Choking back tears, Sen. Alex Padilla details his LA handcuffing
Choking back tears, Sen. Alex Padilla details his LA handcuffing California Sen. Alex Padilla said Americans have a right to protest policies they disagree with in describing his tussle with federal law enforcement
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Sen. Alex Padilla physically removed from DHS news conference
Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla was forced out and handcuffed at a Homeland Security news conference in Los Angeles.
WASHINGTON – Sen. Alex Padilla delivered an emotional floor speech June 17, his first remarks on the Senate floor since the California Democrat was dragged out of a press conference in Los Angeles held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, pushed to the floor, and handcuffed.
"You've seen the video. I was pushed and pulled. Struggled to maintain my balance. I was forced to the ground, first on my knees and then flat on my chest," Padilla said as he choked back tears. "If that is what the administration is willing to do to a United States senator for having the authority to simply ask a question, imagine what they'll do to any American who dares to speak up."
Federal law enforcement agents forcibly removed Padilla from Noem's June 12 press conference after he interrupted the event amid mass protests over the administration's immigration crackdown.
More: 'Unhinged': Democrats are furious Sen. Alex Padilla was hauled out of Noem briefing
Noem's agency oversees Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, which had been carrying out raids in Los Angeles. Protesters flooded the nation's second most populous city's downtown for days, some of which devolved into violence as protesters burned cars and looted buildings.
Padilla said that he had gone to the federal building in Los Angeles where Noem was holding the press conference that day because he had a briefing with a four-star general about the military deployment in the city.
His briefing was delayed by Noem's press conference, he said, so he asked an FBI agent and a national guardsman whether he could attend. They escorted him to the press conference, where he listened until Noem began speaking about plans to "liberate" Los Angeles.
'We are not going away. We are staying here to liberate this city from the socialist and the burdensome leadership that this governor and mayor have placed on this country,' Noem said. Padilla started asking: 'Madam Secretary I want to know why you insist on –' before he was grabbed by security guards.
During his floor speech, Padilla said the administration planned "to somehow liberate us from the very people we democratically elected to lead our city and our state. Let that fundamentally un-American mission statement sink in."
"Are we truly prepared to live in a country where the president can deploy the armed forces to decide which duly elected governors and mayors can lead our constituents?" he continued.
Noem said during the press conference that she didn't recognize the two-term Padilla and that he hadn't requested a meeting with her. They met for for 15 minutes afterward, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
Tricia McLaughlin, a Trump DHS official, wrote on X that Padilla's actions were "disrespectful political theatre" and claimed that the Secret Service believed he was an attacker. Republicans in Congress similarly put the blame on Padilla. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, told reporters shortly after the event that Padilla's actions were "wildly inappropriate" and said he should be censured.
Democrats were furious upon viewing the viral video of Padilla being forced to the ground.
"Anybody that looks at that video will understand that this amounts to an assault, a felony," said Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-New York, chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. "The White House is unhinged and out of control."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
34 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
What to Know About the Trump Administration's Reversal on ICE Raids Guidance
U.S. immigration officials will continue conducting immigration raids at farms, hotels, and restaurants, marking an apparently rapid reversal of guidance issued last week to exempt those worksites from the Trump Administration's mass deportations. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials told staff in a call on Monday that agents must conduct raids at farms, hotels, and restaurants, two people with knowledge of the call told The Washington Post. Multiple news outlets, including CNN and Reuters, have since confirmed the news. 'There will be no safe spaces for industries who harbor violent criminals or purposely try to undermine ICE's efforts,' Tricia McLaughlin, an assistant secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, told the Post. 'Worksite enforcement remains a cornerstone of our efforts to safeguard public safety, national security and economic stability.' Trump's pledge to 'protect our Farmers' President Donald Trump has launched a mass-deportation operation since he took office for a second time in January, sparking outrage from Democratic lawmakers and prompting thousands of demonstrators to take to the streets to protest ICE raids targeting undocumented immigrants. Trump has recently faced backlash from agriculture and hospitality executives over his hardline immigration agenda, the Post reported. On Thursday, he posted on Truth Social that 'changes are coming.' 'Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,' Trump said in his post. 'In many cases the Criminals allowed into our Country by the VERY Stupid Biden Open Borders Policy are applying for those jobs. This is not good. We must protect our Farmers, but get the CRIMINALS OUT OF THE USA. Changes are coming!' What changed—or didn't Despite the public pledge, a White House official told the Post at the time that the White House hadn't proposed any real policy changes. But three U.S. officials familiar with the situation told The New York Times that the Administration had instructed ICE officials to mostly halt raids and arrests at those worksites. 'Effective today, please hold on all work site enforcement investigations/operations on agriculture (including aquaculture and meat packing plants), restaurants and operating hotels,' Tatum King, a senior ICE official, said in an email that was sent out as guidance to regional leaders of the branch of ICE that typically works on criminal investigations, as reported by the Times. Monday's reversal of that guidance comes after Trump posted on Truth Social over the weekend that he wants to 'expand efforts to detain and deport illegal Aliens in America's largest cities, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, where Millions upon Millions of Illegal Aliens reside.'
CNN
34 minutes ago
- CNN
Senate passes first-of-its-kind cryptocurrency legislation
The Senate passed first-of-its-kind bipartisan cryptocurrency legislation, called the GENIUS Act, after months of negotiations and weeks of back-and-forth between Democratic and Republican backers. The final tally was 68-30, with 18 Democrats voting yes, and two Republicans voting no. The bill now moves to the House for consideration. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer has called for the chamber's Financial Services Committee to advance stablecoin legislation by the end of July. The GENIUS Act aims to regulate stablecoin, a specific type of cryptocurrency that is tied to the US dollar. Despite bipartisan senators working on this bill for months, and general agreement across the Capitol that stablecoin regulation is necessary, the legislation has become a flashpoint for Democratic concerns with President Donald Trump's own cryptocurrency dealings. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, has consistently warned that the bill does not place sufficient guardrails on stablecoin, and alleged that the GENIUS Act would 'supercharge' corruption. Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut has agreed that the bill needs stricter ethics guidelines, telling CNN's Dana Bash previously, 'If Congress passes a bill in the next few weeks that exempts the president of the United States from the ethics requirements around the issuance of cryptocurrency, then, yes, we will have no one to blame but ourselves for this, at least this, specific kind of corruption.' However, GOP Sen. Bill Hagerty, one of the lead co-sponsors of the bill, has insisted that 'this legislation is agnostic as to company, it's agnostic as to person.' 'This is simply about putting the United States of America on the best digital payments path that it possibly could be on,' the Tennessee Republican told reporters at the Capitol in May. 'This is about a payments currency, and it's about consumer protection, and it's about dollar dominance and Treasury dominance – that's all it's about. And there are a lot of superfluous questions going around but I think we've done a good job of answering those.' The Senate originally failed to advance the package after Democrats withheld their support due to concerns over Trump's cryptocurrency deals. Further bipartisan negotiations resulted in a new amendment draft that garnered enough support among Democrats to move the package forward.
The Hill
36 minutes ago
- The Hill
The Memo: Risks loom as Trump moves toward direct participation in Israel's attack on Iran
President Trump is becoming ever more emphatic in his backing of Israel's attack on Iran, with the chances rising by the hour that he will green-light direct U.S. involvement. The president discussed the crisis in the White House Situation Room with his closest advisors on Tuesday afternoon. Afterward, according to the Israeli news organization Haaretz, he spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The road ahead is complicated, not least because there are stark differences within Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA) support base over the merits of getting involved in foreign conflicts in Iran or anywhere else. Then there is the vexing question of what, precisely, the goal would be if the U.S. joined military operations – and how it would be achieved. Would it be limited to destroying the Iranian uranium enrichment facility at Fordow, which is literally built inside a mountain? Or would it be regime change in Tehran? Then there are questions of economics and logistics, such as the effect of an all-out war on oil prices and on crucial mercantile traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. On Tuesday, Trump adopted his most belligerent stance yet on Iran in a series of social media posts. Most blatant of all was an all-caps posting that demanded 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!' It was not clear what exactly Trump meant by surrender. The message from the president came shortly after one that had warned, 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but he is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!) at least not for now.' Trump's words were directed at Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and it was notable in part because of media reports in recent days that Trump had kiboshed an Israeli plan to kill Khamenei at the start of the latest phase of the conflict. Trump's use of the word 'we' in seeming reference to a direct alliance between the U.S. and Israel when it comes to the attack on Iran, was not lost on anyone either. He had written on social media about an hour before, 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.' It's a far cry from the beginning of the Israeli strikes on Iran, just five days previously, which were met by a quick statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio seeking to maintain at least some distance between the U.S. and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government. 'Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region,' Rubio said. But as Trump seems to be moving closer to a joint U.S.-Israeli assault on Iran, he is encountering pushback even from within his own base. A range of prominent figures in MAGA World have expressed skepticism, and sometimes outright indignation, at the idea of the U.S. entangling itself in another conflict in the Middle East. Figures like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon, commentator Tucker Carlson and several online influencers are part of a populist conservative movement that has grown far more dubious of military involvements in the two decades since President George W. Bush and his coterie of neoconservative advisors launched wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On Monday, Greene took aim on social media at 'fakes' who were 'slobbering for the U.S. to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war.' On Tuesday, she emphasized the need to cater to Americans who want their leaders to work on kitchen-table issues, like 'cheap gas, groceries, bills, and housing,' rather than having the government's energy and resources 'going into another foreign war.' Carlson has become one of the main right-wing media voices expressing opposition to foreign military adventuring, and skepticism about the assumption that the U.S. should back Israel in almost any endeavor. On Monday, he published a long on-camera interview with Bannon in which the erstwhile strategist began by saying that one of the main pillars of the MAGA coalition from the start of Trump's rise was to 'stop the forever wars.' 'I'm a big supporter of Israel,' Bannon said, 'and I'm telling people, hey, if we get sucked into this war…it's going to not just blow up the [MAGA] coalition, it's also going to thwart what we're doing' on the domestic front — specifically in terms of Trump's hardline policies on immigration. It bears emphasizing that the risks for Trump in directly joining the Israeli assault are not limited to the split in his political base. For a start, there is the perennial problem with military operations that the late secretary of State Colin Powell dubbed 'mission creep.' Powell was referring to the tendency for objectives to become more and more expansive over time, to a point where it becomes politically difficult to either withdraw troops or declare victory At the same time, there are voices within the GOP coalition loudly insisting that Trump should give Israel the utmost backing. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has said that the U.S. should go 'all-in' behind Israel if Iran does not come to an agreement over its uranium enrichment program. If Trump were to confound current expectations, he would keep the U.S. out of the direct conflict. But he would also be open to criticism from the most vehement supporters of Israel, within his own party and beyond, that he had blinked at a crucial time, passing up on what they see as a potentially transformative moment. Either way, the risks and rewards are profound — especially for a president who has previously expressed pride in his ability to keep the U.S. out of new wars. The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.
