Does Gavin Newsom support academic or cultural boycotts related to Israel?

1. What people are claiming — and why it matters

The central claim examined is whether Governor Gavin Newsom supports academic or cultural boycotts targeting Israel. This matters because such a position would affect state policy, university governance, and public education content across California. Multiple pieces of reporting and public statements tie Newsom to opposition to divestment campaigns and to administrative moves that remove BDS references from official curricula; however, none of the records reviewed contains an explicit proclamation from Newsom endorsing cultural or academic boycotts as a tactic. The distinction matters: opposing divestment or removing BDS language is different from actively supporting institutional boycotts of Israeli academic or cultural institutions ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Where Newsom has been explicit — opposition to divestment

Newsom publicly stated he is “against divestment,” a phrase reported in May 2024 in the context of Sacramento State policy changes and broader state reactions to BDS-related controversies. That statement is a clear, recent public position opposing financial divestment strategies tied to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and it signals a disposition against at least one major BDS tactic. The available material links his stance to state-level guidance and administrative edits rather than to a call for punitive cultural or academic isolation, which means his opposition has been framed as a rejection of divestment rather than as an endorsement of boycotts in academic or cultural spheres ^[1].

3. Concrete actions — curriculum edits and administrative framing

The California Department of Education removed references to the BDS movement from an ethnic studies model curriculum, an action described as aligning with Newsom’s public statements and that of the state superintendent. These curriculum edits show the administration’s tendency to remove explicit BDS content from official education materials rather than to encourage boycotts. The draft curriculum was still under revision at the time of reporting, which leaves open the possibility of further changes, but the move reflects the state’s immediate posture: reduce explicit references to BDS in K–12 curricular guidance while emphasizing factual accuracy and bias-avoidance in instruction ^[2].

4. Legislative and administrative signals — anti-bias and antisemitism measures

Subsequent legislation and administrative directives under Newsom’s governorship emphasized preventing antisemitism and ensuring factual, nonpartisan instruction about Israel and the broader conflict. New state rules creating an Office of Civil Rights and an antisemitism prevention coordinator indicate a focus on combatting hate and managing educational content, rather than endorsing boycotts. These measures have been interpreted by critics as chilling pro-Palestine speech, while supporters frame them as necessary safeguards against discrimination; the policies demonstrate prioritization of campus safety and curricular standards over promotion of boycott tactics ^{[3] [4]}.

5. Responses from advocacy groups — predictable partisan alignments

Jewish organizations and pro-Israel advocates have welcomed Newsom’s anti-divestment posture and curriculum edits as steps against BDS, while civil-rights groups and Palestinian-rights advocates, including CAIR-CA, expressed disappointment and concern that recent bills and administrative moves will chill pro-Palestine advocacy. These responses underscore the political stakes: pro-Israel groups see Newsom’s stance as protecting communities from antisemitism and harm, whereas pro-Palestine groups interpret the same actions as constraining academic freedom and political speech. The divergent reactions suggest Newsom’s moves align more with policing content and preventing certain kinds of activism than with endorsing academic or cultural boycotts as policy tools ^{[5] [3]}.

6. Bottom line — what the evidence supports and what remains unresolved

The preponderance of evidence shows Gavin Newsom opposes divestment and has supported removing BDS language from official educational materials; these are concrete positions he has taken. There is no definitive, explicit statement or action in the reviewed record that shows Newsom endorses academic or cultural boycotts of Israel as a policy. Because his public posture favors curbing divestment and emphasizing anti-hate measures in education, the safest factual conclusion is that Newsom does not publicly support BDS-style boycotts, while remaining focused on preventing antisemitism and regulating curricular content—a distinction that leaves room for disagreement about limits on speech and academic freedom ^{[1] [2] [3]}.