Bill Essayli, the First Assistant United States Attorney for California's Central District, read through Gavin Newsom's latest batch of anti-ICE legislation and responded with three words: "Or what?"

That was the entire federal rebuttal. And it was enough.

Newsom signed 21 bills on September 29 designed to restrict Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in California. The package includes the nation's first ban on shock gloves, new limits on flash-bang grenades, restrictions on explosive breaching charges, a prohibition on ICE agents wearing masks to conceal their identities, and a 25% tax on private detention centers. His office celebrated the signing by declaring the legislation would protect Californians from "Trump's Orwellian immigration tactics used to terrorize people."

Essayli wasn't impressed. "Governor, we've been through this already," he wrote. "If you want to regulate federal agents, you have to win a federal election. Until then, you have no jurisdiction." He then announced he had advised DHS to disregard the shock-glove ban entirely. When Newsom's office posted about the flash-bang restrictions on social media, Essayli fired back: "Or what? You're going to write us a ticket?"

The shock glove ban specifically targets a program DHS has budgeted up to $20 million to develop. The devices are officially called G.L.O.V.E.s — Generated Low Output Voltage Emitters — described as a conductive distraction and de-escalation device that delivers a jolt similar to a bee sting. Rep. Sara Jacobs of California's 51st District called them "torture" and opposed any funding for ICE. Newsom framed the ban as a moral stand.

The federal government framed it as a governor who doesn't understand the Supremacy Clause.

This is the pattern with Newsom. He signs bills that sound aggressive in a press release and collapse the moment they encounter federal authority. California has lost repeatedly in court trying to block immigration enforcement, and the bills keep coming — not because they'll survive legal challenge, but because they photograph well. Twenty-one bills in one signing ceremony is a campaign event, not a legislative session.

Essayli didn't argue the merits. He didn't engage with the policy. He didn't write a sternly worded letter promising to review the matter. He told the governor of the largest state in the country that the federal government would simply ignore him. And then he asked what Newsom planned to do about it.

The answer, of course, is nothing. California cannot arrest federal agents for using federally issued equipment during federally authorized operations. The state cannot tax a federal detention contract out of existence. The 25% surcharge on private detention facilities will face the same constitutional wall as every other attempt to use state tax policy to obstruct federal immigration enforcement.

Newsom knows this. The bills aren't designed to work. They're designed to be signed — preferably on camera, preferably with the word "Orwellian" in the press release — so that a future presidential candidate can point to them during a primary debate.