Fact check: Did California governor fund the LA protest

1. Summary of the results

Based on the available analyses, there is no direct evidence that California Governor Gavin Newsom personally funded the LA protests. However, the situation is more nuanced than a simple yes or no answer.

The analyses reveal that California allocated $73.6 million to anti-deportation groups between 2023 and 2024, and Governor Newsom approved an additional $25 million for legal aid ^{[1] [2]}. Significantly, CHIRLA (Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights), the organization behind the LA protest, received a substantial portion of its operating budget from state and federal government funding for immigration services ^[3].

Rather than funding protests directly, the evidence suggests the state provided funding for immigration-related services and legal aid that may have indirectly supported the organizational capacity of groups involved in the protests.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual elements are absent from the original question:

• California Republican lawmakers are demanding an audit into state funding's role in CHIRLA's protest activities, indicating this is an active political controversy ^[2]
• Governor Newsom's public response focused on criticizing President Trump's deployment of the National Guard, calling it an "assault on democracy" rather than addressing funding questions ^{[4] [5]}
• There are active misinformation campaigns surrounding the protests, with reports that Russia is amplifying conspiracy theories about the L.A. protests ^[6]
• The Trump administration has been accused of spreading fake protest images, adding another layer of information warfare to the situation ^[7]

Political beneficiaries of different narratives include:

• Republican lawmakers who benefit from portraying Democratic governors as funding disruptive protests
• Governor Newsom and Democratic officials who benefit from framing this as legitimate immigration services rather than protest funding
• Foreign actors like Russia who benefit from amplifying divisive conspiracy theories about American political events

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit assumption that may constitute misinformation. By asking "Did California governor fund the LA protest," it suggests direct, intentional funding of protest activities, which no source confirms ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]}.

The question oversimplifies a complex funding relationship where:

• State funds went to immigration services and legal aid
• These funds supported organizations that later engaged in protest activities
• The connection between funding and protests is indirect rather than direct

This framing could contribute to the misinformation and conspiracy theories that sources indicate are actively being spread about these protests ^[6]. The binary nature of the question fails to capture the nuanced reality of how government funding for social services can indirectly support the organizational capacity of advocacy groups.