Newsom's Bureaucrats Are Strangling California Businesses With Red Tape

Governor Gavin Newsom’s latest round of executive appointments, announced on April 24, 2025, reads like a masterclass in consolidating power. From the Department of Pesticide Regulation to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, Newsom has handpicked a cadre of loyalists to steer California’s sprawling bureaucracy. These moves aren’t just administrative housekeeping; they’re a calculated effort to entrench a specific agenda in a state already suffocating under one-party rule.

Take Leia Bailey, now Chief Deputy Director at the Department of Pesticide Regulation, or Miranda Flores, slotted as Chief Deputy Director at the Office of Land Use, Climate, and Innovation. Both are seasoned operatives with deep ties to Newsom’s political machine, and both are registered Democrats. The pattern is clear: Newsom is stacking key agencies with allies who share his vision, leaving little room for dissenting voices or independent thought.

This isn’t about competence; it’s about control. California’s regulatory state, already a behemoth, grows more unaccountable with each appointment. Voters deserve a government that reflects their interests, not a bureaucracy molded to serve the governor’s priorities. Yet Newsom’s choices suggest he’s more interested in loyalty than diversity of perspective.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. These appointees will shape policies that touch every Californian, from pesticide rules to labor regulations. With no Senate confirmation required for most of these roles, there’s scant oversight to check Newsom’s hand. It’s a recipe for unchecked power, and it’s time to call it what it is: a bureaucratic power grab.

Let’s talk numbers. Bailey’s new gig comes with a $193,008 salary. Flores will pocket $190,536. Even Brianna Nicole Mallari, a relative newcomer tapped as Special Assistant at the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, will earn $70,692. These are taxpayer-funded positions, and the price tag raises eyebrows when you consider the lack of competitive selection or public scrutiny. Californians are footing the bill for Newsom’s inner circle, and it’s hard to see the value.

Contrast this with the state’s pressing challenges: skyrocketing housing costs, a punishing tax burden, and businesses fleeing to friendlier states. Since 2019, Newsom has made over 3,000 appointments, many to high-paying roles that shape everything from environmental rules to workforce policy. Yet California’s affordability crisis worsens, and regulatory red tape continues to strangle small businesses. The disconnect is glaring.

Historical data backs this up. The rise of California’s administrative state, fueled by unelected appointees, has long been a conservative critique. In the mid-20th century, opposition to centralized authority fueled calls for reform, from independent redistricting to curbing bureaucratic overreach. Today, Republican voices like Steve Hilton and Sheriff Chad Bianco, eyeing the 2026 gubernatorial race, echo these concerns, arguing that Newsom’s regulatory machine drives up costs and erodes freedoms.

Newsom’s defenders might claim these appointments bring expertise. But expertise isn’t the issue; accountability is. When the same political clique dominates every agency, it’s not governance—it’s cronyism. Californians deserve leaders who prioritize their needs over party loyalty.

Newsom’s appointees aren’t just placeholders; they’re the foot soldiers of his regulatory agenda. Take the Department of Pesticide Regulation, where Bailey will help enforce some of the nation’s strictest pesticide rules. California’s layered approach—state oversight plus local restrictions—sounds noble, but it often buries farmers in compliance costs. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act already sets robust standards; piling on state rules feels like overkill.

Then there’s the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, where appointees like Kevin Matulich and Crystal Young will push policies like expanded paid leave and workplace safety mandates. These sound good on paper, but they heap costs on businesses already struggling under California’s tax and regulatory load. Recent workforce trends show states adopting flexible, employer-friendly policies to boost jobs. California, under Newsom’s watch, seems to be doubling down on mandates instead.

The broader context is telling. Project 2025, a national conservative blueprint, calls for rolling back state overreach, particularly in areas like environmental and labor policy. California’s vehicle emissions standards, championed by Newsom’s allies, face federal challenges, with conservatives arguing they distort markets and raise costs. Newsom’s appointments ensure these policies persist, even as they clash with economic realities.

Newsom’s team might argue these appointments reflect California’s values, pointing to diversity or expertise. But that argument crumbles under scrutiny. Diversity in background means little if everyone shares the same political allegiance. Of the six appointees announced, five are registered Democrats, and the sixth, Patricia Lock Dawson, lacks party affiliation but boasts a resume aligned with Newsom’s priorities. Where’s the balance?

This isn’t a new problem. Since 2006, no Republican has won statewide office in California, and Democratic dominance has bred complacency. The state’s regulatory state thrives on this imbalance, with appointees insulated from electoral accountability. Research on political appointments versus civil service underscores the risk: appointees, driven by loyalty, often push ideological extremes, while career civil servants offer moderation and stability. Newsom’s reliance on the former tilts governance toward partisanship.

Californians feel the consequences. From pesticide rules that hike food prices to labor policies that deter job growth, Newsom’s appointees are steering the state toward a future where government calls the shots, and citizens pay the price. It’s a one-party state’s blind spot, and it’s time for a course correction.

Newsom’s appointment spree demands a response. Californians can’t afford a government that prioritizes loyalty over competence or ideology over pragmatism. The solution lies in demanding transparency and accountability. Senate confirmation for high-level appointees, competitive selection processes, and caps on taxpayer-funded salaries would be a start. Better yet, electing leaders who value economic freedom and limited government could shift the tide.

As the 2026 gubernatorial race looms, candidates like Hilton and Bianco are sounding the alarm. Their platforms—cutting taxes, slashing regulations, restoring local control—resonate with Californians tired of bureaucratic overreach. The path forward requires dismantling the unchecked power of Newsom’s appointees and rebuilding a government that serves the people, not the governor’s agenda.