The controversy began when the press office of Governor Gavin Newsom shared a screenshot from a right-leaning influencer’s social media post that many readers interpreted as a homophobic jab at the production team behind Benny Johnson. The image reflected comments tied to a March 24 Fox News segment hosted by Jesse Watters, where Johnson appeared to discuss alleged corruption in California. Critics argued the governor’s communications team used an offensive stereotype rather than engaging with the substance of the claims, turning attention away from the broadcast’s content and toward the tone of political discourse.
What the original posts said
On the March 24 broadcast, Watters and Johnson discussed accusations that California has an issue with fraudulent daycares and certain hospice homes registering as businesses to receive government subsidies. Johnson quipped that the grey-haired Newsom was “turning into Cruella de Vil before our very eyes,” using a pop-culture comparison to criticize the governor’s demeanor as investigations heated up. Johnson later wrote that he received a call from the White House after the segment and suggested Newsom looked “terrified,” warning of consequences. Watters then posted a screenshot of Johnson’s message with a remark referencing a call from Grindr, which is a social and hookup app primarily used by queer men, implying the production team’s sexual orientation.
Online reaction and public backlash
The post provoked swift criticism across platforms such as Bluesky, where commenters condemned what they called an unnecessary resort to homophobic language. One user referenced recent political ads that lean on sexual innuendo, suggesting a trend of 1990s-style anti-gay rhetoric returning to political messaging. Others argued the current political climate encourages macho insults and coded slurs from public officials, warning that such tactics risk alienating core constituencies. Many demanded the governor’s office remove the post, viewing the tweet as inconsistent with inclusive rhetoric expected from leaders who otherwise support LGBTQ+ policy advances.
Voices on both sides
Supporters of Johnson and Watters framed the exchange as lighthearted banter, while critics emphasized the real-world impact of normalizing slurs and stereotypes. Several commenters pointed to recent high-profile political moments where insinuations about sexual orientation were used as attacks. Observers noted this incident illustrates how easily a single social media action by a government account can shift public focus from alleged policy failures to questions about taste, judgment, and respect for LGBTQ+ communities.
Context: Newsom’s record and wider implications
The episode arrived amid a mixed record for Newsom on queer issues. He has signed a slate of pro-LGBTQ+ bills, including measures to expand access to sports for people regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, yet he has also publicly supported restrictions on the participation of trans girls and women in certain sporting events. Activists have warned that the tension between supportive legislation and restrictive comments or policies can create confusion and concern inside the community, particularly among trans advocates who view some positions as threatening despite other pro-LGBTQ+ steps.
Past accusations and the conservative ecosystem
Alongside the recent social media flap, older allegations about Johnson resurfaced in online conversation. In December, Milo Yiannopoulos, described by some as an ex-gay provocateur, publicly accused Johnson of inappropriate conduct at conservative conferences, claiming incidents took place in hotel rooms during Turning Point USA events. Yiannopoulos’s statements were presented as hearsay in various discussions and remain allegations rather than proven facts, yet they contributed to the broader narrative about private behavior and public persona among certain right-wing figures. These recycled claims fed into the intensity of responses to the governor’s post.
What to watch next
The controversy offers a reminder about the power of social media in shaping political debate and the potential damage when government channels deploy derogatory insinuations. Observers will be watching whether the governor’s office addresses calls to delete the post and whether political opponents use the exchange to question judgment and messaging strategy. For advocates and voters alike, the episode underscores ongoing tensions between rhetoric and policy on LGBTQ+ issues and how quickly cultural flashpoints can eclipse substantive policy discussions.