Posts claim Trump asked Starmer to trade LGBTQ+ protections for deal with US. Here's what we know
A widespread claim that U.S. President Donald Trump would require the U.K. to get rid of laws protecting LGBTQ+ people before agreeing to a trade deal circulated on news outlets and social media in late-April 2025.
The claim came from an article in the British online newspaper The Independent that relied on a single, anonymous source. The source claimed U.S. Vice President JD Vance, not Trump, was "obsessed by the fall of Western civilisation" and the supposed fall of free speech in Europe. According to the source: "No free speech, no deal. It is as simple as that."
Vance said in a much-discussed speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2025 that he feared free speech was "in retreat" in Britain and across Europe. Vance repeated the accusation weeks later during an Oval Office meeting with Trump and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, saying there were "infringements on free speech" in the U.K. British officials said free speech was not a "material feature" of trade deal talks.
The U.K. has multiple laws governing hate speech against individuals based on race, religion and sexual orientation. At the time of this writing, there were no indications that the Starmer government intended to roll back these laws.
In late April 2025, as U.K. Chancellor Rachel Reeves prepared to meet her U.S. counterpart, Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, for further U.S.-U.K. trade deal talks, claims (archived) circulated online that U.S. President Donald Trump would require the U.K. to get rid of laws protecting LGBTQ+ people before agreeing to a deal.
A Facebook user wrote: "The Trump administration is aggressively pressuring UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to gut hate speech protections for LGBTQIA+ communities and minorities, framing it as a non-negotiable condition for a U.S.-UK trade deal."
The claim circulated across X (archived), Threads (archived) and Bluesky (archived). Snopes readers also emailed to ask whether the claim was true.
The claim came from a report by the British online newspaper The Independent that relied on an unnamed "Washington source." According to The Independent's report, Vice President JD Vance — not Trump specifically — was "obsessed by the fall of Western civilisation" and the supposed fall of free speech in Europe. The source said: "No free speech, no deal. It is as simple as that," implying that the U.K. would have to conform to American standards for free speech if it wished to secure a trade deal.
Snopes does not rely on anonymous sources, and it was not possible to independently verify The Independent's source. It was unclear whether the source specifically said protections for LGBTQ+ people had to be removed, or whether that was The Independent's reporting. In the U.K., stirring up or expressing hatred — actions known as hate speech — on the basis of sexual orientation, race and religion is an offense under the Public Order Act of 1986.
We reached out to Vance's office and 10 Downing Street, the office of the prime minister of the U.K., to ask whether the claims made by the anonymous source were true and await a reply. According to The Independent's report, a spokesperson for 10 Downing Street said free speech "is not a feature of the talks."
The connection to LGBTQ+ rights seemed to come mainly from The Independent's headline. The article, titled "Starmer told UK must repeal hate speech laws to protect LGBT+ people or lose Trump trade deal," mentioned LGBTQ+ rights only once in the body text to say that, according to the anonymous Washington source, Vance would "demand" that the U.K. government "rolls back laws against hateful comments, including abuse targeting LGBT+ groups or other minorities, as a condition of any deal."
A potential trade deal between the U.S. and the U.K. — countries that frequently cite their "special relationship" — has been in the works for years. Recently, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer discussed U.S.-U.K. trade while visiting the White House on Feb. 27, 2025.
During a Oval Office press gathering, a reporter asked Vance about "free speech violations" in the U.K. Vance said: (time stamp 1:57:16):
I said what I said, which is that we do have, of course, a special relationship with our friends in the U.K. and also with some of our European allies. But we also know that there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British — of course what the British do in their own country is up to them — but also affect American technology companies and, by extension, American citizens, so that is something that we'll talk about today at lunch.
Vance was referring to his speech at the Munich Security Conference on Feb. 14, 2025, during which he said: "In Britain, and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat."
During the Feb. 27 Oval Office meeting, Starmer replied (time-stamp 1:57:41):
We've had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom and it will last for a very, very long time. No, I mean, certainly we wouldn't want to reach across U.S. citizens, and we don't, and that's absolutely right. But in relation to free speech in the U.K., I'm very proud of our history there.
Starmer's reply, however, didn't seem to have affected American willingness to enter a deal. When asked during an UnHerd interview in April 2025 about the possibility of U.S.-U.K. trade deal, Vance said:
We're working very hard on a trade deal with the Starmer government. I don't want to prejudge it, but I think there's a good chance that, yes, we'll come to a great agreement that's in the best interest of both countries.
Vance did not mention specific U.S. requirements for a potential trade deal during that interview.
U.K. Secretary of State for Business and Trade Jonathan Reynolds, who was also a party to negotiations about a potential U.S.-U.K. trade deal, said during a Bloomberg interview on April 3, 2025, that though free speech was discussed between the nations it wasn't a significant factor (time stamp 4:29, emphasis ours):
Those issues have been raised by the U.S. diplomatically more widely, those references that you have given, but they haven't been part — a material part — of the trade negotiations that we have been having, I will obviously say, and I think I can defend this pretty strongly: the U.K. is a place that has always had a proud record on free speech.
Vance's Feb. 27, 2025, remark about "infringements on free speech" in the U.K. that affected "American technology companies" was likely a swipe at the U.K.'s Online Safety Act of 2023.
This law meant that internet services regulated by the act, a list including online giants like Meta, X and Google, must "identify, mitigate and manage" the risks of harm from "illegal content and activity" and "content and activity that is harmful to children" or face large fines.
The law applies only to services that have "links" with the U.K, for example, a significant number of users based there.
When asked whether he thought the act amounted to censorship, Starmer said:
No, we don't believe in censoring speech but of course we do need to deal with terrorism. We need to deal with ped*ph*les and issues like that. But I talked to the vice president about it today and we had a good exchange about it. And, of course, he's right to champion free speech. We champion free speech in the United Kingdom.
In the U.K., while the right to freedom of expression is secured under the Human Rights Act of 1998, successive U.K. governments have enshrined extra protections in legislation for certain groups against hate speech.
For example, the Public Order Act of 1986 made stirring up or expressing hatred on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation an offense. Offenses under the Public Order Act can be punished by fines and up to seven years' imprisonment.
Starmer, formerly the head of the Crown Prosecution Service that charges and prosecutes criminal cases in the U.K., has previously shown his willingness to use the Public Order Act of 1986 to regulate the right to freedom of expression.
Police arrested more than 400 people in September and August 2024 after an 18-year-old man killed three girls in Southport, in the north of England, and rumors that the suspect was an asylum-seeker resulted in days of riots and disorder.
Following the riots, the CPS convicted people who admitted to inciting racial hatred or violent disorder, both offenses under the Public Order Act.
The U.S. does not have hate speech laws like the ones in the U.K. due to the Constitution's First Amendment that protects freedom of speech. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a civil liberties group, the U.S. Supreme Court has "repeatedly rejected government attempts to prohibit or punish hate speech."
There was no indication, at the time of this writing, that the U.K. planned to roll back existing legislation on hate speech or internet content regulation. Likewise, according to officials from 10 Downing Street and the U.K. Department for Business and Trade, free speech in the U.K. was not a "material feature" of trade deal discussions.
12-Year-Old Convicted for Violent Disorder after Taking Part in Southport Unrest | The Crown Prosecution Service. https://www.cps.gov.uk/mersey-cheshire/news/12-year-old-convicted-violent-disorder-after-taking-part-southport-unrest. Accessed 18 Apr. 2025.
Ahmari, Sohrab. "Transcript: UnHerd's Interview with JD Vance." UnHerd, 16 Apr. 2025, https://unherd.com/2025/04/transcript-unherds-interview-with-jd-vance/.
"Article 10: Freedom of Expression." Equality and Human Rights Commission, 3 June 2021, https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-10-freedom-expression.
"First Amendment." Constitution Annotated, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/.
Human Rights Act 1998. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/introduction. Accessed 18 Apr. 2025.
Is Hate Speech Legal? | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/hate-speech-legal. Accessed 18 Apr. 2025.
Lu, Christina. "The Speech That Stunned Europe ." Foreign Policy, 18 Feb. 2025, https://archive.ph/rhkuW#selection-3217.0-3222.0.
Online Safety Act 2023. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#:~:text=illegal%20content%20and,the%20regulator%2C%20OFCOM. Accessed 18 Apr. 2025.
"Prime Minister Says UK Guards Free Speech 'Preciously' after Vance Criticism." Yahoo News, 28 Feb. 2025, https://uk.news.yahoo.com/prime-minister-very-proud-uk-194115620.html.
Public Order Act 1986. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64#:~:text=(3)-,A%20person%20guilty%20of%20an%20offence%20under%20this%20Part%20is%20liable,months%20or%20a%20fine%20not%20exceeding%20the%20statutory%20maximum%20or%20both.,-Textual%20Amendments. Accessed 18 Apr. 2025.
"Starmer Told to Accept Trump 'Free Speech' Agenda to Win Trade Deal." The Independent, 16 Apr. 2025, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trump-jd-vance-trade-deal-free-speech-b2733806.html.
The Pulse with Francine Lacqua. "UK's Reynolds Believes 10% Tariffs Can Be Removed." Bloomberg, 3 Apr. 2025, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2025-04-03/uk-s-reynolds-believes-10-tariffs-can-be-removed.
The White House. "Vice President JD Vance Delivers Remarks at the Munich Security Conference." YouTube, 14 Feb. 2025, https://www.youtube.com/live/pCOsgfINdKg?t=466s.
Times News. "LIVE: Keir Starmer Meets Donald Trump at the White House." YouTube, 27 Feb. 2025, https://www.youtube.com/live/VTdlH8kSKzk?t=7036s.
"UK Disorder: Keir Starmer Says Communities 'will Be Safe' in Face of Riots." BBC News, 6 Aug. 2024, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2nnj8301yo.
UPDATED WITH SENTENCE: Childminder Admits Inciting Racial Hatred over Social Media Post | The Crown Prosecution Service. https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/updated-sentence-childminder-admits-inciting-racial-hatred-over-social-media-post. Accessed 18 Apr. 2025.
Updated with Sentence: Man Admits Violent Disorder after Southport Police van Attack | The Crown Prosecution Service. https://www.cps.gov.uk/mersey-cheshire/news/updated-sentence-man-admits-violent-disorder-after-southport-police-van. Accessed 18 Apr. 2025.
Walker, Peter, and Peter Walker Deputy political editor. "Rishi Sunak and Joe Biden Sign 'Atlantic Declaration' but Hope of Trade Deal Ends." The Guardian, 8 June 2023. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/08/rishi-sunak-joe-biden-landmark-deal-uk-us-cooperation-washington-declaration.
"Why Are There Riots in the UK and Where Are They Taking Place?" BBC News, 7 Aug. 2024, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg55we5n3xo.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
31 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The White House Is Delighted With Events in Los Angeles
The last time President Donald Trump tried to send military forces into American streets to put down civil unrest, in June 2020, Pete Hegseth was positioned outside the White House with a Kevlar helmet and riot shield. Major Hegseth's mobilization as part of a District of Columbia National Guard unit summoned to restore order in the nation's capital, where protests had erupted following the police murder of George Floyd, occurred as Pentagon leaders scrambled to avert what they feared could be a confrontation between active-duty U.S. forces and their fellow Americans. Today, Hegseth is second only to the president in directing the administration's use of the National Guard and active-duty Marines to respond to unrest over immigration raids in Los Angeles. And this time, the military's civilian leadership isn't acting as a brake on Trump's impulse to escalate the confrontation. The Hegseth-led Pentagon is an accelerant. The administration's decision to federalize 4,000 California National Guard forces, contrary to Governor Gavin Newsom's wishes, and to dispatch 700 active-duty Marines to the Los Angeles area, marks a break with decades of tradition under which presidents have limited their use of the military on American soil. If there are any internal misgivings about busting through yet another democratic norm, they haven't surfaced publicly. Indeed, officials at the White House told us they are satisfied with the way the L.A. confrontation has unfolded. They believe that it highlights their focus on immigration and law and order, and places Democrats on the wrong side of both. One widely circulated photo—showing a masked protester standing in front of a burning car, waving a Mexican flag—has been embraced by Trump supporters as a distillation of the conflict: a president unafraid to use force to defend an American city from those he deems foreign invaders. 'We couldn't have scripted this better,' said a senior White House aide granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations. 'It's like the 2024 election never ended: Trump is strong while Democrats are weak and defending the indefensible.' Democrats, of course, take a different view, and say the administration's actions have only risked triggering further violence. Retired officers who study how the armed forces have been used in democracies told us they share those concerns. They point to the damage that Trump's orders could do to the military's relationship with the citizens it serves. 'We should be very careful, cautious, and even reluctant to use the military inside our country,' Bradley Bowman, a former Army officer who heads the defense program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracy, told us. Conor Friedersdorf: Averting a worst-case scenario in Los Angeles State and local authorities typically use law-enforcement personnel as a first response to civil disturbances or riots, followed by National Guard forces if needed. Retired Major General Randy Manner, who served as acting vice chief of the National Guard Bureau during the Obama administration, said the federalizing of California Guard forces—putting them under presidential rather than state control, a move allowed with certain limits—pulls those service members away from their civilian jobs and makes it harder to complete planned training or exercises. 'Basically, the risk does not justify the investment of these forces, and it will negatively impact on readiness,' Manner told us. Retired officers we spoke with also drew a distinction between the involvement of National Guard and active-duty forces. Whereas National Guard troops assist citizens after natural disasters and have the advantage of knowing the communities they serve, active-duty forces are primarily trained to 'see the enemy and neutralize the enemy,' said Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'When you're dealing with U.S. citizens, no matter what they're doing, that's not the right mindset.' 'This is not Fallujah,' Bowman added. 'This is Los Angeles.' Juliette Kayyem: Trump's gross misuse of the National Guard This morning, Hegseth made his first congressional appearance since his bruising confirmation process, appearing before a House committee. His tone with Democrats was at times combative. When Representative Betty McCollum, a Minnesota Democrat, asked the defense secretary what the cost of the California deployment would be, he declined to provide a figure and instead pivoted to criticism of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for the state's response to the violence that followed Floyd's killing in 2020. (Military officials said later they expected the Los Angeles deployment, as envisioned, to cost roughly $134 million.) 'If you've got millions of illegals, you don't know where they're coming from, they're waving flags from foreign countries and assaulting police officers, that's a problem,' Hegseth told lawmakers. Trump, for his part, told reporters that anyone who tries to protest at the Saturday parade celebrating the 250th birthday of the U.S. Army will 'be met with very big force.' He also said that he wouldn't hesitate to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would permit him to employ the military for law enforcement or to suppress a rebellion, if he believed that circumstances required. Speaking to troops at Fort Bragg in North Carolina later in the day, the president promised to stop the 'anarchy' in California. ' We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean, and safe again,' he said. 'We will not allow an American city to be invaded and conquered by a foreign enemy.' Some Republicans have privately expressed worry that Trump may overplay a winning hand. Even in the West Wing, two people we spoke with tried to downplay the incendiary rhetoric from Trump and Hegseth. They stressed that, to this point, National Guard forces have been in a defensive posture, protecting federal buildings. Although they believe that Trump has the political advantage at the moment, they acknowledged there would be real risks if U.S. troops got involved in violence. 'We don't know who would get blamed but no one wins if that happens,' one senior aide told us. 'No one wants to see that.' Hegseth's support for using active-duty troops in Los Angeles stands in contrast to what his predecessor did in 2020. At that time, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, along with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley, scrambled to block Trump's desire to employ active-duty forces against the demonstrators protesting racial violence. The president had mused about shooting protesters in the legs, Esper wrote later. To satisfy his boss while also avoiding a dangerous confrontation, the defense chief called active-duty forces from Fort Bragg to Northern Virginia but sought to keep them out of the fray. Tom Nichols: Trump is using the National Guard as bait In his 2024 book The War on Warrior s, Hegseth described how his experience as a D.C. Guardsman in 2020 crystallized his views about the divide between military personnel and what he saw as the degenerate protesters who were lobbing bricks and bottles of urine at the citizen soldiers. When the D.C. Guard was again summoned seven months later, to help secure the 2021 inauguration following the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, Hegseth was told to stand down because fellow Guardsmen suspected that one of his tattoos was a sign of extremism. (Hegseth has maintained it is part of his Christian faith.) Hegseth was angered by his exclusion and resigned from the Guard. That experience remains with him as he attempts to reshape the military, and its role in society, in line with Trump's worldview. As he has written: 'My trust for this Army is irrevocably broken.'
Los Angeles Times
32 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Protesters gather at Santa Ana federal building: ‘This is the healthiest thing to do'
In Santa Ana, about 120 protesters gathered outside a federal building near City Hall on Monday afternoon. Multiple raids had been conducted across Santa Ana that morning, including at Home Depots and restaurants and in industrial areas of the city. 'I feel enraged,' said Councilmember Jessie Lopez, standing with the crowd. 'If [U.S. Atty.] Bill Essayli cares about criminals, he should start at the White house.' Essayli last week sent a letter to Santa Ana, warning the sanctuary city about its proposal to pass a resolution that would require the Santa Ana Police Department to inform residents whenever they received a courtesy call from Immigration and Customs Enforcement alerting them about upcoming raids. Bethany Anderson was with a group of friends from Fullerton, where they had been receiving calls Monday. They were standing in front of a driveway that led to a small gated garage where unmarked white vans had been driving in and out all day. 'I knew they would bring people here' to the federal building, said Anderson, who is accredited by the Department of Justice as a legal representative. 'This is not a jail, so we have no idea about the quality of conditions inside, so that's very worrisome. Suddenly, she saw movement in the driveway and grabbed the bullhorn hanging from her shoulder. 'We see you!' Anderson shouted as protesters screamed, 'Shame!' and rushed to see what was going on. 'We see you, private security guards! You don't have to do this!' The Orange County Rapid Response Network posted addresses and photos of locations where ICE had conducted raids in Fountain Valley. The group's co-director, Casey Conway, said he was happy to see so many people show up in Santa Ana. 'But this isn't just today. This has been every day for three weeks. We're super overwhelmed right now.' The crowd held pro-immigrant and anti-Trump signs and waved Mexican flags. Someone passed around bottled waters and masks as a young woman chanted on a bullhorn, 'Move ICE, get out the way!' to artist Ludacris' song 'Move.' Federal police stood by the building's entrance, where some took photos of the crowd. When they went back inside, the crowd started chanting, '¡Quiere llorar!' — 'He wants to cry,' a common insult among Mexican soccer and rock fans. Alicia Rojas looked on from the edge of a sidewalk. The Colombian native had her amnesty application denied in the federal building as a child. 'This is all triggering,' said the 48-year-old artist. Now a U.S. citizen, Rojas grew up in Mission Viejo during the era of Prop. 187 and remembered all the racism against people like her at the time. Seeing so many young people out to protest made her 'hopeful, but I'm also worried. I've seen how the response has been to these peaceful protests. This administration has no capacity to be American.' She looked on. 'I feel rage inside, but this is the healthiest thing to do. More than anything. I'm here to look after the kids.' As the vans came in and out throughout the afternoon, activists at first blocked them but later backed down when federal agents shot pepper balls into the ground. Among those hit was Conway, who rushed to the side to have their reddened eyes washed out with water. 'I need someone to be on deescalation,' Conway gasped. The task fell to Tui Dashark. Dressed in neon green Doc Martens, an olive hat and a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles T-shirt, he led the crowd through chants including 'No firman nada' (Don't sign anything). 'Please stop throwing water bottles,' Dashark said at one point. 'They're just water bottles to us. But to them, it's assault with a deadly weapon.' The crowd calmed down. 'I'm proud of you guys for not escalating,' Dashark said. 'You're the f— real ones.' He turned to the gate driveway, where federal agents had quietly returned. 'You're so cool man,' Dashark said in a sarcastic voice as the crowd laughed. ' I wonder, what kind of person is up thinking, 'I want to lock up kids as a career?' As the day continued, the situation eventually evolved into the old children's game of Red Rover: Protesters would get too close and throw water bottles, federal agents would shoot pepper balls and eventually escalate to flash-bang grenades and tear gas. After a couple of hours, the crowd moved a couple of hundred feet to the east to Sasscer Park, named after a Santa Ana police officer killed in the 1960s by a member of the Black Panther Party. Local activists call it Black Panther Park. By 5 p.m., the protesters numbered at least 500. T-shirts emblazoned with logos of beloved Santa Ana Chicano institutions colored the scene: Suavecito. Gunthers. Funk Freaks. Santa Ana High. El Centro Cultural de México. People took turns on bullhorns to urge calm and to unite. But then another protester saw federal agents gathering at the federal building again. 'We gotta make them work overtime!' a young woman proclaimed on a bullhorn. 'They don't make enough money. let's go back!' The crowd rushed back to the federal building. Eventually, Santa Ana police officers arrived to create a line and declare an unlawful assembly. For the next four hours, the scene was akin to a party broken up occasionally by tear gas and less-than-lethal projectiles. Cars cruised on nearby streets blasting Rage against the Machine, sierreño music and the tunes of Panteón Rococó, a socialism-tinged Mexican ska group. Someone used AutoTune to shout profanities against the police, drawing giggles from the overwhelmingly Gen Z crowd. A Latina woman who gave her name only as Flor arrived with her teenage daughter. It was their first protest. 'We live in a MAGA-ass town and saw this on television,' Flor said. 'I grew up just down the street from here. No way can we let this happen here.' Nearby, Giovanni Lopez blew on a loud plastic horn. It was his first protest as well. 'I'm all for them deporting the criminals,' said the Santa Ana resident. He wore a white poncho bearing the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl. 'But that's not what they're doing. My wife is Honduran and she's not a citizen. She's scared to go to her work now even though she's legal. I told her not to be afraid.' The Santa Ana police slowly pushed the protesters out of Sasscer Park. Some, like Brayn Nestor, bore bloody welts from the rubber bullets that had hit them. 'Does someone have a cigarette?' he asked out loud in Spanish. The Mexico City native said he was there to 'support the raza, güey.' He was in obvious pain, but the trademarks arachidonic humor of his native city still bubbled through. 'It's chido [cool] that they hit me,' he proclaimed to anyone who would listen. 'Es perro, güey [it's cool, dog]. So the world knows what jerks those pigs are.'
Los Angeles Times
36 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Newsom says Trump purposely 'fanned the flames' of L.A. protests in address to California
Gov. Gavin Newsom Tuesday night accused President Trump of intentionally fanning the flames of the Los Angeles protests and 'pulling a military dragnet across' the city endangering peaceful protesters and targeting hardworking immigrant families. The Democratic governor's comment's were a forceful rebuke to the president's claims that deploying the California National Guard and U.S. Marines to the city was necessary to control the civil unrest. 'Donald Trump's government isn't protecting our communities – they're traumatizing our communities,' Newsom said. 'And that seems to be the entire point.' The governor posted his video address to California on social media hours after Trump said he sent in troops to protect immigration agents from 'the attacks of a vicious and violent mob' in a speech at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. The picture Trump painted of the federal government's role in the protests against immigration raids marks a sharp contrast to Newsom's assertion that state and local law enforcement were successfully keeping the peace before federal authorities deployed 'tear gas, 'flash-bang grenades' and 'rubber bullets' on Angelenos exercising their Constitutional right to free speech and assembly. Then Trump 'illegally' called up the California National Guard, Newsom said. 'This brazen abuse of power by a sitting president inflamed a combustible situation, putting our people, our officers, and even our National Guard at risk,' Newsom said. 'That's when the downward spiral began. He doubled down on his dangerous National Guard deployment by fanning the flames even harder. And the president, he did it on purpose.' The governor, who has become a target for Republicans and a central figure in the political and legal battle around the protests, has said for days that an 'unhinged' Trump deployed federal troops to intentionally incite violence and chaos, seeking to divert attention away from his actions in Washington and assert his 'dictatorial tendencies.' Newsom and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed a request for a restraining order earlier Tuesday asking a federal judge to call off the 'Department of Defense's illegal militarization of Los Angeles and the takeover of a California National Guard unit.' The request came the day after California filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration alleging that the deployment of the guard without the governor's consent violated the U.S. Constitution. After returning to Washington, Trump commented on the 'good relationship' he's always had with Newsom, before blaming the governor for the unrest. 'This should never have been allowed to start, and if we didn't get involved, Los Angeles would be burning down right now,' Trump said, and then made a reference to the deadly wildfires in the Los Angeles area in January. 'Just as the houses burned down.' He said the military is in the city to deescalate the situation and control what he described as paid 'insurrectionists,' 'agitators' and 'troublemakers.' 'We have a lot of people all over the world watching Los Angeles,' Trump said. 'We've got the Olympics, so we have this guy allowing this to happen.' On Monday, Trump said his top border policy advisor Tom Homan should follow through on threats to arrest the governor. Newsom immediately jumped on the comment, comparing the federal administration to an 'authoritarian regime.' 'I never thought I'd hear those words. Honestly, Democrat, Republican. Never thought I'd hear those in my lifetime to threaten a political opponent who happens to be sitting governor,' Newsom said. House Speaker Mike Johnson declined to answer a question about whether Newsom should be arrested on Tuesday and instead said the governor should be 'tarred and feathered.' Newsom took a shot at Johnson during his address, saying the speaker has 'completely abdicated' his responsibility for Congress to serve as a check on the White House. He warned that 'other states are next.' 'At this moment, we all need to stand up and be held to account, a higher level of accountability,' Newsom said, imploring protesters to exercise free speech rights peacefully. 'I know many of you are feeling deep anxiety, stress, and fear. But I want you to know that you are the antidote to that fear and anxiety. 'What Donald Trump wants most is your fealty. Your silence. To be complicit in this moment. Do not give into him.' Staff writer Laura Nelson and Washington Bureau Chief Michael Wilner contributed to this report.
