Gavin Newsom claimed California respects freedom.
The French Laundry Governor's track record tells a different story.
And a lawsuit exposed one vicious move by Gavin Newsom that could destroy free speech.
California wants corporations to confess their climate sins
Gavin Newsom built his national profile by positioning himself as a defender of California values against conservative America.
He marketed his state as the land of freedom while red states supposedly oppressed their citizens.
That sales pitch always rang hollow.
And now Exxon Mobil is calling out the Governor's hypocrisy by suing over two California laws that force companies to essentially admit guilt for causing climate change.
Senate Bill 253 requires companies with over $1 billion in annual revenue doing business in California to track and publicly disclose their greenhouse gas emissions starting in 2026.¹
Senate Bill 261 forces companies with over $500 million in revenue to publish reports about how climate change affects their finances and what they're doing to mitigate those risks.²
The Texas-based oil giant filed its lawsuit on October 25 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, arguing these laws violate the First Amendment by compelling speech the company disagrees with.³
"California may believe that companies that meet the statutes' revenue thresholds are uniquely responsible for climate change; but the First Amendment categorically bars it from forcing ExxonMobil to speak in service of that misguided viewpoint," the lawsuit states.⁴
Newsom wants corporations to march in his climate parade
Both laws require companies to comply with California's preferred frameworks for reporting climate data – frameworks Exxon says are designed specifically to place "disproportionate blame on large companies like ExxonMobil" for global warming.⁵
The company already reports emissions and climate risks voluntarily.
But California Democrats aren't satisfied with voluntary disclosure.
They want companies like Exxon to use the state's methodology, which focuses on worldwide emissions rather than efficiency.
That approach essentially punishes companies just for being large, regardless of how efficiently they operate.⁶
The second law forces companies to speculate about "unknowable future developments" regarding climate change impacts and post those speculations on their websites.⁷
Exxon argues this amounts to California forcing the company to adopt the state's preferred narrative about corporate responsibility for climate change.
The lawsuit also points out that Senate Bill 261 conflicts with federal securities laws that already regulate what publicly traded companies must disclose about financial and environmental risks.⁸
States can't impose additional disclosure obligations on matters the Securities and Exchange Commission already oversees.
But California Democrats don't care about federal law when it gets in the way of their climate crusade.
A spokesperson for Newsom's office dismissed the lawsuit with typical arrogance, calling it "truly shocking that one of the biggest polluters on the planet would be opposed to transparency."⁹
Translation: How dare Exxon Mobil refuse to march in our climate parade and confess its sins.
California has a long history of trampling free speech
This isn't California's first rodeo trampling on the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court slapped down a similar California stunt back in 2018.
California passed a law forcing crisis pregnancy centers – nonprofit organizations that counsel against abortion – to post notices informing women about how to get state-funded abortions.¹⁰
These centers exist specifically because they oppose abortion on religious grounds.
Yet California demanded they promote abortion services anyway.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra that forcing pro-life organizations to advertise abortion services violated their free speech rights.¹¹
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the law "targets speakers, not speech" and imposed an "unduly burdensome disclosure requirement."¹²
Sound familiar?
More recently, Newsom signed laws attempting to ban "deepfake" political content on social media – laws so broad they didn't even include carveouts for obvious satire and parody.¹³
Federal courts blocked those laws too.
The Babylon Bee and Rumble filed suit, and a federal judge ruled in August that "California cannot pre-emptively sterilize political content."¹⁴
Newsom based his support for the deepfake ban on a satirical video depicting Kamala Harris criticizing her own incompetence.
He wanted satire sites to plaster giant warning labels over memes because he didn't like their political message.
Elon Musk pointed out at the time that it's "hard to be a free speech platform in a state that wants to ban free speech."¹⁵
California Democrats want Exxon in a climate confession booth
Newsom's climate disclosure laws serve one purpose: forcing companies to adopt California's preferred narrative about who's responsible for climate change.
These aren't neutral transparency requirements.
They're ideological mandates designed to shame corporations into compliance with left-wing climate dogma.
California needs scapegoats for its failures.
When the Los Angeles fires ravaged the state earlier this year, California officials immediately blamed "climate change" even though investigators found evidence of arson.¹⁶
They can't admit their forest management failures or water policy disasters contributed to the catastrophe.
So they need villains to point at – and oil companies make perfect targets.
The laws would affect more than 5,000 U.S. corporations across every industry.¹⁷
Some companies like Apple and Microsoft support the regulations, but business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Farm Bureau Federation oppose them as "onerous."¹⁸
Legal experts predict a drawn-out court battle potentially reaching the Supreme Court.
If Exxon prevails, the case could establish precedent limiting states' ability to compel climate disclosures and centralizing such authority at the federal level instead.¹⁹
The compliance costs alone run between $50,000 and $200,000 annually per company, hitting smaller firms in supply chains hardest.²⁰
But Newsom doesn't care about the cost.
He wants Exxon Mobil and every other major corporation to walk through the streets and declare themselves responsible for climate change.
It's California's version of a struggle session – forced confession under threat of legal consequences.
Newsom can keep pretending California represents freedom.
But his actions tell the real story about a state that routinely tramples constitutional rights to advance left-wing ideology.
¹ Chandni Shah, "Exxon sues California over climate disclosure laws," Reuters, October 25, 2025.
² Ibid.
³ Ibid.
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ Ibid.
⁶ Ibid.
⁷ Ibid.
⁸ Ibid.
⁹ Ibid.
¹⁰ Amy Howe, "Opinion analysis: Divided court rules for anti-abortion pregnancy centers in challenge to California law," SCOTUSblog, June 26, 2018.
¹¹ Ibid.
¹² Ibid.
¹³ "Gov. Newsom attacks free speech," Orange County Register, September 20, 2024.
¹⁴ "Has California Created A Free Speech Problem?" Pacific Research Institute, September 30, 2025.
¹⁵ "Elon Musk tears into Gavin Newsom: 'The Joker is in charge'," Newsweek, September 18, 2024.
¹⁶ Zachary Faria, "California wants the 'freedom' to tread on free speech," Washington Examiner, October 31, 2025.
¹⁷ "ExxonMobil Sues California over New Laws Requiring Corporate Climate Disclosures," Cal Coast Times, October 26, 2025.
¹⁸ Ibid.
¹⁹ Ibid.
²⁰ Ibid.
