Kamala Harris Says LA Protest 'Overwhelmingly Peaceful' Calls Trump 'Cruel'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris defended the "overwhelmingly peaceful" protesters in Los Angeles while criticizing President Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops as a "dangerous escalation" and "cruel" on the third consecutive day of violent clashes between demonstrators and law enforcement.
Harris' statement notably did not condemn the violence that has characterized the ongoing demonstrations, marking a stark contrast with Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass's explicit condemnation of destructive behavior.
Taking to social media, Mayor Bass posted a statement on Friday, saying, "This morning we received reports of federal immigration enforcement actions in multiple locations in Los Angeles."
"As Mayor of a proud city of immigrants, who contribute to our city in so many ways, I am deeply angered by what has taken place," Bass said. "These tactics sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city. My office is in close coordination with immigrant rights community organizations. We will not stand for this."
The protests, which began last week in response to federal immigration enforcement operations by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), have escalated into sustained confrontations involving rock-throwing, alleged Molotov cocktails, burning vehicles, and arrests across multiple Los Angeles locations.
My statement on what's unfolding in Los Angeles. pic.twitter.com/rujs8mrVPK — Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) June 8, 2025
This is a developing story and will be updated when more information is available.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
22 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Bernie Sanders Introduces Bill Backing RFK Jr., Elon Musk Priority
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Senator Bernie Sanders is leading a new bill to address a key priority of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who serves as President Donald Trump's Health and Human Services Secretary. Why It Matters Sanders, a Vermont independent, alongside Senator Angus King, a Maine independent, introduced the "End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act," which, if passed, would ban prescription drug advertising on TV, radio, print and digital platforms as well as social media. Critics say these ads contribute to the high price of healthcare while doing little to improve care in the United States, though proponents say the advertisements can improve patients' knowledge of healthcare. Most wealthy countries, with the U.S. and New Zealand being two notable exceptions, ban pharmaceutical drug advertisements. The bill also represents an issue where Sanders, viewed as perhaps the most progressive senator, has found common ground with Kennedy inside the Trump administration, though the secretary has not commented on this bill specifically. What to Know Sanders and King announced the legislation on Thursday, highlighting that the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $5 billion on TV ads in 2024 and that many of these drugs cost more in the U.S. than in other countries that do not allow drug companies to run ads on TV. "The American people are sick and tired of greedy pharmaceutical companies spending billions of dollars on absurd TV commercials pushing their outrageously expensive prescription drugs," Sanders said, describing the fact that the U.S. stands mostly alone in allowing pharmaceutical ads as an "international embarrassment." vSenator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, questions U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during a committee hearing on May 14, 2025 in Washington, D.C. vSenator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, questions U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during a committee hearing on May 14, 2025 in Washington, director of communications Anna Bahr confirmed to Newsweek his office has reached out to Republicans to join the bill. Bahr pointed to lobbying from the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries as to why the U.S. has not joined other countries in bannign the ads. "Over the past 25 years, the drug companies have spent $8.5 billion on lobbying. Today, they have some 1,800 well-paid lobbyists in Washington, D.C. – including former leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties," she said in a statement to Newsweek. "Unbelievably, that is more than three lobbyists for every member of Congress. During that same period, they have provided over $700 million in campaign contributions. And they are equal opportunity contributors. They contribute heavily to both Republican and Democratic candidates." Secretary Kennedy—as well as Elon Musk, who previously served in Trump's administration—have expressed support for ending pharmaceutical advertising. "Let's get President Trump back in the White House and me to DC so we can ban pharmaceutical advertising," Kennedy wrote in a post to X (formerly Twitter) on November 3, 2024. During his own presidential campaign, Kennedy said he would have issued an executive order ending the advertisements on his first day in office. Newsweek reached out to DHS for comment via the department's press contact form. Caleb Alexander, professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, told Newsweek that while a potential ban's impact on drug prices remains uunclear, there would be benefits to ending these advertisements. Pharmaceutical advertisements can drive up "inappropriate demand" for prescription drugs in settings where they may not be needed, he said. "In terms of the potential benefits of banning [direct-to-consumer advertisements], the most immediate and likely is that it would temper demand for products in settings where they may not be needed," Alexander said. The U.S. has "evolved to believe" the benefits of the ads, such as empowering patients to identify health concerns, outweigh the risks, though much of the research on the topic indicates that the benefits may not be worth the drawbacks, he said. What People Are Saying Alexander told Newsweek: "Direct to consumer advertising has been a lightning rod for controversy, and it remains a curious and unique feature of the U.S. marketplace. While a ban on direct advertising may be welcomed by many, it's not going to fundamentally transform the marketplace for prescription drugs in the United States, simply because DTCA is highly concentrated among a small number of products. It may be a reasonable political and public health target, but I think that if you just look at the way the dollars flow, there's vastly more money spent on marketing drugs to prescribers." Senator Angus King wrote in a statement: "The widespread use of direct-to-consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies drives up costs and doesn't necessarily make patients healthier. The End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act would prohibit direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceutical drugs to protect people. This bill is a great step to ensure that patients are getting the best information possible and from the right source: their providers and not biased advertisements." Elon Musk wrote to X in November 2024: "No advertising for pharma." What Happens Next It's unclear whether a majority of senators are also in support of the bill. So far, Democratic Senators Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Peter Welch of Vermont, Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Dick Durbin of Illinois have co-sponsored the bill, according to Sanders' office.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge opens hearing in California challenge to Trump over L.A. deployment
A critical hearing is underway in federal court over President Trump's deployment of the National Guard and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco is presiding over the case, brought by California against the Trump administration earlier this week after a historic weekend in L.A. County. The state contends that Trump exceeded his authority in an "unprecedented power grab" by federalizing the Guard without the consent of Gov. Gavin Newsom, and by deploying Marines on American soil. 'We expect an order from the court making clear what's lawful and what's unlawful, and part of that is making clear that the deployment of the National Guard by Trump is unlawful,' California's attorney general, Rob Bonta, told The Times on Wednesday. 'He might just strike down that deployment,' Bonta added, 'returning the National Guard to the command of its appropriate commander-in-chief, the governor.' Read more: Trump, pushing bounds of his office with L.A. deployment, faces test in court The Trump administration, on the other hand, argued in a brief to the court that it has no role reviewing the matter. 'Courts did not interfere when President Eisenhower deployed the military to protect school desegregation. Courts did not interfere when President Nixon deployed the military to deliver the mail in the midst of a postal strike. And courts should not interfere here either,' the Justice Department said. Protests emerged across Los Angeles on Friday in response to a series of flash raids by Customs and Border Enforcement agents across the county. A handful of agitators among the protesters committed violence and vandalism, prompting Trump to first threaten, and then quickly deploy, the California National Guard to respond. He added active-duty Marines to the operation on Monday. Protests, and some sporadic violent rioting, have continued since the deployments. This is a breaking news story and will be updated. Wilner reported from Washington, D.C., and Wong from San Francisco. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk tries to get back into Trump's good graces, one X post at a time
In the aftermath of a public standoff last week with the president, the richest man in the world is trying to reposition himself and work his way back into Donald Trump's good graces. Billionaire Elon Musk, in a series of re-shares and posts on X over the weekend, expressed support for Trump's actions supporting ICE raids in Los Angeles and the president's attempts to squelch protests by deploying the National Guard. That was in stark contrast to his vocal online criticism of the president that went from professional to personal in a matter of days. Not long after the president's laudatory Oval Office send-off for Musk on May 30, the first buddy-turned-nemesis dueled with his former boss in a spectacular public spat on social media. Musk criticized the president's so-called 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' a tax and policy package making its way through Congress, calling it a "disgusting abomination' that would burden Americans with "crushing debt" and agreeing with a post that called for Trump's impeachment. Then Musk went nuclear. "Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files," he wrote on X on June 5 to his more than 220 million followers. "That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!" That Trump had crossed paths with Jeffrey Epstein, a disgraced financier who died while in jail awaiting prosecution on sex trafficking charges, has been public knowledge for years. In 2019, Trump said he'd had a 'falling out' with Epstein, whom he described as a 'Palm Beach fixture,' in the mid-2000s. Now, two days after he'd dropped the bomb, the mercurial billionaire appears to be rethinking those allegations. In less than 48 hours, Musk deleted the Epstein post on X. Then, over the weekend, Musk's reshared post calling for Trump's impeachment disappeared. Instead, Musk highlighted Trump's Truth Social post criticizing California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass for failing to rein in unruly immigration protests in Los Angeles following ICE raids. "Governor Gavin Newscum and Mayor Bass should apologize to the people of Los Angeles for the absolutely horrible job that they have done, and this now includes the ongoing LA riots,' wrote Trump. 'These are not protesters; they are troublemakers and insurrectionists. Remember, No Masks!" While Musk has differences with Trump about the spending bill, he has consistently supported Trump's aggressive push to deport undocumented immigrants. Hours after Trump's controversial decision to deploy California National Guard troops to respond to anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles, Musk posted an image of a man in face paint standing on top of a burning car waving a Mexican flag. 'This is not ok,' Musk said in his post on X. He also reposted Vice President JD Vance's post sharing Trump's Truth Social post saying the "president will not tolerate rioting and violence." The reason for Musk's shift in tone is not clear, although he seemed to voice some regret hours after the big social media fight, after mutual friends of Musk and the president, including hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman and rapper Kanye West, urged the duo to make peace. "I support @realDonaldTrump and @elonmusk and they should make peace for the benefit of our great country. We are much stronger together than apart," wrote Ackman. Musk responded with a simple: "You're not wrong." Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy is a White House correspondent for USA TODAY. You can follow her on X @SwapnaVenugopal. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Is Musk ready to rekindle his bromance with Trump?
