When a senior official publicly fires off a line like “This guy is unbelievable!” at a state governor, it signals more than political theatrics — it suggests real tension, conflict over policy, and a clash over power. Such is the backdrop to recent public sparring between Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and California GovernorGavin Newsom, in which Duffy has launched blistering attacks across multiple fronts — from infrastructure funding to regulatory compliance and language standards for truckers.

This article probes the origins, substance, and risks of this feud — in short, what’s behind Duffy’s furious pushback against Newsom, and whether any of it amounts to more than posturing.

Origins of the Clash

A. Dismantling the “Train to Nowhere”

One flashpoint came inJuly 2025, when Secretary Duffy penned an op‑ed entitled Gov. Newsom is suing me to build a multi‑billion‑dollar train to nowhere.” In it, he accused Newsom of defending California’s troubled high‑speed rail project — a scheme that, in Duffy’s telling, had already consumed $15 billion over 16 years, yet produced not a single finished track. He asserted that he cut off $4 billion in federal funding to rein in the waste, and claimed Newsom retaliated by suing the federal government.

Duffy described the project as a classic case of bureaucratic overreach: overbudget, underbuilt, and politically defended rather than corrected. He framed his decision as a duty to taxpayers, not ideology.

Commercial Driver’s Licenses, Non‑Domiciled Issuance, and Language Rules

Another major flash came when Duffy made sweeping claims about CDL (Commercial Driver’s License) issuance in California, particularly fornon‑domiciled drivers. He asserted that 25% of non‑domiciled CDLs in California were issued illegally, putting federal funding and public safety at risk.

In response, Newsom’s office rejected the framing, countering that California’s commercial driver crash fatalities are 40% lower than the national average and accusing Duffy of focusing on compliance technicalities rather than outcomes.

Furthermore, Duffy has pressed Newsom to comply with a federal directive requiring that truck drivers be able to read and speak English. He warned that states failing to comply could lose federal funding, and he publicly criticized California for resisting the language standard.

Anatomy of Duffy’s Strategy

What is Duffy trying to achieve with this aggressive posture? Four elements stand out:

Shifting the NarrativeRather than wait for Newsom or critics to define the conflict, Duffy is leading with his own narrative: that Newsom defends failure, resists oversight, and prioritizes politics over accountability. By framing himself as the fiscal watchdog, he seeks to capture moral high ground.

Raising the Stakes (Funding & Compliance)By tying issues like CDL issuance and federal grant money to Newsom’s decisions, Duffy injects financial consequences into the dispute. If threats to withdraw funding resonate, Newsom may feel pressure beyond mere political rebuke.

Public Performance and Media MessagingThe “unbelievable” line, the lawsuits, the op‑eds — all are tailored for media conflict. Duffy seeks to bring this fight into headlines and force Newsom to respond publicly, not quietly behind bureaucratic doors.

Preemptive Justification for Retribution
Should Duffy (or the Department of Transportation) take punitive steps — cutting funding, auditing, or compliance enforcement — he is laying groundwork to justify those moves as responses to mismanagement. The public messaging is set in advance.

Scrutinizing the Claims

Any heated dispute demands a close look at the claims. What stands up to scrutiny — and which parts are rhetorical flare?

The “Train to Nowhere” Argument

Duffy’s criticism of California’s high-speed rail is grounded in long‑documented issues: cost overruns, delayed timelines, scope reductions, and the shifting focus to shorter segments. Newsom defenders point out the ambitious nature of high‑speed rail in a diverse, mountainous state — but the delays and overbudgeting are widely acknowledged.

However, accusing Newsom of suing “to build” it is provocative. In fact, the lawsuit is his administration’s attempt to defend the project’s right to continue, not a direct legal maneuver to force construction. The legal complexity is deeper than Duffy’s rhetorical framing.

CDL Issuance and Illegality

Duffy’s claim that25% of non‑domiciled CDLs in California were issued illegally” is dramatic. But it raises key questions:

What data supports the 25% figure? Is it from a federal audit, internal DOT records, or preliminary findings?

What exactly constitutes “illegal” — procedural error, failure to verify status, noncompliance with federal rules?

How many of these licenses have led to unsafe driving or demonstrable public harm?

Newsom’s counter — the lower crash rate — is a redirection: compliance is not the same as outcomes, and lower fatality rates don’t fully answer procedural noncompliance claims. But it does challenge Duffy’s framing that noncompliance naturally leads to danger.

Language Standards for Truckers

Requiring drivers to read and speak English is a controversial regulatory demand. Duffy frames it as a safety requirement; critics might see it as exclusionary or politically motivated. Enforcement depends on test design, accommodations, interpretation standards, and legal challenge. The threat of funding cuts adds coercive pressure.

Political Risks and Leverage

Duffy’s aggression carries rewards — and risks.

Rewards / Leverage

He forces Newsom into the public frame, potentially putting the governor on the defensive.

If Duffy can successfully tie funding or federal compliance to California’s cooperation, he may extract concessions or leverage.

The dispute mobilizes supporters who view Newsom skeptically as a liberal overseer of waste and regulatory overreach.

Risks / Blowbacks

Overreach: If Duffy’s claims are shown to exaggerate or misstate facts, his credibility may suffer.

Legal pushback: Newsom may challenge funding withdrawals or demands through courts, arguing federal overreach or state rights.Backlash from stakeholders: Local governments, transport unions, or civil liberties groups may resist language mandates or procedural punishments.

Distraction risk: Focusing on California conflicts might divert attention from national transportation priorities.

If Duffy’s rhetoric turns into real policy consequences, the battle could escalate into courtroom showdowns or budgetary brinkmanship.

Voices & Reactions

Though public statements predominate, a few reactions illustrate how the conflict is being received.

From Newsom’s side, his office clung to outcome metrics (e.g., lower crash rates) in rebuttal, while framing Duffy’s claims as narrow compliance critiques.

Media observers note that Duffy’s attacks align with broader conservative priorities: cutting “wasteful” programs, leveraging federal power over “blue states,” and pushing culture war themes (language requirements, regulatory compliance).

Public commentators have seized on the dramatics. Reddit threads highlight Duffy’s rhetorical boldness and question Newsom’s motivations, though many posts mix satire, partisanship, and genuine concern (e.g. about language rules)