In recent developments, California gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter, known for her progressive stance, found herself under scrutiny from mainstream Democratic factions following a contentious interview with a local CBS station. This situation highlights the challenges faced by candidates who defy conventional political norms.
Understanding Bad Jacketing
The term “bad jacketing,” as described by Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall in their book Agents of Repression: The FBI’s Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement, refers to a tactic aimed at creating distrust within an organization. The aim is to spread rumors or fabricate evidence suggesting that committed members, especially those in critical positions, are informants. This method was used to isolate and eliminate leadership, often leading to dire consequences for those targeted.
This tactic has evolved in our current digital age, manifesting predominantly in online forms.
Katie Porter Faces Backlash
Former U.S. Representative Katie Porter had been emerging as a frontrunner in the upcoming 2026 California gubernatorial race, based on multiple polls and fundraising efforts.
Porter gained national attention and acclaim, especially from outlets like Naked Capitalism, through confrontational exchanges, such as with JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon:
Rep. Katie Porter challenged big bank CEO Jamie Dimon to pay his workers a living wage by literally showing him the math pic.twitter.com/FpzxrIc8Co
— ᴿealfarmacist (@real_farmacist) April 13, 2019
She has also received praise for her impactful 2021 report on Big Pharma:
Rep. Katie Porter published a critical report revealing the detrimental effects of Big Pharma mergers on U.S. healthcare, calling for comprehensive reforms to address the shortcomings in the system.
The report, titled Killer Profits: How Big Pharma Takeovers Destroy Innovation and Harm Patients, highlights that “the number of large, international pharmaceutical companies has decreased six-fold in just a decade, from 60 to only 10.”
Additionally, her viral moments, like roasting the CEO of Abbvie, showcased her boldness:
However, this boldness has led to backlash, including being ousted from the House Financial Services Committee in 2021 due to pressure from corporate Democrats like Nancy Pelosi. Reports indicated that her removal was influenced by banking interests who felt threatened by her confrontational style.
As detailed by the Los Angeles Times, Porter’s approach led to political friction within her party, where her willingness to challenge established norms and figures like Pelosi and Maxine Waters resulted in her losing support from potential allies:
Porter recently scrutinized House Democrats’ typical rules for committee appointments, risking her position on the coveted Financial Services Committee, which she was well-qualified for.
While her boldness made her a national figure and potential U.S. Senate candidate, it also alienated essential allies, potentially jeopardizing her future legislative endeavors…
Heidi N. Moore summarized Porter’s significant accomplishments:
- Porter effectively challenged Bloomberg executives, uncovering their insincerity in public commitments to customer trust, leading to resignations.
- She prompted Jamie Dimon to admit his ignorance on fundamental financial issues related to his employees’ livelihoods.
- In a memorable moment, Porter demonstrated the incompetence of HUD Secretary Ben Carson, illustrating serious shortcomings in management.
- She also played a crucial role in pushing for free COVID tests during the early stages of the pandemic.
Schiff Holds Senate Race Hostage
In 2024, Porter competed for a U.S. Senate seat but finished third in the non-partisan primary, trailing RussiaGater Adam Schiff and baseball Hall of Famer Steve Garvey. According to Roll Call, Porter’s fundraising fell short, with Schiff raising $32.8 million compared to her $28 million.
Post-election, Porter remarked on the establishment’s influence, stating, “we had the establishment running scared — withstanding 3 to 1 in TV spending and an onslaught of billionaires spending millions to rig this election.”
Her comments ignited criticism from establishment Democrats, as reflected in media coverage (see Politico):
Porter’s statement led to a stern rebuke from figures like Sen. Brian Schatz and Sen. Alex Padilla, who emphasized the integrity of California’s election process.
When the California Democratic establishment realized Porter’s prominence in the gubernatorial race, tensions rose. Politico noted potential vulnerabilities stemming from her previous Senate campaign and relationships with party insiders:
“A crowded field of candidates is now gearing up to capitalize on Porter’s past and less-than-ideal ties within the party, especially with wealthy donors.”
Amid this backdrop, Porter was pitted against well-funded opponents, including Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, who had substantial financial backing from influential circles. Ultimately, the Democratic establishment’s concerns about Porter’s candidacy were palpable.
Porter’s Interview Mishap
The political landscape shifted when Porter participated in an interview with CBS’ Julie Watts.
Katie Porter, the front runner to be the next Governor of California, tries to leave an interview after getting frustrated w/ @juliewattsTV questions pic.twitter.com/mTzZURG86K
— Alex Thompson (@AlexThomp) October 8, 2025
Watts posed a question that rattled Porter, leading to an intense exchange. While Porter expressed her dissatisfaction with the framing of the question, she ultimately stayed to finish the interview, though her initial reaction was misinterpreted.
Here’s a snippet from the dialogue:
Julie Watts: What do you say to the 40% of California voters who you’ll need in order to win who voted for Trump?
Katie Porter: How would I need them in order to win?
Watts: Ma’am, well, unless you think you’re going to get 60% of the vote. If you’re saying that…
(the conversation continues with back-and-forth exchanges, highlighting the tension between Watts and Porter.)
After the interview, the corporate media quickly seized on the situation:
— Nat Wilson Turner (@natwilsonturner) October 10, 2025
The New York Times mischaracterized her reaction:
Describing the moment as one where she “dismissively rejected a question,” they inaccurately depicted Porter’s stance — ignoring her legitimate concern about needing Republican supporters in a Democratic-dominant state.
Her competitors did not hold back, suggesting that Porter believes she has already secured the election, lacks the ability to answer basic queries, and even calling for her withdrawal from the race:
Fellow Democrats claimed “Ms. Porter thinks she’s already won,” and could not handle basic inquiries.
However, it was predominantly the media that engaged in the bad jacketing:
Someone who used to work with Katie Porter sent me this clip from a train-wreck interview with her and said, “Now imagine what she’s like when there aren’t cameras around.” pic.twitter.com/OCF73BrUg1
— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) October 8, 2025
Further, a video from 2021 where Porter reprimanded a staffer was leaked, intensifying the scrutiny on her character. Rhonda Elaine Foxx, a former Biden and Harris staff member, joined in the backlash:
— Nat Wilson Turner (@natwilsonturner) October 10, 2025
Heidi Moore provided context, questioning the motives of former staffers attacking Porter, highlighting a double standard:
She pointed out the hypocrisy in critiquing Porter’s behavior when similar conduct from others, particularly from established figures in the party, goes unscathed.
In light of these incidents, David Sirota articulated a critical perspective, suggesting that a confrontational approach towards wealthy interests should be valued rather than vilified:
The need for assertive politicians who can challenge the status quo is essential, which might explain why some media outlets are attempting to sully Porter’s reputation.
Yashar Ali even suggested a potential ad for Porter where she embraces her assertive persona, although his sincerity is debatable:
He envisioned an ad where Porter acknowledges her toughness while emphasizing her commitment to deliver for California.
This scenario mirrors challenges faced by previous populist candidates who dared to confront entrenched power structures. Any misstep by someone like Porter is met with fervent criticism from both party insiders and the media, revealing a disheartening reality for those seeking to disrupt the political norm.
Porter’s situation serves as a reminder that in politics, perceived imperfections can lead to severe repercussions, particularly for those who aim to be agents of change.
