California Republican Harmeet K. Dhillon snagged what may be a very challenging position in Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign — she was named a co-chair of the newly-formed “Women for Trump Coalition.”
Dhillon, a San Francisco-based lawyer and Sikh activist, was among seven women named at a conference held in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania on July 16.
A hyperpartisan Republican and frequent guest on Fox News opinion shows, Dhillon is also member of the Republican National Committee from California. She is also the vice president of the Republican National Lawyers Association.
In the MeToo era, rallying women for Trump, who lost the suburban white women’s vote in last year’s midterm Congressional races, may be a task cutout for Dhillon, who valiantly defends conservative causes in bluest of the blue states in the lower 48.
“In a state in which Republican voter registration has declined to just north of 25 percent,” Politico writes, Dhillon, “has become a rare voice for conservative causes in the era of President Trump.”
Recently, she was active in defending controversial conservative pundits and flame-throwers, including Ann Coulter, who were disallowed by UC Berkeley students from speaking at campus events.
Dhillon, is also an acerbic critic of fellow Indian-American Sen. Kamala Harris, whom she accuses of being anti-Sikh when she was California’s Attorney General.
Soon after the publication of Harris’ memoir early this year, Dhillion disputed Harris’ account of her tenure, tweeting: “Kamala Harris as AG fought a 4-year battle against Sikh civil rights plaintiff, Trilochan Oberoi, who wanted to work at the CDCR without shaving his religiously-mandated beard. She finally settled when nearly 30 civil rights groups pressured her.”
In an article in The Wall Street Journal in April, Dhillon accused Harris of “pandering” to the progressive base of the Democratic Party by flip-flopping on issues.
“Ms. Harris’s positions as a prosecutor are out of step with her party’s increasingly radical ideas about social and racial justice. It’s predictable that she’d try to pander to progressives, who are paying more attention than anyone else at this stage of the contest. But the sheer volume of her about-faces makes her seem unusually disingenuous. If she isn’t going to stand by her decades of history as a prosecutor, what does she stand for?” she wrote.