logo
Tea for Two

Tea for Two

Yahoo14-03-2025

From the Boiling Frogs on The Dispatch
Even when he's right, it's hard to sympathize with Chuck Schumer.
And I do think he's right on the merits to steer Democrats away from a government shutdown. They 'don't have the cards,' to borrow a phrase from another recent national fiasco.
It isn't just the ideological differences I have with him that make sympathy difficult. It's the fact that he's terrible at retail politics. He's taken a bad situation for his party and made it worse.
On Thursday he published an op-ed explaining why he'll support the House GOP's bill to fund the government through September. It's awful, awful, awful legislation, he assured his base, but the alternative would be worse. If the government shuts down, Elon Musk and his flying monkeys will have a pretext to DOGE-ify the entire federal bureaucracy by shuttering the left's favorite agencies and furloughing thousands of workers. And when the shutdown ends, they'll get to decide who comes back to the job and who's permanently expendable.
A shutdown standoff would also be a gift to Donald Trump by diverting public attention from the dumbest trade war in history. 'Right now, Mr. Trump owns the chaos in the government,' Schumer wrote. 'He owns the chaos in the stock market. He owns the damage happening to our economy. The stock market is falling, and consumer confidence is plummeting.' We've all heard the old saying about what to do when your enemy is making a mistake. Well, Trump is making a mistake by tariff-ing global investors into a panic. Schumer is acting accordingly.
Besides, if Democrats did shut down the government, we all know Trump would eventually convince 50 percent of the country that doing so somehow caused the market correction that's already happened.
I think Democratic voters might have grudgingly tolerated a capitulation by their leader in the Senate if Schumer had been clear about his intentions all along. But he wasn't, because he's terrible at politics.
Literally one day before announcing his support for the Republican legislation, he was heard telling reporters that his caucus was 'unified' in supporting a 30-day funding alternative instead. Nor did he show his cards when the GOP's bill came up for a floor vote in the House, despite the fact that numerous Democrats from reddish Trump-friendly districts were preparing to risk their necks by opposing it. Imagine casting a vote in the name of party solidarity that you know will be unpopular back home—only to find out that doing so was pointless because the Democratic leader in the other chamber was planning to help Republicans pass their bill anyway.
Having opposed the GOP funding legislation almost unanimously, House Democrats are now a little miffed at Schumer. And by 'a little miffed,' I mean 'thinking of marching into the Senate to confront him and lining up primary challengers for his next election in New York.' Social media on Friday was a volcano of grassroots outrage at his betrayal after he raised their hopes that the party was about to fight, fight, fight by forcing a shutdown on a president they despise—and then wimped out.
Every conservative of a certain age who's watching this play out is thinking the same thing: I've seen this movie before.
Former Republican strategist Rory Cooper is one such conservative. On X on Friday, he summarized the current Democratic disarray with sarcasm: 'A political party divided over shutting the government down, and the base of the party doesn't think leadership is fighting hard enough, and leadership has almost no options. First time?'
It's not his first time, nor mine. This is the stuff of which Tea Parties are made.
Many left-wingers who are furious today at Schumer are leaning into the parallel. 'I would not be surprised to see, if not quite a Tea Party equivalent, a wave of challengers against old Democratic incumbents in particular,' the leader of one progressive activist group warned the New York Times. 'It is not going to be ideological. It's going to be style.' Search Twitter and you'll find angry commentary about the Democrats' Senate surrender littered with similar references.
The analogy is obvious.
In 2008, burdened by an unpopular president and economic turmoil, Republicans lost the White House and both houses of Congress. The party was left with an identity crisis and a morale problem. Bushism was exhausted and discredited, and a charismatic 'transformational' president from the other party looked poised to make the GOP a minority indefinitely with the new coalition he had built.
The Tea Party was the right's solution to the morale problem. Lacking a national political leader, it fomented an angry populist backlash to the president's agenda. In doing so it eased the Republican identity crisis for a while, as Barack Obama's agenda polarized Tea Partiers into Reaganesque demands for smaller government and 'constitutional conservatism.' Only later, in 2016, would it become clear how threadbare and opportunistic that identity was.
What was novel about the Tea Party was that it blamed its own side's 'out of touch' political establishment for America's failures as much as it did the other's.
Because the right's reaction to Obama cosplayed as an ideological reawakening, congressional Republicans were derided as turncoats and deemed part of the problem if they strayed toward the center on policy. But in reality, populist venom for moderate 'Republicans In Name Only' was as much a reaction to style as substance. Conciliatory GOPers who preferred to work with Democrats instead of confronting them aggressively—who weren't willing to 'fight'—were marked for political death via primary challenges. They would be replaced in time with uncompromising obstructionist blowhards who set unachievable goals and then, once elected, duly failed to achieve them.
If you followed politics between 2009 and 2015, that's the movie you watched. Today it feels like we're watching the sequel.
In 2024, burdened by an unpopular president and economic turmoil, Democrats lost the White House and both houses of Congress. The party has been left with an identity crisis and a morale problem. Culturally progressive educated-class neoliberalism, as embodied by Kamala Harris, seems exhausted and discredited. A charismatic 'transformational' president from the other party aims to make Democrats a minority indefinitely with the new blue-collar coalition he's building—or, perhaps, by accruing autocratic power incrementally until the constitutional order disintegrates.
Into that crucible walks the Senate Democratic leader, the very face of the liberal establishment, declaring that he won't use the one bit of leverage his party still has over federal policy. He prefers to work with Republicans, however reluctantly, instead of confronting them aggressively in the name of achieving some goal that not only won't be achieved but that no one seems able to define.
The left is spoiling for a fight to solve its morale problem, and Chuck Schumer won't give them one. The 'out of touch' Democratic establishment begins to look like as much of a problem as Republicans are. (The numbers don't lie!) To force that establishment to take a more combative attitude toward the enemy, the base reasons that it may have no choice but to primary Schumer. We've seen this movie before.
There are other symmetries. Angry audiences at congressional town halls? The original Tea Party had plenty of those. So does the new one. Performative outbursts during presidential addresses to show defiance for the cameras? Tea Party 1.0 and Tea Party 2.0 have that in common as well. Scapegoating a Senate leader as the establishment villain-in-chief? The original Tea Party had that. Ditto for Schumer and the new version. Orchestrating a government shutdown that won't accomplish anything useful except to show how angry the out-party is?
The first Tea Party gave us that in 2013 and it ended up making a national figure of one ambitious populist. The new Tea Party wants another with a hero of its own.
The Tea Party of 2009 to 2015 didn't crave more conservative government. It craved resistance. It was born in a spirit of resistance and thus it expected its representatives to resist always and everywhere. It was an expression of populist id, and so naturally it came to despise the institutional superego in all forms. Its core belief was that politics is a matter of will: All it had to offer was will, therefore every political problem became a test of conviction.
In time it betrayed everything it claimed to stand for and, in its current decrepit authoritarian form, has driven the country to the brink of economic and civic ruin. Can you sense how excited I am to see the Democratic analogue?
In fairness, it isn't a perfect analogue.
One difference between the old Tea Party and the new one is the circumstances of its birth.
Unlike in 2008, the losing party wasn't bludgeoned at the polls last November and relegated to a filibuster-proof rump in the Senate. The president may be under the impression that he won the biggest, strongest, most beautiful landslide ever, but the hard truth is that he failed to reach 50 percent against a lackluster opponent who was saddled with inflation and a dead-weight incumbent.
Democrats have real policy failures to address, starting with their negligence on the border and their indulgence of 'woke' shibboleths that many Americans find alienating. But unlike the GOP 17 years ago, they have nothing on the order of the Iraq war, the Hurricane Katrina debacle, or the financial crisis to answer for. Because they're not as desperate for a radical change in direction as the original Tea Party was, their new Tea Party might not be as radical in nature.
A second difference, related to the first, is that Democrats seem to understand that they need to move to the center. That wasn't so for the first Tea Party.
The swerve back toward Reaganite conservatarianism in 2009 was driven by a sense that Republican leaders had too often painted in ideological 'pale pastels' instead of the 'bold colors' that the Gipper endorsed. George W. Bush was a center-right establishment dynast, son and heir to a 'pale pastel' president, and his job approval stood at 25 percent on Election Day 2008. The GOP's candidate on the ballot that year was John McCain, a soft-on-immigration Senate dinosaur, and his opponent ended up winning the largest number of popular votes in American history to that point. Then, in 2012, with the Tea Party dominant, Republicans somehow nominated a former governor of Massachusetts(!) who had pioneered a health-insurance reform that inspired Obamacare.
Right-wingers could look at Bush, McCain, and Mitt Romney and reasonably surmise from election results that centrism was a loser. Bolder ideological colors of the sort that produced midterm landslides in 2010 and 2014 for the Tea Party were the trick. And so, in 2016, Republican voters chose bolder colors. Boy, did they ever.
The lessons are different for modern liberals. Joe Biden was a 'pale pastel' compared to the boldly colored Bernie Sanders and not only did he defeat Trump, he set a new record for popular votes in doing so. Meanwhile, below the surface, blue-collar voters who had dependably voted Democratic in the past were beginning to drift right, scared off by creeping left-wing radicalism about open borders, defunding the police, and transgenderism. That nearly cost the party a victory in 2020 and quite possibly did cost it a victory in 2024.
The sense that Democrats have moved too far left is shared by Democrats themselves. Last month Gallup found that the share who believe the party should become 'more moderate' had jumped since 2021, rising from 34 percent to 45 percent. The share who said that it should become 'more liberal' declined over the same period, from 34 percent to 29.
Even if a new left-wing Tea Party gets off the ground, political reality should make it less likely to radicalize than its right-wing forebear. To win a Democratic primary, a Tea Party candidate will presumably need to meet the growing demand for moderation among the party's voters that was absent in the GOP circa 2009. As the progressive activist I quoted earlier told the Times, the new movement 'is not going to be ideological. It's going to be style.'
It's a nice thought, at least. Others seem to share it. I hope it works out for them! But I don't think it will.
I find it hard to believe that an insurgent political movement bent on dethroning its party's establishment can be aggressive 'stylistically' without becoming aggressive ideologically too.
The fact that the primary challenger of choice for Chuck Schumer looks to be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proves the point. If all liberals are looking for is a pugnacious contrast in 'style' with the senator, it seems weird that they're rallying behind the most prominent young socialist in the country, no?
The nature of a Tea Party points remorselessly toward policy radicalism. Imagine how absurd it would be if Schumer's challenger declared during a primary debate, 'I agree with him on everything, except that we really need more shutdowns.' Try as one might to be radically combative about tactics yet substantively moderate about policy, the ethic of 'fighting' on which such movements are founded—especially fighting members of their own party establishment—will inevitably encourage 'fights' over policy as well. Inevitably, the challenger's need to distinguish himself as a 'bold' alternative to the incumbent will lead him to endorse bolder colors on policy as well.
And if you end up getting elected for your willingness to 'fight,' you can't be a voice of restraint in Congress without betraying your mandate. That probably explains why so many right-wing Tea Partiers slid easily from 'constitutional conservatism' into whatever the hell Mike Lee is now. Trump's politics work just as well as Reagan's if all you're looking to do is fight, so it was easy for Tea Party populists to shift from one to the other despite the ideological incongruity. When you're in Congress to stick it to the enemy, the important thing is to stick it to them; it doesn't much matter what shape the stick happens to take.
So if Republicans propose a reasonable-ish compromise in some policy dispute that establishment Democrats are inclined to accept, a Tea Party Democratic congressman sent to Washington to 'fight' will reflexively conclude that that compromise is a nonstarter.
The ethic of resistance becomes an end in itself. After 16 supremely moronic years, I think our country has had more than enough of it.
Combative contrarianism wouldn't be the only radicalizing influence on a Democratic Tea Party either. Age gaps will also be a factor. Given the public's post-Biden disquiet about American gerontocracy, it's a cinch that left-wingers recruited to challenge figures like Schumer will be much younger in order to underline how 'out of touch' the current Democratic leadership is. Young politicians aren't prone to restraint and moderation in the best circumstances, but the age difference will further encourage them to offer fresh, daring, exciting ideas on policy in contrast to the elderly incumbent's pale pastels.
And then there's Trump.
Fundamentally, the left's desire to oust Schumer is driven by the sense that, like Michael Corleone, they need a 'wartime consigliere.' Trump is waging a war of sorts on the federal government and will wage one in due course on the entire constitutional order, and an old man who feebly chants 'we will win!' yet shirks from the first opportunity for battle just ain't gonna cut it as commanding general. Even more so than in his first term, Trump is destined to negatively polarize liberals against his policy positions. Which means that a Tea Party candidate will have cover to tack to the left in a Democratic primary—and possibly even an incentive to do so—despite any early vows of moderation.
'Is this a crisis or not?' a frustrated David Graham wrote of Schumer's decision to oppose a shutdown. That's the unofficial motto of any insurgent political movement that prioritizes 'fighting' over the goals it's ostensibly fighting for. And the thing about a crisis mentality is that, once you adopt it, every form of radicalism is justified in the name of ending the crisis, including radicalism on policy. You would think Americans would have learned their lesson by now, but evidently not. Here we go again.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Democratic governors slam Trump's military deployment in California as ‘flagrant abuse of power'
Democratic governors slam Trump's military deployment in California as ‘flagrant abuse of power'

CNN

timean hour ago

  • CNN

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.'

Trump signs measure blocking California's ban on new sales of gas-powered cars

timean hour ago

Trump signs measure blocking California's ban on new sales of gas-powered cars

WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump signed a resolution on Thursday that blocks California's first-in-the-nation rule banning the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035. The state quickly announced it was challenging the move in court, with California's attorney general holding a news conference to discuss the lawsuit before Trump's signing ceremony ended at the White House. The resolution was approved by Congress last month and aims to quash the country's most aggressive attempt to phase out gas-powered cars. Trump also signed measures to overturn state policies curbing tailpipe emissions in certain vehicles and smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution from trucks. Trump called California's regulations 'crazy' at a White House ceremony where he signed the resolutions. 'It's been a disaster for this country,' he said. It comes as the Republican president is mired in a clash with California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, over Trump's move to deploy troops to Los Angeles in response to immigration protests. It's the latest in an ongoing battle between the Trump administration and heavily Democratic California over issues including tariffs, the rights of LGBTQ+ youth and funding for electric vehicle chargers. The state is already involved in more than two-dozen lawsuits challenging Trump administration actions, and the state's Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the latest one at a news conference in California. Ten other states, all with Democratic attorneys general, joined the lawsuit filed Thursday. 'The federal government's actions are not only unlawful; they're irrational and wildly partisan,' Bonta said. 'They come at the direct expense of the health and the well-being of our people.' The three resolutions Trump signed will block California's rule phasing out gas-powered cars and end the sale of new ones by 2035. They will also kill rules that phase out the sale of medium- and heavy-duty diesel vehicles and cut tailpipe emissions from trucks. In his remarks at the White House, Trump expressed doubts about the performance and reliability of electric vehicles, though he had some notably positive comments about the company owned by Elon Musk, despite their fractured relationship. 'I like Tesla,' Trump said. In remarks that often meandered away from the subject at hand, Trump used the East Room ceremony to also muse on windmills, which he claimed 'are killing our country,' the prospect of getting electrocuted by an electric-powered boat if it sank and whether he'd risk a shark attack by jumping as the boat went down. 'I'll take electrocution every single day," the president said. When it comes to cars, Trump said he likes combustion engines but for those that prefer otherwise, 'If you want to buy electric, you can buy electric.' 'What this does is it gives us freedom,' said Bill Kent, the owner of Kent Kwik convenience stores. Kent, speaking at the White House, said that the California rules would have forced him to install 'infrastructure that frankly, is extremely expensive and doesn't give you any return.' The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents major car makers, applauded Trump's action. 'Everyone agreed these EV sales mandates were never achievable and wildly unrealistic,' John Bozzella, the group's president and CEO, said in a statement. Newsom, who is considered a likely 2028 Democratic presidential candidate, and California officials contend that what the federal government is doing is illegal and said the state plans to sue. Newsom said Trump's action was a continuation of his 'all-out assault' on California. 'And this time he's destroying our clean air and America's global competitiveness in the process,' Newsom said in a statement. 'We are suing to stop this latest illegal action by a President who is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big polluters.' The signings come as Trump has pledged to revive American auto manufacturing and boost oil and gas drilling. The move follows other steps the Trump administration has taken to roll back rules that aim to protect air and water and reduce emissions that cause climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed repealing rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas. Dan Becker with the Center for Biological Diversity, said the signing of the resolutions was 'Trump's latest betrayal of democracy.' 'Signing this bill is a flagrant abuse of the law to reward Big Oil and Big Auto corporations at the expense of everyday people's health and their wallets,' Becker said in a statement. California, which has some of the nation's worst air pollution, has been able to seek waivers for decades from the EPA, allowing it to adopt stricter emissions standards than the federal government. In his first term, Trump revoked California's ability to enforce its standards, but Democratic President Joe Biden reinstated it in 2022. Trump has not yet sought to revoke it again. Republicans have long criticized those waivers and earlier this year opted to use the Congressional Review Act, a law aimed at improving congressional oversight of actions by federal agencies, to try to block the rules. That's despite a finding from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, that California's standards cannot legally be blocked using the Congressional Review Act. The Senate parliamentarian agreed with that finding. California, which makes up roughly 11% of the U.S. car market, has significant power to sway trends in the auto industry. About a dozen states signed on to adopt California's rule phasing out the sale of new gas-powered cars.

Democrats condemn Sen. Alex Padilla's treatment at Noem news conference

timean hour ago

Democrats condemn Sen. Alex Padilla's treatment at Noem news conference

Democrats expressed outraged after Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla of California was forcibly removed from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's news conference on Thursday in Los Angeles, taken to the ground and handcuffed by law enforcement officers. Noem was speaking to the media about the federal response to protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in the area when Padilla entered the room and approached Noem's podium. As he approached, police officers in the room grabbed the senator, rushed him out of the room into a hallway, forced him to the ground and handcuffed him. Video shows Padilla identifying himself and saying he wanted to ask a question as law enforcement forced him out of the room. Padilla was later seen without handcuffs speaking to Noem in a conference room. Noem said later that the two spoke for 10 to 15 minutes and exchanged phone numbers. Noem said she didn't expect him to be charged. Noem said law enforcement reacted because he took steps toward her without identifying himself. Video of the incident captures Padilla identifying himself as he is being dragged out; it's not clear if he identified himself before the incident or as he approached the podium. Padilla's Democratic colleagues were critical of the way he was treated. "I just saw something that sickened my stomach -- the manhandling of a United States senator. We need immediate answers to what the hell went on," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. California Gov. Gavin Newsom called Padilla "one of the most decent people I know." "This is outrageous, dictatorial, and shameful," Newsom wrote on X. "Trump and his shock troops are out of control. This must end now." Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass posted on X, "What just happened to @SenAlexPadilla is absolutely abhorrent and outrageous." The Congressional Hispanic Caucus demanded an investigation into the incident. "This is unacceptable, full stop," the CHC posted on X. "@SenAlexPadilla attended an open press conference to engage in debate, to represent his state, to do his job. We demand a full investigation and consequences for every official involved in this assault against a sitting US senator." DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said Padilla did not identify himself before approaching the podium. "Senator Padilla chose disrespectful political theatre and interrupted a live press conference without identifying himself or having his Senate security pin on as he lunged toward Secretary Noem," she said in a post on X. "Mr. Padilla was told repeatedly to back away and did not comply with officers' repeated commands. @SecretService thought he was an attacker and officers acted appropriately." A statement from Padilla's office said he was in the building to receive a briefing from NORTHCOM commander Gen. Gregory Guillot and was listening to Noem's news conference. "He tried to ask the Secretary a question, and was forcibly removed by federal agents, forced to the ground and handcuffed. He is not currently detained, and we are working to get additional information," the statement said.

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