Democratic governors slam Trump's military deployment in California as ‘flagrant abuse of power'
Democratic governors on Thursday slammed President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard and Marines to California amid protests over the administration's immigration enforcement policies.
'As we speak, an American city has been militarized over the objections of their governor,' New York Gov. Kathy Hochul began her testimony at a hearing on Capitol Hill. 'At the outset I just want to say that this is a flagrant abuse of power and nothing short of an assault on our American values.'
The hearing is playing out against the backdrop of protests in Los Angeles and cities across the country against the Trump administration's immigration enforcement actions. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has clashed with Trump over his decision to deploy National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles despite opposition from the state and city's Democratic leaders.
Thursday's proceedings on Capitol Hill gave a high-profile platform to some of the Democratic Party's potential 2028 contenders to craft their response to the Trump administration's controversial immigration tactics, as the party seeks to calibrate its messaging on issues of crime and public safety.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker called it wrong 'to deploy the National Guard and active duty Marines into an American city, over the objection of local law enforcement' and 'to tear children away from their homes and their mothers and fathers.'
The Illinois governor condemned any violence, but he also delivered a warning to the Trump administration over potential plans to broaden the scope of the immigration crackdown, including the deployment of the National Guard in other states.
'We will not participate in abuses of power. We will not violate court orders. We will not ignore the Constitution. We will not defy the Supreme Court. We will not take away people's rights to peacefully protest,' Pritzker said.
Hochul, Pritzker and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz are testifying at a hearing focused on 'sanctuary state' policies. 'Sanctuary' jurisdictions is a broad term referring to jurisdictions with policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement actions, but the term is nebulously defined.
Walz, who noted his state does not have so-called sanctuary legislation guiding enforcement policies, blasted the Trump administration's 'cruel and misguided policies.'
'We have a broken immigration system in this country. I think everyone in this room agrees with that. But nothing Minnesota has done to serve its own people stands in the way of the federal government managing border security and policies,' Walz said.
And each governor laid the blame at Congress' feet for failing to adequately tackle comprehensive immigration reform.
House Oversight Chair James Comer, meanwhile, criticized the Democratic governors' approach to immigration enforcement, saying in his opening remarks that 'Democrat-run sanctuary cities and states are siding with illegal aliens.'
'For today's Democrat Party, it seems unlimited illegal immigration isn't a failure of policy – it is the policy. And that agenda is being pushed at every level of government,' he continued.
The Democratic governors explained the way their states cooperate with ICE on criminal enforcement, but Republicans have pushed for state and local officials to cooperate in all immigration enforcement matters.
Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik clashed sharply with Hochul during the hearing, providing a potential preview of next year's gubernatorial race in the Empire State with the congresswoman eyed as a top possible GOP contender.
New York Republican Rep. Mike Lawler, whose name is also in the mix as a potential GOP gubernatorial candidate, also briefly appeared at the hearing even though he does not sit on the committee. Stefanik also does not sit on the panel.
The clash came as Stefanik questioned Hochul over New York's sanctuary policies for undocumented immigrants, pressing her repeatedly to recall details of what the congresswoman claimed were violent crimes committed by migrants in New York City during the governor's administration.
'Do you know who Sebastian Zapeta-Calil is?' Stefanik asked Hochul at one point.
'I'm sure you'll tell me,' Hochul said, when Stefanik cut in again. 'These are high-profile cases, New Yorkers know about them and you don't – so let's talk about Sebastian Zapeta-Calil. Do you know who that is?' she asked, referencing a high-profile case of subway violence from late last year in which an undocumented migrant was accused of setting fire to a woman who was asleep while riding a New York City train.
'I don't have the specific details at my disposal, no,' Hochul answered.
After describing the case, Stefanik said, 'This is in Kathy Hochul's New York.'
'These crimes are horrific, I condemn them, and I would say – in all of these cases we would work with ICE to remove them,' Hochul said.
CNN reported in January that Zapeta-Calil, 33, an undocumented migrant from Guatemala, pleaded not guilty to murder charges in the death of Debrina Kawam, 57.
Zapeta-Calil repeatedly told detectives he had no memory of the attack. Then, investigators played surveillance video that allegedly caught him igniting the flames. 'Oh, damn, that's me,' Zapeta-Calil said during questioning with police that was transcribed and translated, according to court documents. 'I am very sorry. I didn't mean to. But I really don't know. I don't know what happened, but I'm very sorry for that woman,' Zapeta-Calil told police.
Florida Democratic Rep. Maxwell Frost asked each of the governors how they would handle potential arrests by the federal government, as he decried Trump having endorsed the idea of arresting California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
'If Tom Homan comes to Albany to arrest me, I'll say go for it. You can't intimidate a governor,' Hochul said, referring to the White House border czar. 'We're here on the frontlines every day, fighting to defend our rights, our values, and the public safety of our residents. And so, anything threatening our responsibility is an assault on our democracy, nothing short of that.'
'If Tom Homan were to come to try to arrest us, me, rather, I could say first of all that he can try,' Pritzker said. 'I can also tell you that I will stand in the way of Tom Homan going after people who don't deserve to be frightened in their communities, who don't deserve to be threatened, terrorized – I would rather that he came and arrested me than do that to the people of my state.'
'I didn't realize how much animosity there is here – we have a responsibility to the American public to work together. And I think threatening arrests on elected officials, congressman, it doesn't help any of us,' said Walz. 'And Gov. Pritzker is right – our citizens are scared and angry and it's not necessary. We can fix this with a bipartisan border bill, help us out.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive: Trump's tariff deal ‘quietly' added 10% raise which nobody is complaining about anymore, says his former commerce secretary
Wilbur Ross, former Commerce Secretary and a key architect of Trump's first-term trade policy, describes Trump's current tariff strategy as a deliberate evolution: moving faster, hitting harder, and using broader executive powers to impose tariffs for both economic and diplomatic leverage. The Trump administration's use of tariffs has sparked debate over the ultimate goals of its economic strategy. However, a former Cabinet member and key trade advisor to the President has suggested there is an underlying logic to the approach. Since winning the Oval Office, President Trump has announced an evolving range of policies. with economic sanctions spinning higher on some trade partners while others have been granted pauses. Many of the announcements have not come through official White House channels; for example, Trump threatened a 50% tariff on the EU in April in a bid to get European negotiators to the table—by posting on his social media site, Truth Social. Indeed, Trump has come under scrutiny from Beijing, arguably the most critical region for the U.S. to make a deal, who claim America's tariff tactics have been 'coercion and blackmail' when instead it should 'convey information to the Chinese side…through relevant parties.' But Wilbur Ross, Trump's Commerce Secretary in his first administration, says there's a clear tactic at play beneath Trump's bluster. The 87-year-old banker turned D.C. power player said there is an 'art' to Trump's dealmaking, as White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has suggested; Ross told Fortune in an exclusive interview: 'Well, everybody's reaction to [tariffs] was first shock and amazement, but the actual retaliatory measures that they put in were fairly modest—even China didn't match in dollar for dollar. 'There's a real reason for that, I think the other countries, as they've thought about it, have recognized that while they have to talk very bravely for their domestic political constituencies… They also recognize that at the end of the day, they can't afford a tit-for-tat escalating trade war with us.' And this was a fact Trump was relying on, continued Ross: 'One of the earliest things he put in was that 10% tariff on everything from everywhere. 'Nobody is even complaining about that anymore. When you think about it, in the normal course, getting quietly to do a 10% tariff on everything from everywhere was a huge achievement, even if he didn't get anything else. But because he followed it with these much more extreme things, it makes the 10% look like it's not such a big bother. 'But it's a huge number, and he's been collecting it every day.' Indeed, imported goods alone into the U.S. in 2024 stood at $3.36 trillion—even before tax, duties, and levies were collected (worth $82 billion) and before imported services are added to those figures. Even 10% of near-$3.4 trillion is an eye-watering sum to add to federal budgets, though some items like autos and steel are even higher. Indeed nations like China, Canada, and Mexico are all already subject to more than the baseline 10% universal tariff. When Ross spoke to Fortune in a previous exclusive interview earlier this year, he said President Trump would be all the more confident in his second term because he now better understands the inner workings of Washington, D.C., and has a stronger mandate courtesy of a solid election sweep. And President Trump's tactics, which have included everything from threatening a 25% hike on Apple's iPhones specifically to raising sanctions to more than 150% on China at some points, reflect the path Ross expected. After all, as Secretary, Ross was one of the key allies in Trump's team when renegotiating America's position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). At the time, Trump was a fierce critic of the deal with Mexico and Canada and wanted to withdraw from the agreement and begin negotiating from there. Ross felt the better tactic was to threaten such action and keep an exit as a last resort, an opinion that Trump eventually came around to agreeing with. Likewise, having been appointed in 2017 Ross oversaw the tariff action in the first Trump administration which included sanctions on Chinese goods as well as aluminum and steel more widely. 'He has started out on a much more adventurous path than last time,' Ross told Fortune this week. 'Broader in scope and more extreme in terms of the numbers themselves.' Trump has three objectives, he adds: shrinking trade deficits, producing revenue to offset his 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' and achieving other diplomatic purposes such as the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. and global defense spending. 'He has a much more fulsome, much more complicated agenda than before,' Ross explains. 'It's also different in…that last time I was very careful to set the groundwork to do public hearings, stakeholder meetings, to do written reports, to set a whole record so that under the Administrative Procedures Act we would be relatively safe from people trying to knock it out in court. 'This time, they did a very different thing. They went in mostly just by his say so using the IFA, the Emergency Powers Act, and they ran into a snag at the Court for International Trade.' This snag may alter the course of tariff reaction on the account of businesses, he added, because their investment timelines may shift based on when the tariffs are legally approved. But Ross added: 'Most people are operating under the assumption that sooner or later, he'll get something like what he was looking for…and therefore, while it's slowed down a bit, [I] don't think it will derail [trade talks] because [foreign governments] also know there are other ways he could punish them rather than just the tariffs. 'So it's a bump in the road, but I don't think it's a huge pothole that would wreck the car.' This story was originally featured on
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oil prices jump after Israel's attack on Iran and it could lead to higher gas costs
Oil prices have jumped following Israel's attack on Iran as experts warn the conflict could lead to higher gas costs. The price of a barrel of benchmark U.S. crude jumped 6.8 percent to $72.65 Friday. Brent crude, the international standard, rose 7.1 percent to $74.30 a barrel. 'Gas prices will likely start to rise across much of the country later this evening in response to Israel's attacks on Iran, which have caused oil prices to surge. For now, I expect the rise to be noticable, but limited. Approx 10-25c/gal thus far, but this could change,' industry expert Patrick De Haan wrote on X. Iran is one of the world's major producers of oil and if a wider war escalates, it could slow the flow of Iranian oil to U.S. customers and elsewhere. 'Iran knows full well that Trump is focused on lower energy prices and actions by Iran that impact Middle East supply and consequently raise oil prices damage Trump politically,' Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates consulting firm, told CNN. Past attacks involving Iran and Israel have seen prices for oil spike initially, only to fall later 'once it became clear that the situation was not escalating and there was no impact on oil supply,' said Richard Joswick, head of near-term oil at S&P Global Commodity Insights. The Secretary of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries warned industry executives not to 'raise false alarms.' 'There are currently no developments in supply or market dynamics that warrant unnecessary measures,' the organization said on X. Israel said 200 fighter jets took part in strikes on more than 100 targets in Iran overnight in an escalation that threatens to spark a wider conflict in the Middle East. Israel said Iran has launched more than 100 drones towards Israel in response - but Tehran has denied these reports, according to Iranian media. Trump firmly put the U.S. in Israel's corner after the attacks. The president said he'd given Tehran 'chance after chance to make a deal' that would have headed off the strikes by putting restrictions on the country's nuclear weapons program and complained that Iranian negotiators had never been able to come to an agreement. 'I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. I told them, in the strongest of words, to 'just do it,' but no matter how hard they tried, no matter how close they got, they just couldn't get it done,' he wrote on Truth Social. Trump also said he'd warned Iran that Israel 'has a lot' of American-made military hardware — 'the best and most lethal' — and is quite proficient in using it. 'Certain Iranian hardliner's spoke bravely, but they didn't know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse!' he added. 'Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left. No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE,' the president wrote. The Associated Press contributed reporting Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Wall Street Journal
15 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
If Not Washington, Who Will Fund Harvard?
Jason Riley describes how Harvard has become a punching bag for political grandstanding ('Does the President Want to Fix Harvard or Destroy It?,'Upward Mobility, May 28). Yet the Trump administration swings at its peril. Harvard isn't a delicate orchid that will fold under political heat. It's a $53 billion juggernaut with labs, patents and partnerships that span the globe. If Washington starts revoking grants, threatening tax status or chilling academic freedom to score points with the base, Harvard isn't going to sit tight until President Trump is over. It's going to pivot—aggressively. Someone else, be it Berlin, Seoul or Abu Dhabi, will fund it. The idea that the greatest minds in medicine, energy and artificial intelligence will suddenly transfer their breakthroughs to a U.S. government-licensed trade school is laughable. In a century where data, biotech and artificial intelligence are the new oil, dismantling our own research powerhouse is like banning railroads in 1900 because the engineers read Karl Marx.
