Newsom’s $20M Sneak: Drivers to Pay for Officials’ Security

 A $20 million line was quietly tucked into a massive California spending package this week. If the language sticks, money from the Motor Vehicle Account — the fund paid for by your vehicle registration and driver fees — could be used to pay California Highway Patrol officers to serve as personal security for current and former state elected officials and their families. That means drivers, already paying sky-high fees, might also be asked to underwrite political protection details.

What the budget sneak says

The line item authorizes CHP officers to serve as personal security for elected officials based on law‑enforcement threat assessments and pulls the cash from the Motor Vehicle Account (MVA). Supporters, including Governor Gavin Newsom’s office, say this is about rising threats and public‑safety realities. As spokesman Brandon Richards put it, “We unfortunately live in a time when threats and political violence against public officials are very real, and on the rise,” and protection choices will be made by law enforcement. Fine. But the finance choice matters just as much as the safety claim.

 

Why California drivers should care

The MVA is meant for transport priorities: DMV operations, highway safety, and CHP traffic enforcement. It is funded by registration fees and is already under pressure. Senator Roger Niello warned the account could be bankrupt in two to three years and called diverting these funds “inappropriate” and possibly unconstitutional. Taxing motorists to protect political figures who can raise campaign cash looks like a bait‑and‑switch with a bad ending for commuters and small businesses that already shoulder the burden.

Taxpayer priorities versus political security

There are other options besides dipping into driver fees. Campaign funds and private security are already lawful tools for officials to secure protection when needed. The CHP already has a Protective Services Division and has protected former officials on prior trips. So the question is simple: if a governor or former official needs personal security, why not pay for it from campaign war chests, private funds, or the General Fund — not the pot drivers use to keep the DMV open and potholes fixed? Sneaking a $20 million line item into a 300‑page bill, filed over a weekend, looks more like political cover than budget prudence.

What to watch next

Reporters and taxpayers should demand the exact bill text, cost estimates from the CHP and the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and an on‑the‑record answer from the governor about whether he will use the program. If lawmakers are serious about protecting officials, they can do it without robbing motorists. Lawmakers who care about fiscal honesty should strip this carve‑out, choose a proper funding source, or require officials to use their own resources. Until then, California drivers should treat this as yet another toll on liberty — and on their registration renewals.