The Washington Post editorial board, not exactly a right-wing outlet, took direct aim at California Gov. Gavin Newsom this week over his new program handing out free diapers to every newborn in the state, accusing him of "infantilizing" parents and expanding government into territory where it has no business. The rebuke landed on a Tuesday, and it left Newsom's press office scrambling to respond with a social media post that read more like a tantrum than a rebuttal.
The program, branded "Golden State Start," Fox News reported, will dole out 400 free diapers to new parents when they leave the hospital. The state partnered with Baby2Baby, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit, to manufacture the diapers under that label. Newsom launched the effort at a May 8 event at the Children's Creativity Museum in San Francisco, where he and others filled diaper boxes for the cameras.
What the Post editorial board saw was not compassion. It saw a governor who keeps finding new ways to spend other people's money, and who keeps treating grown adults like they cannot manage the most basic tasks of parenthood without Sacramento's help.
The Post board put Newsom's diaper program in the context of California's broader spending trajectory. The state's latest budget sits at $349 billion, more than $140 billion above the $208.9 billion Newsom first signed in 2019. That is a staggering increase in just a few years, even for a state as large and expensive as California.
The board also pointed to mandates for zero-emissions cars by 2035 as part of a pattern: a governor who believes the state should direct, subsidize, and manage more and more of daily life. Free school meals, free preschool for every four-year-old, expanded after-school programs, and now, free diapers at discharge. Each program sounds modest on its own. Stacked together, they paint a picture of a government that believes parents cannot get by without it.
Newsom, for his part, leaned into the framing. His official statement made no apology for the expansion:
"California is taking on the cost of raising a family head-on, delivering free school meals, making preschool free for every four-year-old, expanding after-school programs, and now making sure parents leave the hospital with the basics their newborn needs."
He added in a separate statement that "every baby born in California deserves a healthy start in life, and that means making sure parents have the basics they need from day one."
The language is revealing. "Making sure parents have the basics" implies they cannot secure those basics themselves. That is precisely the charge the Post board leveled: a governor who treats competent adults as wards of the state.
When Fox News Digital reached out to Newsom's press office for comment on the Post editorial, the office directed reporters to an X post from the governor's press account. The post did not engage the substance of the criticism. Instead, it dismissed the editorial board entirely.
"It's called Newsom Derangement Syndrome. It's an increasingly common affliction with beltway elitists sucking up to MAGA oligarchs."
That is the official response from the governor's communications team. Not a defense of the program's cost-effectiveness. Not an explanation of how the state plans to fund 400 diapers per newborn in perpetuity. Not a rebuttal to the charge that Sacramento is expanding government dependency. Just a borrowed phrase, "derangement syndrome", and an accusation that the Washington Post editorial board, of all institutions, is carrying water for the political right.
It is the kind of response that works on social media but falls apart the moment anyone asks a follow-up question. And it fits a pattern. Even figures sympathetic to Democrats have dismissed Newsom's political instincts, raising questions about whether his style of governance can travel beyond California's borders.
None of this happens in a vacuum. Newsom is widely described as preparing a 2028 presidential bid, and every policy announcement out of Sacramento carries a dual purpose: governing the state and building a national brand. The diaper program fits neatly into a campaign narrative, "I'm the governor who fights for families", but the Post board's criticism suggests that narrative may not sell as well outside California as Newsom hopes.
The governor has faced mounting skepticism from multiple directions. Fellow Democrats have undercut his standing even as he positions himself as the party's future. His record in California, ballooning budgets, aggressive mandates, a cost of living that drives residents to other states, gives opponents plenty of material.
And the criticism is not limited to diapers. Analysts have questioned the program's cost structure, raising pointed concerns about whether the state is paying far more per diaper than parents would at a retail store. If the numbers don't add up, the program becomes more than a philosophical debate about government's role, it becomes a straightforward waste of taxpayer money.
The diaper giveaway is one piece of a much larger approach to governance. Newsom has signed a string of bills expanding state authority into areas traditionally left to families, local communities, and private markets. AP News reported that he recently signed Assembly Bill 495, which broadens which relatives can temporarily care for children if parents are deported and bars daycare providers from collecting immigration information about families. That bill drew fierce opposition from conservatives and parental-rights advocates before Newsom signed it just before the deadline, after weeks of delay and heavy pressure from immigrant-rights groups.
The common thread is a governor who believes Sacramento should step in at every turn, whether parents need diapers, meals, preschool, after-school care, or emergency custody arrangements. Each program has its own justification. But the cumulative effect is a state government that inserts itself deeper and deeper into family life, funded by a budget that has grown by more than $140 billion in roughly six years.
Critics have also noted that Newsom's attention often seems divided. Travel records have shown him spending significant time outside California, fueling accusations that he is more focused on his national profile than on the state he was elected to run.
The core question the Post editorial board raised is one that conservative voters have been asking for years: Where does government help end and government dependency begin?
Four hundred diapers is roughly a two-month supply for a newborn. It is a tangible benefit for new parents, and no one disputes that diapers cost money. But the question is not whether diapers are expensive. The question is whether a state with a $349 billion budget, a state that already struggles to house its residents, maintain its roads, and keep its businesses from fleeing, should be adding another universal benefit on top of everything else.
Newsom's answer is yes, always yes. More programs, more spending, more government. The Post board, to its credit, said what many on the left rarely will: this approach treats parents as incapable and government as the answer to every inconvenience.
The governor's press office could have responded with data. It could have explained how the program pencils out. Instead, it accused the Washington Post of suffering from a made-up syndrome and cozying up to political enemies.
That tells you everything about where the argument stands.
Newsom wants to run for president. He wants voters in Ohio, Georgia, and Pennsylvania to look at what he has built in California and say, "I want that for my state." Even friendly interviewers have pressed him on California's runaway costs and unfinished megaprojects, and the answers have not always been convincing.
The diaper program is small in dollar terms compared to the full budget. But it is a perfect symbol of the larger philosophy: government knows best, government provides all, and anyone who questions it is suffering from some kind of derangement.
When the Washington Post editorial board, hardly a conservative redoubt, tells a Democratic governor that he is going too far, the problem is not with the people raising the alarm. The problem is with the governor who cannot hear it.
