California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s recent executive order on transportation spending — directing the state to put more money toward its climate goals — aimed to be bold, timely and environmentally conscious.

But like other policy statements the governor has made on transportation, it caused an uproar. Fury and confusion unspooled for weeks among Democrats and Republicans, even as state officials tried to assuage everyone’s concerns.

Newsom stepped onto a political land mine when he called for $5 billion in annual transportation funds to be diverted to projects that would “help reverse the trend of fuel consumption and reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” mostly coming from cars and trucks.

Representatives from both parties panicked, worrying that Newsom would raid funding for their roads and highways and spend it on his own pet projects. They feared, moreover, that he might target money generated by a gas-tax increase that’s angered people in the car-dependent Central Valley and Southern California. The gas tax — called SB1 — led Orange County voters to recall a state senator who supported it, and prompted an unsuccessful repeal campaign last year.

The governor said Wednesday that he’s baffled by these accusations. SB1 money is “locked in for intended purposes,” he said. While some of the $5 billion he cited in the executive order comes from gas taxes, it’s discretionary, meaning the state can choose how to dole out the money. In that sense, the executive order was more of a policy agenda.

That did little to satisfy lawmakers under pressure to take a stand and protect road and highway work in their communities. Enraged Republicans accused the state of pilfering money intended for road repair and deceiving voters.

“California has diverted billions from road repair since 2010, and more than a third of SB1’s revenue is already sent to projects unrelated to roads,” Assembly Republican leader Marie Waldron of Escondido (San Diego County) said in a statement. “This scheme is doubling down on that long record of highway robbery.”

Democrats soon joined the chorus.

“Raiding funding from important local projects in the Central Valley is wrong,” said Rep. Josh Harder, D-Turlock (Stanislaus County), in a statement. “We pay outrageously high taxes — including for gas — and it’s time we start seeing some of the benefits we paid for.”

Harder’s concerns were fueled, in part, by a recent state transportation budget proposal. It included cuts to a road-widening project on Highway 99, which runs through the Central Valley.

The author of SB1, state Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, wasn’t worried about the governor or state transportation agency meddling with gas tax funds that are already tied up by law. But he said it didn’t help to put out statements that confuse people.

When Beall, former Gov. Jerry Brown, labor groups and other politicians campaigned against the gas tax repeal effort, they promised voters that most SB1 money would go toward a maintenance backlog — potholed highways, decrepit bridges, road craters that were causing crashes.

“Repairing things that are broken, that might not be a global warming thing, but it’s important,” Beall said. “Highway safety … that may not be a global warming project, but it’s important.”

This isn’t the first time Newsom caused a gas-tax fight to flare up. During his first budget speech in January, the governor announced plans to withhold gas-tax money from cities that don’t meet their housing goals. He later walked the comments back, after a swift backlash from mayors and city council members throughout the state.

The climate change order similarly has required weeks of damage control, as the governor and state Transportation Secretary David Kim struggle to clarify Newsom’s intentions.

“If we are going to be serious about preparing for climate change, we have to start planning now, considering the long lead time for transportation projects,” Kim said earlier this month, at a California Transportation Commission meeting in Modesto. He explained that an executive order can’t supersede existing laws: SB1 funds are safeguarded by the Constitution, “and we will honor the will of the voters,” Kim said.

Others saw the governor’s order not as a money grab, but as bravado: an audacious but ambiguous statement, timed to coincide with global Climate Change Week. Still others praised the governor, saying he’s tried to tackle two compelling but difficult issues — climate change and the housing crisis — so it’s no wonder he’s facing resistance.

“He’s trying to do a really hard thing,” said Randy Rentschler, legislative director of the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “And really, change makes people nervous.”

The transportation sector contributes 40% of emissions statewide, Newsom noted in his executive order. Throughout his first year as governor he’s touted a land use strategy that would discourage driving, mostly by clustering homes around job centers and transit stations.

Environmentalists and housing activists share that vision, but many Californians recoil at the idea of changing their habits and lifestyles. Some politicians interpreted the climate-change order as an attack on roads and highways, which represent not only a transportation system, but also a way of life.

Speaking to reporters Wednesday at San Francisco’s Bill Graham Civic Auditorium, Newsom said he’s mystified by the outcry. He suggested that some lawmakers may be distorting his statements to score political points.

“I think they’re conflating things,” he said. “Some of them are doing it, respectfully, intentionally.”

Rachel Swan is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: rswan@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @rachelswan