California Candidates Clash on Taxes, Homelessness in Volatile Debate

In a wide-open race to replace Gavin Newsom as California governor, six leading candidates gathered in San Francisco on Wednesday for the first substantive debate of the 2026 campaign, exposing both sharp policy contrasts and the state's persistent struggle to translate progressive priorities into measurable results. With mail ballots set to go out in early May ahead of the June 2 primary, the 90-minute forum underscored how a crowded field and voter discontent have left nearly a quarter of Californians undecided in what remains one of the most unpredictable contests in a generation.

The debate, hosted by Nexstar Media Group and broadcast across the state and nationally on NewsNation, featured four Democrats Tom Steyer, Xavier Becerra, Katie Porter and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan alongside two Republicans Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. The format avoided the circus atmosphere that sometimes defines California politics, instead pressing candidates on the interlocking crises of homelessness, housing costs, gasoline prices and insurance premiums that have come to define life in the nation's most populous state.

Homelessness produced the clearest philosophical divide. Democratic candidates largely defended Newsom's record, noting that California has spent billions attempting to address a crisis that leaves it with more unhoused residents than any other state. Republicans were unsparing. Hilton, the former Fox News host who has led many polls and recently secured former President Donald Trump's endorsement, argued the massive expenditures have produced little visible progress. "Everything has taken us in the wrong direction," he said, framing the state's problems as the predictable outcome of 16 years of uninterrupted Democratic control.

That critique resonates beyond conservative circles. California has long served as a laboratory for ambitious progressive policy, yet its outcomes on visible governance failures have fueled voter frustration. The state's economy generates enormous wealth, yet chronic shortages of housing, punishing costs of living and visible street encampments have eroded confidence in government effectiveness. Wednesday's debate offered few detailed blueprints for resolving these tensions, though candidates repeatedly returned to the need for both more resources and fundamentally different approaches.

The exchanges grew personal at times, revealing the jostling for advantage in a top-two primary system where the top two finishers advance to November regardless of party. Democrats expressed quiet anxiety that a fractured field could allow both Republicans to advance, a scenario that seemed remote months ago but now feels plausible. Mahan delivered one of the sharper attacks of the night, telling Steyer the only housing the billionaire hedge-fund founder and climate activist had built involved "private prisons and ICE detention centers." The line echoed longstanding criticism of Steyer's investment record and appeared designed to dent his standing among liberal voters.

Becerra, who has seen his poll numbers rise since Eric Swalwell's abrupt withdrawal from the race last week amid sexual assault and misconduct allegations, trained his fire on Hilton. The former state attorney general and Biden administration health secretary reminded viewers that Hilton had never held elected office before entering this contest. "It's interesting to watch someone who has served as a talking head on a Fox News program telling us how government should run when he never has run any government in his life," Becerra said, arguing that Hilton's proposed tax cuts would blow a hole in state revenues. Hilton shot back that the current system simply is not working for most Californians.

Porter, who has polled strongly in recent weeks, struggled to break through as a distinct voice. She joined other Democrats in emphasizing the need to protect California's progressive gains while challenging the Trump administration's agenda from Sacramento. Yet she often appeared reactive rather than agenda-setting. Steyer, who has poured more than $100 million of his own money into the race, faced repeated efforts from rivals to define him as an out-of-touch financier rather than a credible executive.

On policy specifics, the conversation revealed more agreement among Democrats than fireworks. Most supported maintaining or adjusting the state's gasoline tax while finding ways to ease the burden on working families. All acknowledged the housing shortage as a central driver of both homelessness and middle-class exodus. Yet few offered transformative ideas for overcoming the regulatory and local opposition barriers that have made building new housing extraordinarily difficult in much of the state. The threat of artificial intelligence also surfaced, with candidates debating how to harness its economic potential while protecting workers from displacement.

For all the focus on personalities, the evening's deeper current was California's uneasy relationship with its own success. The state has led on climate policy, expanded health coverage and pioneered new social programs. Yet those achievements coexist with visible breakdowns in basic governance: tent cities that resist clearance efforts, insurance companies fleeing wildfire-prone areas, and young families priced out of the communities where they grew up. Republicans cast these failures as ideological, the inevitable result of unchecked progressive governance. Democrats described them as problems of implementation and insufficient funding, arguing that only they could be trusted to protect the state's values against a hostile federal government in Washington.

With no clear frontrunner and the primary fast approaching, Wednesday's debate did more to illuminate the stakes than to resolve the race. Hilton and Bianco projected confidence that voters are ready for a fundamental change in direction. The Democratic contenders each tried to position themselves as the most effective steward of California's progressive experiment. What remains unclear is whether any of them can convince a weary electorate that they have cracked the code on turning ambitious policy goals into tangible improvements in daily life.

The volatility that followed Swalwell's sudden departure suggests voters are still searching. In a state that once seemed politically predictable, the governor's race has become a referendum not just on individual candidates but on whether California's model of governance can adapt to the scale of its challenges. The answers offered on stage Wednesday were partial at best. The real test will come when ballots arrive in voters' mailboxes and Californians decide which two visions deserve a chance to govern the state through the next four years.