Halle Berry Says Newsom Vetoing Menopause Bill Disqualifies

I’ll lay out what happened at a recent public event where a high-profile actress openly criticized California Governor Gavin Newsom, highlight how that moment contrasted with other speakers’ attacks on the media and the president, note the policy fight at the center of the criticism, and explain why conservatives view this as another example of leadership failing to address basic state problems.

At a public summit, tensions flared when a well-known Hollywood figure took the stage and directly confronted Governor Gavin Newsom about his handling of a clear policy need in California. The moment landed with audible gasps, because public criticism of a Democrat from Hollywood still feels rare and therefore newsworthy. The actress did not mince words and connected the policy failure to broader doubts about Newsom’s suitability for higher office.

Earlier in the event, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent drew sharp fire at a major news outlet for what he described as selective reporting on President Donald Trump and insufficient coverage of concerns around President Joe Biden. He contrasted Trump’s active, lengthy Cabinet meetings with Biden’s much lighter schedule in 2024, pointing out that one president had nine Cabinet meetings in his current term so far while the other had only one that year. That critique set the stage for a night where accountability was on display from multiple directions.

When the actress turned her attention to Newsom, she explicitly linked his actions to a specific health-care bill and framed his decisions as a broader pattern of ignoring half the population. She said, “At this stage in my life, I have zero f—- left to give.” Then she continued with a pointed indictment of his policy choices and presidential ambitions. That declaration cut through the usual political polish and made her message hard to ignore.

“Back in my great state of California, my very own governor, Gavin Newsom, has vetoed our menopause bill, not one, but two years in a row. But that’s OK, because he’s not going to be governor forever, and the way he has overlooked women, half the population, by devaluing us in midlife, he probably should not be our next president either. Just saying.”

The bill at the heart of the criticism was designed to expand menopause care and require that health plans and providers take steps to recommend treatments and receive training on menopause-related needs. The proposal sought to address gaps in care for a large portion of the population and to elevate clinical standards and coverage. Newsom vetoed that measure for a second consecutive year, and the veto became the focal point for the actress’s rebuke.

This moment mattered because it happened right before Newsom himself spoke, placing him under an immediate spotlight. Audience reaction suggested the critique landed hard, and commentators quickly seized on his posture during the event as an odd counterpoint to the verbal takedown. Conservative observers seized on both the policy veto and the optics as evidence of misplaced priorities and weak leadership.

Critics argued that the veto was emblematic of a broader pattern in Sacramento where pressing problems often go unresolved or receive only piecemeal attention. They pointed to persistent issues such as wildfire response, illegal immigration, and homelessness as areas where the governor has been accused of falling short. For those in the Republican lane, these cumulative failures reinforce the argument that someone who cannot manage state crises lacks the credentials for the presidency.

The actress’s willingness to call out a Democrat from Hollywood added a cultural sting to the policy critique, because entertainment figures rarely break with the party line so publicly. Her remarks reflected frustration among voters who want practical solutions rather than political theater. From a conservative standpoint, that kind of cross-aisle rebuke carries weight and can be used to question national ambitions that seem disconnected from state-level performance.

Beyond the menopause bill itself, the exchange underscored a larger narrative about accountability and where leaders focus their energy. Conservatives have been pressing the point that promoting someone to a higher office should depend on demonstrable success in current roles. If a governor keeps vetoing measures aimed at improving care and fails to fix chronic problems, critics argue that makes a strong case against elevating that person to a national position.

That line of critique also ties back to the earlier media criticism: if institutions and leaders selectively ignore some problems while exaggerating others, voters get a warped picture of competence. Republicans argue voters deserve straightforward assessments and leaders who prioritize solving tangible problems for citizens. Moments like this summit are used to highlight perceived mismatches between political ambition and actual record.

For conservatives watching the exchange, the episode offered both policy and symbolic ammunition. The policy failure on menopause care provided a concrete example to discuss in debates about priorities, and the public rebuke by a Hollywood figure stripped away some of the usual protective gloss around liberal elites. It’s the kind of public pressure Republicans believe can force accountability and bring attention back to the issues that matter to everyday Californians.

Ultimately, the event became less about celebrity drama and more about a governor’s record, showing how one veto can turn into a broader argument about fitness for higher office. When policy choices affect large swaths of the population and an outspoken critic from the left speaks up, the moment reverberates in ways that matter to voters on both sides. Conservatives will point to those reverberations when assessing Newsom’s readiness for the national stage.