the form of:
Joint conservation initiatives
Shared basin management
Technology exchange (desalination, recycling, storage)
Climate adaptation coordination
Large-scale bulk water transfers remain politically radioactive in Canada and economically complex in the United States.
For now, Carney’s message is clear:
Canada’s water is not for sale.
And Washington has not formally moved beyond rhetoric.
The Bigger Picture
This episode highlights a larger truth:
In the 21st century, water — not oil — may become the defining strategic resource.
But unlike oil, water is immovable geography. It is tied to ecosystems, borders, and long-term sustainability.
How the United States and Canada manage water cooperation in a warming climate will signal whether resource stress leads to confrontation — or innovation.
