N※N

Trump Accuses California of Engineering George Floyd Protests, Sparks New Feud

  //science-technology.news-articles.net/content/2 .. ering-george-floyd-protests-sparks-new-feud.html
  Published in Science and Technology on Sunday, December 7th 2025 at 8:14 GMT by Associated Press

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-07 208 x 208 / 8980 Bytes

2025-12-07 224 x 224 / 9845 Bytes

2025-12-07 179 x 224 / 9163 Bytes

2025-12-07 179 x 224 / 12628 Bytes

Trump’s “George Floyd Engineering” Claim Fuels a New Political Feud With California Governor Gavin Newsom

The former president’s latest salvo—an assertion that the nationwide protests sparked by George Floyd’s death were the result of “engineered” political manipulation—has sparked a new clash with California’s governor. In a speech on a late‑night talk show and an accompanying tweet thread, Donald Trump said that the demonstrators were “a coordinated effort” and that police brutality was a pre‑planned narrative used by the left to push a social agenda. Governor Gavin Newsom, in turn, blasted the claim as “unsubstantiated, dangerous, and a deliberate attempt to delegitimize a movement born of genuine grief and the fight for racial justice.”

Trump’s Alleged “Engineering” Narrative

Trump’s claim first surfaced on a popular television program in the early hours of a Monday, where he reiterated that the protests were “an orchestrated political operation.” The former president went on to argue that “the police were fed a narrative,” and that the whole movement was “politically engineered” to influence public opinion. He concluded that the protests were a “political stunt” and that “the truth is being twisted by the left.”

The comments were amplified by the president’s social‑media presence, in which he posted a series of screenshots that included his words, along with a hastily assembled “fact‑check” graphic that repeated the phrase “George Floyd engineering.” According to the AP’s coverage, the graphic was later deleted, but the original screenshot had already been shared over 30,000 times across various platforms.

In a follow‑up statement on the day of the protests’ anniversary, Trump further called the demonstrators “a crowd of looters” and said that the police “weren’t prepared for that.” He added that “the narrative is one that the left is using to push their agenda of social change, not to address real problems.” This was part of a broader push by Trump and his allies to re‑frame the narrative of the protests as a threat to public safety.

Newsom’s Rebuttal and the Broader Context

Governor Newsom’s office released a statement that day, describing Trump’s remarks as “the latest attempt to undermine a public outcry that has spanned five years.” The governor also referenced a series of reports that have examined the history of police violence in California, noting that “the events that erupted after George Floyd’s death were a response to decades of systemic injustice.”

Newsom specifically denounced Trump’s “engineered” claim as “pure political theater.” “The protests were born out of a community’s legitimate pain and desire for reform,” Newsom’s spokesperson said. “They were not the product of a scripted political agenda.” The statement also pointed to a 2020 California law that requires police departments to publish body‑camera footage and to document any use of force. According to the AP article, the law was signed in 2017 and became effective the following year, partly in response to incidents like Floyd’s death.

In addition, the governor referenced a study released by the California Attorney General’s office, which concluded that “the protests were largely peaceful, and that police over‑reaction was the cause of many of the injuries.” That study, which the AP article linked to for further details, found that “the majority of officers who used force during the protests were not in compliance with department policy.”

Legal Implications: Potential Defamation Suit

The AP article also discussed a possible legal escalation. While it is not yet clear whether Newsom’s office will file a lawsuit, the report indicates that the governor’s legal team is “evaluating the feasibility of a defamation claim against Trump.” The potential lawsuit would hinge on whether Trump’s statements about the protests constitute “false statements that harm a public figure’s reputation.” According to the AP, such claims must be proven to be made with “actual malice”—that is, with knowledge that the statements are false or with reckless disregard for the truth.

A link in the article takes readers to a recent op‑ed by a California civil‑rights attorney who argues that the state has grounds for a defamation suit. The attorney points out that Trump’s statements “mischaracterize the protests and could be seen as an attempt to delegitimize legitimate activism.” The op‑ed also cites prior defamation cases involving former presidents, noting that the legal standard is “high, but not impossible to meet.”

The Broader Political Landscape

The clash between Trump and Newsom is set against a backdrop of increasingly polarized political discourse. The former president’s comments echo his long‑standing critique of the Black Lives Matter movement, a sentiment he has amplified repeatedly over the past two years. Meanwhile, Newsom’s position as a progressive governor has made him a vocal advocate for police reform and racial equity.

The AP article links to a separate piece that covers the national backlash to Trump’s statements. According to that piece, a number of U.S. senators and civil‑rights groups have condemned the former president’s remarks. The Senate Majority Leader called the claim “a dangerous narrative that inflames tensions.” In contrast, Trump’s allies have defended his words as “the truth,” arguing that the protests “became a mob.”

Conclusion

While Trump’s assertion that the George Floyd protests were “engineered” by the left may have found an audience among his base, it has also drawn sharp criticism from Governor Newsom and a host of civil‑rights advocates. The comments have revived the debate over the role of police and the legitimacy of protest movements, and may set the stage for legal action if the governor’s team chooses to pursue a defamation suit. Regardless of whether a lawsuit is filed, the episode underscores the continued volatility of American political discourse and the ongoing struggle over how to interpret events that are deeply personal, highly visible, and deeply divisive.