Sen. Padilla and our diminishing democracy are violently slammed to the ground and cuffed by Trump's regime
Shocking. Horrifying. Disgusting. Astonishing. When Democratic U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla was thrown to the ground, handcuffed like a common criminal, and hauled out of a press conference held by the single most inexperienced Homeland Security Secretary in U.S. history, Kristi Noem, it wasn't just an attack on one man. It was an assault on our democracy and all that democracy underpins.
Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate's email newsletter.
Also being pushed out of the way were civility, the rule of law, decency, and the essence of freedom.
Padilla, California's duly elected senior senator, wasn't disrupting anything. He wasn't threatening. He wasn't doing anything remotely out of the ordinary. He was simply wanting to ask questions of the repulsive Noem.
What he was doing was his job. He was doing his job. When he gave a statement after the incident, he reiterated that very fact. Padilla was peacefully and legally doing his job. He had every right to be at that press conference on behalf of the people of California. Who, like him, are demanding answers on why California is being ferociously targeted by the Trump administration.
And for doing his job, he was tackled, humiliated, and forcibly removed from a public event by federal agents, which is essentially Trump's SS. They were alarmingly acting on behalf of an administration that treats dissent not as a democratic necessity, but as a threat to be eliminated.
Watching the video is gut-wrenching. Padilla's body hits the ground. His arms are forced behind his back. His voice, which represents nearly 40 million Californians, is silenced by handcuffs and the arrogance of Noem and her henchmen.
And standing there behind the podium, in the room where he was removed, was the loathsome Noem, who owes her position not to merit or experience, but to unwavering and putrid loyalty to Trump.
That's how things work now. Loyalty, not law. Obedience, not oversight. Handcuffs, not questions.
This moment, vile, inexcusable, and deeply un-American, did not happen in isolation. It is the latest link in a chain of democratic destruction Trump has been yanking tighter around this country's throat since January 20, 2025.
From the moment he retook the oath of office, Donald Trump has waged war on the institutions that define American democracy. He didn't walk into office with a policy plan. He's too stupid for that. He came with a vendetta against American democracy.
Within days, he gutted the Office of Government Ethics and stripped funding from the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. Within weeks, ICE raids ramped up in cities across the country, indiscriminately tearing apart immigrant families and terrifying communities. That has prompted the very protests in Los Angeles that Trump has now answered, illegally, by sending in the Marines.
It still hasn't sunk in yet. Marines. In an American city. Deployed not for natural disaster relief or national security, but to quell a domestic protest of their fellow American citizens. Troops with combat training are being sent to intimidate civilians exercising their constitutional rights.
And in the process, Trump goads California Gov. Gavin Newsom into a political standoff, hoping to paint him as the villain in a drama Trump has written for one purpose, and that is to consolidate power, paint California and migrants as villains, and to crush opposition.
And now? Now he's overseeing the body-slamming of U.S. senators. What, in God's name, is happening to us?
What's happening is that Trump is horrifically showing us that no one is immune, not even elected officials, to his desire to be a dictator who militarizes American society . Padilla's removal wasn't just a grotesque abuse of power. It was a message. A warning. And maybe even more frightening, a test balloon.
Because if he can rough up a U.S. senator, what's to stop him from doing it to a mayor? A governor? Another member of Congress? How about a former president of the United States? All bets are off.
Frankly, we've already been seeing it in New Jersey, where Rep. Angela McIver was indicted on dubious federal charges after standing up to ICE abuses at a detention center. That same incident saw the mayor of Newark roughed up and arrested — he is suing. We've seen it again this week in California and New York, where elected officials who have oversight over ICE were denied access to detention centers as reports of mistreatment pour in.
These aren't isolated incidents. The Trump administration has weaponized federal agencies to act as a domestic enforcement arm of his political will. These are not the checks and balances of a healthy democracy. Far from it. These are the foot soldiers of creeping authoritarianism.
Newsom was right when he said, 'Democracy is under assault.' But it's gone further because the assault is now literal. We have crossed the line. Democracy is bleeding out, one institution at a time, one senator at a time, one protester at a time.
And if we don't rise to meet this moment, if we pretend this is politics as usual, we will wake up in a country where the machinery of democracy ceases to exist. Voting, speech, dissent, all rendered meaningless by fear, force, and fealty to one horrible man.
If you think for a minute that this is hyperbole, read up on the history of tyranny and rise of dictators. What Trump is doing is straight from that playbook, including attacking elected officials who dare to stand in his way.
There is no middle ground anymore. Either we stand with Padilla, with Newsom, with every Californian and every American whose voice is being silenced, or we step aside and let democracy be crushed under the boots of Trump's Hitler-like SS.
We're inching closer and closer to the edge. Will we look back someday and see that the pushing of Padilla around pushed us over that edge?
Voices is dedicated to featuring a wide range of inspiring personal stories and impactful opinions from the LGBTQ+ community and its allies. Visit Advocate.com/submit to learn more about submission guidelines. Views expressed in Voices stories are those of the guest writers, columnists, and editors, and do not directly represent the views of The Advocate or our parent company, equalpride.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
16 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What will happen to food assistance under Trump's tax cut plan? A look at the numbers
President Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food assistance for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food assistance program, by the numbers: The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law eliminated a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the country. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled in SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. The money can be spent on most groceries, but the Trump administration recently approved requests by six states — Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah — to exclude certain items, such as soda or candy. Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion in federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come from shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come from expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. The House resolution containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts passed last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food assistance and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it. Lieb writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Waymo cars became sitting ducks during the L.A. protests
Engineers working on self-driving technology have given a lot of thought to difficult questions over the years, including how to keep pedestrians safe and how to avoid collisions with other vehicles. But last weekend's protests in Los Angeles threw a spotlight on one of the thorny problems that remain for autonomous vehicles: what to do about arson, vandalism or other physical attacks. Five vehicles owned by Google's self-driving spinoff Waymo were set ablaze last Sunday during protests against the Trump administration's immigration policies. Images and video of the flaming cars quickly went viral, illustrating for a global audience how vulnerable robotaxis can be in volatile situations. For all their advanced technology, including expensive cameras and sensors, the cars seemed to be defenseless. Waymo says the five cars were in downtown Los Angeles to serve passengers when they were attacked. There were no drivers to plead for mercy, and with crowds surrounding the vehicles, there was no escape path that didn't include threatening pedestrians — something Waymo vehicles are programmed not to do. 'They're very much sitting ducks,' said Jeff Fong, who has worked at tech companies including Lyft and Postmates and now writes a newsletter about cities and technology. And it wasn't the first time Waymo was a victim of arson. Last year, a Waymo in San Francisco's Chinatown was set on fire during Lunar New Year celebrations. Police later charged a juvenile with starting the blaze, saying they had thrown a lit firework into the vehicle. Waymos have been vandalized in other ways, too, including having their tires slashed, their windshields smashed, their doors torn off and their exteriors defaced with spray paint. Local prosecutors have charged individuals in at least some cases. Part of what makes robotaxis vulnerable is their caution. While it's impossible to know if a human driver behind the steering wheel could have deterred or escaped vandalism in any specific case involving a robotaxi, driverless vehicles are generally designed to stay put if there's any risk that they'd hit a person while moving. 'There's been so much effort into making sure they can't hurt human beings,' Fong said. 'That's the problem Waymo has been solving for, rightfully so, but when you have the problem where a human wants to do harm, these cars have no countermeasures.' Autonomous technology companies, including Waymo, appear to be largely at a loss for ideas on how to deter vandalism over the long term. Their cameras may be a partial deterrent — Waymo says each of its cars has 29 cameras — and the company has cooperated with police to help find vandalism suspects after the fact. But Waymo's collection of street data through its cameras and sensors is also one of the sources of anger against the company and other startups like it. Some Uber and Lyft drivers have said that vandalism incidents bolster the importance of human drivers as a deterrent. A spokesperson for Waymo said that in response to the protests in Los Angeles and elsewhere, it was temporarily adjusting its service area. Waymo declined to make anyone available for an interview about the problems of arson and vandalism and how the company plans to deal with such incidents in the long term. The vandalism problem is mostly limited for now to Waymo, which is the biggest self-driving car company. It has about 1,500 vehicles operating in four regions, with additional cities scheduled to come online this year. But the market is set to become more competitive soon, with Tesla saying it plans to launch a robotaxi service this month in Austin, Texas, and Amazon-backed Zoox planning a service in Las Vegas and San Francisco. Representatives for Tesla and Zoox did not respond to requests for comment about how they plan to avoid incidents like last Sunday's attack on Waymo vehicles. The problem has been gnawing at robotaxi fans on message boards on Reddit. In one thread in January, users tossed around ideas like having dedicated security on motorcycles nearby or equipping Waymo vehicles with pepper spray. Adam Millard-Ball, director of the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies, said that robotaxis are a symbolic target for some street demonstrators. 'They're attacked not because they're autonomous cars but because they're a symbol of inequality in cities and a symbol of the power of large technology companies,' he said. He noted that electric scooters are also sometimes targets. He also said it's hard to imagine what the companies, police or city officials could do to eliminate the threat entirely. 'I don't think any country in the world has eliminated vandalism in public spaces,' he said. The incidents are problematic for Waymo on multiple levels: not only the cost of repairing or replacing the vehicles, but also the reputational risk when images and videos spread widely online. There's also the possible danger to passengers. And although no passengers were harmed in the arson incidents, some passengers have been delayed or reported feeling threatened when the cars they were riding in were vandalized from the outside. Last year, a San Francisco woman posted a video online after she said two men targeted her while riding in a Waymo. Then there's the lost business from what Waymo calls 'temporary service adjustments.' In Los Angeles and San Francisco this past week, Waymo stopped serving certain areas that are part of its normal service area. People using the company's app in recent days were greeted with a message, alluding to the street protests: 'Pickup times and routing may be affected by local events. Thank you for your patience.' In San Francisco, that meant Waymo refused to take customers through or to several neighborhoods, including parts of the Financial District, the Civic Center area near City Hall and the sprawling South of Market neighborhood. Waymo also limited service to the Mission District, a historically working-class and Latino neighborhood that's also home now to many tech workers and a vibrant nightlife scene. Thousands of people attended an anti-President Trump protest in the Mission on Monday night, and the effects on Waymo reverberated for days: A post on X with an example of rerouting around the Mission went viral Wednesday, getting 1.2 million views. Searches of the Waymo app by NBC News showed the service continuing to refuse service to parts of the Mission throughout the week, including during relatively quiet morning hours and on Friday. The app labeled certain destinations as 'unreachable.' A Waymo spokesperson said: 'We're taking these heightened measures now out of an abundance of caution.' They said the situation was temporary and subject to change quickly in response to conditions on the ground. Waymo hasn't published a map of which areas are restricted. Mass anti-Trump protests advocating for 'No Kings' are scheduled for Saturday nationwide, providing another potential disruption for robotaxis. Though the service restrictions may be temporary, they struck some people as discriminatory against poorer neighborhoods, with some social media users on X calling the practice 'redlining' on the part of Waymo. The term refers to the decadeslong practice of refusing home loans to predominantly Black neighborhoods. In contrast, ride-hailing services Uber and Lyft, which use human drivers, still offered rides to the Mission in recent days, according to NBC News searches of their apps. San Francisco's Municipal Transportation Agency rerouted some buses during the height of anti-Trump administration protests, but then resumed regular service. There have been no arrests for the attacks on Waymo vehicles in Los Angeles last Sunday. On Friday, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) said it was taking the lead in investigating the Waymo attacks, making them the subject of a federal investigation. 'The cause of these fires is quite obvious,' ATF special agent in charge Kenneth Cooper of the Los Angeles Field Division said in a statement. 'The task at hand now is to determine who is responsible. ATF's National Response Team is going to be a tremendous asset, and we look forward to the results of their efforts to hold the responsible parties accountable,' he said. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
More Americans support than oppose Trump's Army celebration parade: Poll
As President Donald Trump hosts events on Saturday to celebrate the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary, a new national poll indicates more Americans are likely to approve than disapprove of the president's decision to hold a military parade. But six in 10 Americans are concerned about the cost of the parade, saying it's "not a good use" of government money, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey. Trump, who is marking his 79th birthday on Saturday, is scheduled to give a speech during the parade, which will take place Saturday evening along the National Mall in Washington D.C. Defense officials say roughly 6,600 soldiers will march in the parade, with some 50 military aircraft and 150 vehicles, including tanks, rocket launchers, and missiles. The Army says it's spending $25-$45 million to pay for the parade, which includes fixing D.C. streets damaged by the tanks. Trump Warns Any Protesters At His Military Parade Will Be 'Met With Very Big Force' Trump has defended the cost of the parade, saying last month in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" that it would be "peanuts compared to the value of doing it." Read On The Fox News App "We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And we're going to celebrate it," the president said. Trump To Host Military Parade To Celebrate Army's 250Th Birthday But some in Congress are criticizing the parade, saying the money could be better spent. "If it was really about celebrating military families, we could put $30 million toward helping them offset the cost of their child care, food assistance and tuition," Sen. Tammy Duckworth, a military veteran who lost both of her legs in combat while piloting an Army Black Hawk helicopter during the Iraq War, said in a social media post. "But it isn't. Trump is throwing himself a $30 million birthday parade just to stroke his own ego," Duckworth argued. According to the poll, 40% of adults nationwide approved of the military parade, with 29% disapproving, and three in 10 neither approving nor disapproving. There was an expected partisan divide, with two-thirds of Republicans approving of the president's move to hold the parade, and half of Democrats disapproving. But in a separate question, 60% of those surveyed said holding the parade was not a good use of government funds, with 38% disagreeing. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans said holding the parade was a good use of government funds, while eight in 10 Democrats disagreed. The White House, in a statement, said that the parade "will be a unifying celebration for not only the thousands in attendance, but Americans across the country who can participate in honoring our active-duty servicemembers, Veterans, and fallen heroes." Pro-democracy, progressive, and labor activists are planning protests in all 50 states on Saturday that will coincide with Trump's military parade. Many are part of a series of "No Kings" protests across the country, with more than 1,500 rallies scheduled for this weekend. But organizers decided against holding a major protest in the nation's capital and instead will hold their main event in Philadelphia. The poll, which was conducted June 5-9, also indicates that 39% of those questioned approve of the job Trump's doing in the White House, with six in ten giving the president a thumbs down. The survey had an overall margin of error of plus or minus four percentage article source: More Americans support than oppose Trump's Army celebration parade: Poll
