Dan Bongino Shuts Down Gavin Newsom: “We Don’t Answer to You!” in Explosive Clash Over Federal Threats

Dan Bongino Fires Back at Gavin Newsom: “We Don’t Answer to You!”—Federal Law Enforcement’s Bold Stand Amid California Crime Crisis

In a dramatic turn of events that has sent shockwaves across political and law enforcement circles, conservative commentator and former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino delivered a fiery rebuke to California Governor Gavin Newsom, declaring, “We don’t answer to you!” The exchange, which unfolded during a televised interview, has quickly become emblematic of the growing tensions between federal authorities and state leadership over surging violent crime in America’s largest cities.

The Setting: Federal Intervention Amid Rising Crime

The discussion began with Bongino addressing the cooperation—or lack thereof—between local law enforcement agencies and federal bureaus. “Some of the locals look like they’re going to cooperate with the bureau,” the interviewer noted, setting the stage for Bongino’s response.

“Well, that’s great. We appreciate cooperation, and that’s fantastic,” Bongino replied. “You’re always going to get a better result when you’ve got a willing partner. However, we don’t work for the locals. We work for the American people. It’s the FBI. We’re not the local police department. They all do wonderful work. I was a local police officer, but we’re the FBI, and we work for the American people.”

Bongino’s words underscored a critical distinction: while collaboration with local agencies is valued, federal law enforcement ultimately answers to a higher authority—the American people and the federal government.

.

.

.

Inside the Federal Crime Crackdown

Bongino went on to reveal the inner workings of a sweeping federal operation targeting violent crime in major cities like San Francisco and Chicago. He described how, early in his tenure, the President made it clear that there would be “zero tolerance for violent crime.”

“He drives around Washington, D.C., on these off-the-record movements. He sees homelessness, crime. He can’t stand it. He says, ‘What do we got to do to fix this?’ And we basically lay out a bunch of things, and his answer is very simple. President’s like, ‘Go get them, boys. Go get them.’ That was it. Like, you do what you have to do.”

Bongino and his team responded by assembling a “violent crime roundtable” of the nation’s best special agents in charge (SACs), crafting a battle plan to deploy agents strategically across the country. “We water ballooned around the country,” Bongino explained, referencing the tactical deployment of agents to crime hotspots, “and made, get a load of this guys, this is going to trip you out—28,000 violent crime arrests in 2025. And the year is not even over.”

To put this achievement in perspective, Bongino compared it to prior years: “The FBI under prior leadership averaged about 15,000 to 16,000 [arrests]. We’re at 28,000. We’re not even done with the year. We haven’t even hit Thanksgiving or Christmas yet.”

The Results: Cleaner Cities, Renewed Confidence

Bongino attributed this surge in arrests to a leadership team that empowered the FBI to focus on its core mission—fighting crime—rather than getting sidetracked by other issues. “Shows you when you get a president, an attorney general, a deputy attorney general, and an FBI leadership team that lets the FBI do FBI work instead of getting into other nonsense in the past. Look what happens. Your cities get cleaner.”

The results have been palpable, with violent crime rates dropping in several major cities and communities expressing renewed hope for safety and order. Bongino’s account paints a picture of federal law enforcement operating at peak efficiency, driven by a clear mandate from the highest levels of government.

The Pushback: Newsom’s Defiant Stance

However, not everyone is celebrating the federal intervention. Governor Gavin Newsom, former mayor of San Francisco and now California’s chief executive, took to social media to voice his opposition. “Fact check: Nobody wants you here. You will ruin one of America’s greatest cities,” Newsom wrote on X (formerly Twitter).

When asked how he would respond if Newsom attempted to block federal agents from operating in California, Bongino didn’t mince words. “Well, we don’t answer to the governor of California. We answer to the president, the American people, the attorney general, and the deputy attorney general. That’s the chain of command.”

Bongino dismissed Newsom’s claim that “nobody wants you here” as out of touch with the realities faced by ordinary citizens. “Ask the 67-year-old woman living in a drug-ridden area of LA or San Francisco who’s had some guy slinging crack on the corner for ten years now, harassing her grandkids. Go ask her if she wants us and the FBI, the US Marshals, and the DEA and all the operations of the federal government to clean up the city. Go ask her. I promise there’s not a limited sample size of people. That’s kind of a BS remark. The people do want us there.”

Ground-Level Perspective: Voices from the Community

Bongino shared his own observations from the streets of Washington, D.C., describing encounters with National Guard members and the gratitude expressed by local residents. “I saw about 10 or 15 National Guard folks. I’m telling you, all right, granted, it’s just my single subject designed for that day. I saw at least in that half hour I was there, 10, 15 people thank them for being there.”

This anecdote highlighted a key point often lost in political debates: for many Americans living in high-crime areas, the presence of federal law enforcement is not an unwelcome intrusion but a lifeline. The disconnect between political rhetoric and lived experience is stark, and Bongino’s remarks suggest that federal agencies are filling a critical gap left by local and state authorities.

The Broader Implications: Federal vs. State Authority

The clash between Bongino and Newsom is more than a personal feud—it reflects a broader national debate over the balance of power between federal and state governments. At stake is the question of who bears ultimate responsibility for public safety and whether federal intervention is justified when local leaders are perceived as failing to protect their constituents.

Critics of federal overreach argue that states should retain autonomy over law enforcement within their borders, warning that outside intervention can undermine local governance and erode civil liberties. Supporters, on the other hand, contend that the federal government has a duty to step in when crime spirals out of control and local agencies are overwhelmed or ineffective.

Bongino’s stance is clear: the federal government answers to the American people, not to individual governors or mayors. “We don’t work for the locals. We work for the American people,” he reiterated, emphasizing the primacy of national interests over regional politics.

Conclusion: A Defining Moment in the Crime Debate

As violent crime continues to challenge cities across the United States, the showdown between Dan Bongino and Gavin Newsom has crystallized the stakes of the ongoing debate. With federal agencies reporting record numbers of arrests and local leaders pushing back against perceived encroachment, the nation finds itself at a crossroads.

Will federal intervention restore safety and order to America’s urban centers, or will state resistance prevail? As Bongino’s remarks reverberate through the media and Newsom doubles down on his opposition, one thing is certain: the battle for America’s cities is far from over—and the outcome will shape the future of law enforcement for years to come.