logo
Trump's aggressive moves on immigration protests put Democrats in a political bind

Trump's aggressive moves on immigration protests put Democrats in a political bind

Yahooa day ago

President Donald Trump's deployment of military troops to California is forcing Democrats back onto politically perilous turf, as they look for ways to condemn his actions without being drawn into a broad debate over immigration or tying themselves to the chaotic scenes emerging from Los Angeles.
Republicans are relishing a fight that directs attention away from their monthslong, intraparty debate over tax and spending legislation, and the messy political breakup of Trump and Elon Musk, and toward what they view as Democrats' biggest vulnerabilities: immigration, law enforcement and public disorder.
Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman warned his fellow Democrats about the images emerging from California, where protests erupted Friday after Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and escalated into outbreaks of violence. Some protesters have thrown objects at law enforcement, looted businesses, blocked a major freeway and set self-driving cars ablaze — while police in riot gear fired rubber bullets to disperse crowds. While much of the protest activity has been peaceful, images of burning cars and chaos have been widespread across social media and traditional news coverage.
'You can't defend when people start setting things on fire or they start damaging buildings or going after members of law enforcement. That's not free speech. That is not peaceful protest,' Fetterman said Tuesday.
Fetterman, who was lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania during racial justice protests around the country in 2020, said Democrats 'should have learned the lesson back in 2020. Absolutely, there was righteous outrage over what happened to George Floyd, but that never means that you can support or be quiet if there's destruction or rioting and destroying and looting and those kinds of things.'
He said he was 'not judging any of my other colleagues in my party,' but warned: 'You can't be quiet on those things. You have to just call it really what it is.'
Some Democrats privately agree with Fetterman, saying their party's leaders must be more forceful in condemning the rioters' behavior. Lawmakers in competitive swing districts also worry about the political ramifications down the road, particularly if party activists resurrect a years-old battle cry for abolishing ICE.
And in the meantime, they believe Democrats will be forced to grapple with an existential question: Do they support federal law enforcement officials actually enforcing federal immigration law?
In a clear sign of the fraught political moment, lawmakers from across the Democratic Party's ideological spectrum issued warnings Tuesday against violence.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a progressive independent who caucuses with Democrats, urged protesters to exhibit the same 'disciplined non-violent resistance' to Trump that civil rights leaders used to end segregation.
'Violent protests are counterproductive and play right into Trump's playbook,' he said on X.
Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar, a conservative Democrat who has long represented a Rio Grande Valley district, said in a statement that 'when people start throwing bricks and hammers at law enforcement, that's no longer protest — that's criminal.'
'We can debate policy without attacking the people who wear the badge and work to keep us safe,' Cuellar said.
Trump, for his part, has blamed Democrats broadly and California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Karen Bass specifically for mishandling the situation, saying on Truth Social the city 'would be burning to the ground right now' had he not deployed troops there.
And Republicans have delighted in pitting Trump against Newsom. House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Tuesday that Newsom — who has aggressively criticized the Trump administration's moves — 'ought to be tarred and feathered.'
'He's standing in the way of the administration carrying out the federal law. He is applauding the bad guys and standing in the way of good guys,' Johnson said.
Trump's actions have put Democrats in a complicated political spot. The party has struggled to navigate the issue of immigration since the president's victory in November — split between the moral outrage of the Democratic base over Trump's unprecedented deportation efforts, and polls that have largely reflected public support for the president on the issue overall. In particular, surveys have shown that most voters want tougher border security than the Biden administration put in place for much of the previous four years.
But the politics get murkier when Americans are asked about the details of how Trump is carrying out his campaign promise to conduct the largest deportation effort in the nation's history.
In the past — particularly when federal law enforcement cleared Lafayette Square, near the White House, amid 2020 protests — polls found that Americans opposed the use of rubber bullets and tear gas, and opposed deploying the US military in response to protests within the country.
A CBS News/YouGov survey conducted before the protests in Los Angeles broke out found somewhat contradictory results: Fifty-four percent of Americans support Trump's deportation program, and 55% like its 'goals.' However, 56% said they dislike 'the way you think [Trump] is going about' the deportations.
unknown content item
-
Democrats this week argued that Trump's actions have only worsened tensions in California.
Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly said the president's deployment of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles is 'like throwing the match onto the kindling.'
'He took some actions that escalated an issue — a problem, but it was under control. And now the problem is bigger because of the actions he took,' Kelly told CNN.
Democrats also accused Trump of hypocrisy, pointing out that he was slow to deploy the National Guard on January 6, 2021, when his supporters were rioting and attacking police officers at the US Capitol.
'We begged the president of the United States to send in the National Guard. He would not do it,' California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who was the House speaker at the time, said Tuesday.
California Rep. Ro Khanna told CNN outside the Capitol on Monday that Democrats 'need to continue to unequivocally condemn the violence, the threats or attacks on law enforcement agents — I mean, that has no place.'
But, the progressive congressman added, Trump's actions are unconstitutional.
'One can hold two thoughts — that political violence should be absolutely condemned, vandalism needs to be condemned, but that the appropriate remedy are state and local police — that you can't deploy the military against our own people, unless there's a real crisis,' Khanna said.
Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton similarly said that 'there's no excuse for violence.'
'If you're protesting the fact that ICE officers are sometimes too violent, doing that with violence doesn't make the point,' he said.
However, Moulton also said Trump is using the US military to achieve political aims at home.
'This is not an opportunity to turn active-duty Marines against the American people. And that's what Trump is doing,' Moulton said.
Trump has used Newsom as a foil as he deploys troops to the Los Angeles area — even suggesting Monday that border czar Tom Homan should arrest the governor. Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential contender, has embraced the clash and publicly dared Homan to arrest him.
Newsom himself has been in regular touch with lawmakers on the Hill, and held a briefing with his state's delegation and the leader of the California National Guard on Monday to update them on Trump's actions, according to two people familiar with the call. Newsom's office has also been distributing copies of some of attacks on him, including Trump's calls to arrest him, to House Democrats' offices, those people said.
The scenes unfolding in California are also leading Democrats elsewhere to grapple with what they would do if Trump took similar actions in their states. And they fear they'd be powerless to stop it.
Rep. Mikie Sherrill, one of the Democratic candidates in Tuesday's New Jersey gubernatorial primary, said Trump's move 'shows the further incompetence coming from Washington and the constant level of chaos that is almost intentionally generated there.' Sherrill also warned that military missions are much different from those of law enforcement in the United States.
Another New Jersey gubernatorial candidate, Rep. Josh Gottheimer, highlighted Trump's actions in a speech. He said the scenes in California make clear 'just what's on the line in this election and why it's so important that we have a governor who's willing to stand up and fight.'
The Democratic Governors Association, in a statement signed by 22 governors, called Trump's deployment of troops to California 'an alarming abuse of power.' But the statement did not address the president's handling of his deportation program.
'It's important we respect the executive authority of our country's governors to manage their National Guards — and we stand with Governor Newsom who has made it clear that violence is unacceptable and that local authorities should be able to do their jobs without the chaos of this federal interference and intimidation,' the Democratic governors' statement said.
CNN's Arlette Saenz, Ted Barrett, David Wright and Manu Raju contributed to this report.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump administration hit with second lawsuit over restrictions on asylum access

time6 minutes ago

Trump administration hit with second lawsuit over restrictions on asylum access

McALLEN, Texas -- Immigration advocates filed a class action lawsuit Wednesday over the Trump administration's use of a proclamation that effectively put an end to being able to seek asylum at ports of entry to the United States. The civil lawsuit was filed in a Southern California federal court by the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the American Immigration Council, Democracy Forward, and the Center for Constitutional Rights. The lawsuit is asking the court to find the proclamation unlawful, set aside the policy ending asylum at ports of entry and restore access to the asylum process at ports of entry, including for those who had appointments that were canceled when President Donald Trump took office. Unlike a similar lawsuit filed in February in a Washington, D.C., federal court representing people who had already reached U.S. soil and sought asylum after crossing between ports of entry, Wednesday's lawsuit focuses on people who are not on U.S. soil and are seeking asylum at ports of entry. No response was immediately issued by the Department of Homeland Security or Customs and Border Protection, which were both among the defendants listed. Trump's sweeping proclamation issued on his first day in office changed asylum policies, effectively ending asylum at the border. The proclamation said the screening process created by Congress under the Immigration and Nationality Act 'can be wholly ineffective in the border environment' and was 'leading to the unauthorized entry of innumerable illegal aliens into the United States.' Immigrant advocates said that under the proclamation noncitizens seeking asylum at a port of entry are asked to present medical and criminal histories, a requirement for the visa process but not for migrants who are often fleeing from immediate danger. 'Nothing in the INA or any other source of law permits Defendants' actions,' the immigrant advocates wrote in their complaint. Thousands of people who sought asylum through the CBP One app, a system developed under President Joe Biden, had their appointments at ports of entry canceled on Trump's first day in office as part of the proclamation that declared an invasion at the border. 'The Trump administration has taken drastic steps to block access to the asylum process, in flagrant violation of U.S. law,' the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies stated in a news release Wednesday.

US governors are divided along party lines about military troops deployed to protests

time6 minutes ago

US governors are divided along party lines about military troops deployed to protests

California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is calling President Donald Trump's military intervention at protests over federal immigration policy in Los Angeles an assault on democracy and has sued to try to stop it. Meanwhile, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is putting the National Guard on standby in areas in his state where demonstrations are planned. The divergent approaches illustrate the ways the two parties are trying to navigate national politics and the role of executive power in enforcing immigration policies. In his live TV address this week, Newsom said that Trump's move escalated the situation — and for political gain. All 22 other Democratic governors signed a statement sent by the Democratic Governors Association on Sunday backing Newsom, calling the Guard deployment and threats to send in Marines 'an alarming abuse of power' that "undermines the mission of our service members, erodes public trust, and shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement.' The protests in Los Angeles have mostly been contained to five blocks in a small section of downtown; nearly 200 people were detained on Tuesday and at least seven police officers have been injured. In Republican-controlled states, governors have not said when or how they're planning to deploy military troops for protests. Since Trump's return to office, Democratic governors have been calculating about when to criticize him, when to emphasize common ground and when to bite their tongues. The governors' responses are guided partly by a series of political considerations, said Kristoffer Shields, director of the Eagleton Center on the American Governor at Rutgers University: How would criticizing Trump play with Democrats, Republicans and independent voters in their states? And for those with presidential ambitions, how does that message resonate nationally? Democratic governors are weighing a number of considerations. 'There probably is some concern about retributions — what the reaction of the administration could be for a governor who takes a strong stance," Shields said. And in this case, polling indicates about half of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling immigration, though that polling was conducted before the recent military deployment. On other issues, Democratic governors have taken a variety of approaches with Trump. At a White House meeting in February, Maine Democratic Gov. Janet Mills told Trump, ' we'll see you in court ' over his push to cut off funding to the state because it allowed transgender athletes in girls' school sports. Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer, a possible 2028 presidential candidate, publicly sparred with Trump during his first term but this time around, has met with him privately to find common ground. Initially, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green referred to Trump as a 'straight-up dictator," but the next month he told a local outlet that he was treading carefully, saying: 'I'm not going to criticize him directly much at all." Apart from their joint statement, some of the highest-profile Democratic governors have not talked publicly about the situation in California. When asked, on Wednesday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul's office pointed to a Sunday social media post about the joint statement. Whitmer didn't respond. The office of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who is set to testify before Congress on Thursday about his state laws protecting people who are in the country without legal status, reiterated in a statement that he stands with Newsom. The office said 'local authorities should be able to do their jobs without the chaos of this federal interference and intimidation.' Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, in an interview Wednesday in The Washington Post, said Trump should not send troops to a weekend protest scheduled in Philadelphia. 'He's injected chaos into the world order, he's injected it into our economy, he is trying to inject chaos into our streets by doing what he did with the Guard in California," Shapiro said. As state attorney general during Trump's first term, Shapiro routinely boasted that he sued Trump over 40 times and won each time. As governor he has often treaded more carefully, by bashing Trump's tariffs, but not necessarily targeting Trump himself. Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has often clashed with Newsom, a fellow term-limited governor with national ambitions. Newsom's office said DeSantis offered to send Florida State Guard troops to California. 'Given the guard were not needed in the first place, we declined Governor DeSantis attempt to inflame an already chaotic situation made worse by his Party's leader,' Newsom spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo said in an email to The Associated Press. Speaking on Fox News on Tuesday, DeSantis said the gesture was a typical offer of mutual aid during a crisis — and was dismissive of the reasons it was turned down. 'The way to put the fire out is to make sure you have law and order,' he said. Protests against immigration enforcement raids have sprung up in other cities — and a series of 'No Kings' demonstrations are planned for the weekend — with governors preparing to respond. In Connecticut, Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont said he has spoken with his public safety commissioner to make sure state and local police work together. 'I don't want to give the president any pretext to think he can come into Connecticut and militarize the situation. That just makes the situation worse,' said Lamont, who called Trump "a little eager to send federal troops and militarize the situation in Los Angeles.' It is unclear how many Texas National Guard members will be deployed or how many cities asked for assistance. In Austin, where police used chemical irritants to disperse several hundred protesters on Monday, the mayor's office said the National Guard was not requested. San Antonio officials also said they didn't request the Guard. Florida's DeSantis said law enforcement in his state is preparing 'The minute you cross into attacking law enforcement, any type of rioting, any type of vandalism, looting, just be prepared to have the law come down on you,' DeSantis said Tuesday. 'And we will make an example of you, you can guarantee it.' ___ Associated Press reporters Nadia Lathan and Jim Vertuno in Austin, Texas; Sophie Austin in Sacramento, California; Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Michigan; Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock, Arkansas; Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut; Anthony Izaguirre in Albany, New York; Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Florida; and Sophia Tareen in Chicago; contributed.

Trump's military parade is a US outlier in peacetime but parades and reviews have a long history

time13 minutes ago

Trump's military parade is a US outlier in peacetime but parades and reviews have a long history

Troops marching in lockstep. Patriotic tunes filling the air. The commander in chief looking on at it all. The military parade commemorating the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary and coinciding with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday will be a new spectacle for many Americans. This will not be the first U.S. military parade. However, it is unusual outside of wartime, and Trump's approach stands out compared to his predecessors. The Army had long planned a celebration for its semi-quincentennial on June 14. Trump has wanted to preside over a grand military parade since his first presidency from 2017 to 2021. When he took office a second time, he found the ideal convergence and ratcheted the Pentagon's plans into a full-scale military parade on his birthday. The president, who is expected to speak in Washington as part of the affair, pitches the occasion as a way to celebrate U.S. power and service members' sacrifice. But there are bipartisan concerns about the cost as well as concerns about whether Trump is blurring traditional understandings of what it means to be a civilian commander in chief. Ceremonial reviews — troops looking their best and conducting drills for top commanders — trace back through medieval kingdoms to ancient empires of Rome, Persia and China. The pageantry continued in the young U.S. republic: Early presidents held military reviews as part of July 4th independence celebrations. That ended with James K. Polk, who was president from 1845 to 1849. President Andrew Johnson resurrected the tradition in 1865, holding a two-day 'Grand Review of the Armies' five weeks after Abraham Lincoln's assassination. It came after Johnson declared the Civil War over, a show of force meant to salve a war-weary nation — though more fighting and casualties would occur. Infantry, cavalry and artillery units — 145,000 soldiers, and even cattle — traversed Pennsylvania Avenue. Johnson, his Cabinet and top Army officers, including Ulysses S. Grant, Lincoln's last commanding general and the future 18th president, watched from a White House viewing stand. The Spanish-American War was the first major international conflict for a reunited nation since the Civil War. It ended in a U.S. victory that established an American empire: Spain ceded Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and the U.S. purchased the Philippines for $20 million. Puerto Rico and Guam remain U.S. territories. New York City hosted multiple celebrations of a new global power. In August 1898, a fleet of warships, including the Brooklyn, the Texas, and the Oregon, sailed up the North River, more commonly known today as the Hudson River. American inventor Thomas Edison filmed the floating parade. The following September, New York hosted a naval and street parade to welcome home Rear Adm. George Dewey, who joined President William McKinley in a viewing stand. Many U.S. cities held World War I victory parades a few decades later. But neither Washington nor President Woodrow Wilson were the focal point. In Boston, a million civilians celebrated 20,000 troops in 1919. New York honored 25,000 troops marching in full uniform and combat gear. On June 13, 1942, as U.S. involvement in World War II accelerated, about 30,000 people formed a mobilization parade in New York City. Participants included Army and Navy personnel, American Women's Voluntary Services members, Boy Scouts and military school cadets. Scores of floats rolled, too. One carried a massive bust of President Franklin Roosevelt, who did not attend. Less than four years later, the 82nd Airborne Division and Sherman tanks led a victory parade down Manhattan's Fifth Avenue. Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander during World War II, rode in a victory parade in Washington, D.C. In 1952, Eisenhower would join Grant and George Washington as top wartime commanders elevated to the presidency following their military achievements. Other World War II generals were honored in other homecoming parades. The U.S. did not hold national or major city parades after wars in Korea and Vietnam. Both ended without clear victory; Vietnam, especially, sparked bitter societal division, enough so that President Gerald Ford opted against a strong military presence in 1976 bicentennial celebrations, held a year after the fall of Saigon. Washington finally hosted a victory parade in 1991 after the first Persian Gulf War. The Constitution Avenue lineup included 8,000 troops, tanks, Patriot missiles and representatives of the international coalition, led by the U.S., that quickly drove an invading Iraq out of Kuwait. The commander in chief, George H.W. Bush, is the last U.S. president to have held an active-duty military post. He had been a World War II combat pilot who survived his plane being shot down over the Pacific Ocean. Veterans of the second Iraq and Afghanistan wars that followed the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks have not been honored in national parades. Inaugural parades include and sometimes feature military elements. Eisenhower's 1953 inaugural parade, at the outset of the Cold War, included 22,000 service members and an atomic cannon. Eight years later, President John F. Kennedy, a World War II Naval officer, watched armored tanks, Army and Navy personnel, dozens of missiles and Navy boats pass in front of his reviewing stand. More recent inaugurations have included honor guards, academy cadets, military bands and other personnel but not large combat assets. Notably, U.S. presidents, even when leading or attending military events, wear civilian attire rather than military garb, a standard set by Washington, who also eschewed being called 'General Washington' in favor of 'Mr. President.' Perhaps the lone exception came in 2003, when President George W. Bush, who had been a National Guard pilot, wore a flight suit when he landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq, which U.S. forces had invaded six weeks earlier. The aircraft carrier was not a parade venue but the president emerged to raucous cheers from uniformed service members. He put on a business suit to deliver a nationally televised speech in front a 'Mission Accomplished' banner. As the war dragged on to a less decisive outcome, that scene and its enduring images would become a political liability for the president.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store