'I call it a rebellion': Maxine Waters' history of enflaming crowds, from Rodney King to today
Eighteen-term Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters resurfaced in the news after several run-ins with federal authorities during the ongoing illegal immigration riots in California, just as her House tenure began amid prior Angeleno unrest.
In 1992, as she was finishing her first term in Congress, the not-guilty verdict against White LAPD officers seen beating a Black motorist named Rodney King sparked a similar conflagration in Los Angeles, and Waters was in the midst of it then as well.
The riots greatly affected her South Los Angeles district, and Waters was quoted at the time as appearing to downplay the violence not as a "riot" but as "just a bunch of crazy people who went out and did bad things for no reason."
"I maintain it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable. So I call it a rebellion," she said, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Waters had joined the Rev. Jesse Jackson in trying to convince the Justice Department to file civil rights charges against the acquitted officers, blaming the rioting on Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Chief Daryl Gates and President George H.W. Bush, according to famed journalist Robert Novak.
When Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., attempted to have Waters expelled from Congress in 2021 for "inciting violence and terrorism," the Democrat claimed some of her past remarks were taken out of context.
"I am not worried that they're going to continue to distort what I say," she told The Grio after Greene led her resolution with Waters' Rodney King-era statements.
Greene said Waters violated House Rule 23's clause regarding conduct by members "at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House."
At a 2007 anti-war protest, Waters declared she was "not afraid of George Bush" and also pledged to "get rid of" then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
She later drew the ire of Greene and other Republicans when she told an LGBTQ gala, "I will go and take out Trump tonight." Defenders said she was speaking rhetorically and politically and not threatening the mogul.
Later in Trump's first administration, Waters was filmed on a California street corner shouting at supportive demonstrators and instructing them to be disruptive toward Trump allies.
"If you see anybody … in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out, and you create a crowd, and you push back on them. And you tell them that they are not welcome."
She later said she did not physically threaten Trump supporters, though then-White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders had earlier been run out of a Lexington, Va., restaurant and then-Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was accosted at a Washington, D.C., eatery.
In April 2021, Waters rallied in Brooklyn Center, Minn., while ex-Minneapolis Officer Derek Chauvin was on trial for the murder of George Floyd.
Waters was recorded telling protesters to "stay" in the street and warned that if the jury delivered a not-guilty verdict, "We cannot go away … we've got to get more confrontational."
The comments caught the attention of trial Judge Peter Cahill, suggesting the comments could lead to a defense appeal and also disrespected the judicial branch.
Waters later pushed back on some characterizations, saying, "I am nonviolent. I talk about confronting the justice system. … I'm talking about speaking up."
In February, Waters appeared in front of the Department of Education building in Washington along with other House Democrats. A security guard was confronted as lawmakers tried to gain entry to voice concerns about Secretary Linda McMahon's downsizing plans.
This week, while riots again raged in Los Angeles, Waters hurried toward a group of National Guardsmen entering the plywood-covered door of the Metropolitan Detention Center.
"I just came to use my congressional authority to check on David Huerta," she said, referring to the SEIU union leader arrested during an immigration raid.
A Guardsman told Waters to contact "public affairs" and slammed the door in her face.
She was later seen asking armed Guardsmen if they planned to shoot her, why they were there and that the conflict was President Donald Trump's fault.
Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told Fox News Digital after that incident that instead of "taunting" Guardsmen, Waters should have been trying to assuage the unrest.
While some of her recent Republican challengers, like Joe Collins and Omar Navarro, have received hefty donations from around the country due to her polarizing comments, the 86-year-old has been re-elected with typically 70% of the vote.
Fox News Digital reached out to Waters for comment but did not immediately hear back.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
20 minutes ago
- Forbes
Volunteer Track The $10 Billion Blow To American Science
Thousands of research grants issues by the NIH and NSF have been terminated under the Trump ... More administration In early 2025, as reports of mass grant terminations at NIH and NSF rippled across the scientific community, two researchers stepped in to provide what was missing: a comprehensive, verifiable record of what was being lost. Noam Ross, an ecologist and data scientist, began digging through government databases to see whether the terminations could be tracked. Scott Delaney, an epidemiologist and lawyer, opened a public spreadsheet to crowdsource reports from affected scientists. Their efforts soon merged into what is now the most comprehensive public record of science funding terminations in the United States: Grant Watch. Grant Watch is a volunteer-run effort to track the termination of federal research grants, specifically those issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Since its inception, the project has compiled data on nearly 4,000 grants. According to Grant Watch's most recent weekly report, NIH alone accounts for approximately $3.2 billion in 'lost funding'—defined as funding awarded but not paid out due to terminations. However, Ross estimates that across both NIH and NSF, the total value of terminated grants exceeds $10 billion, including both already-spent funds and future support that will no longer be realized. Roughly half of that amount represents sunk costs for work already begun; the other half consists of future funding that will now never materialize. The economic value of basic research is substantial: federal science funding consistently yields returns that far exceed its costs. In that sense, it is one of the rare public investments that effectively pays for itself. If the current budget proposal is enacted, the estimated $10 billion in terminated grants would translate into significantly greater losses in future productivity, innovation, and economic growth. The scope of the terminations is unprecedented, and that is what prompted Ross, Delaney and their colleagues to start collecting data. 'We sort of stumbled into doing this. Scott and I, and not just us, each started something independently and somewhat joined forces. Suddenly we have a code base and a website, a growing team and a Signal hotline, and now it was cited by a federal judge from the bench.' What began as spreadsheets and amateur sleuthing now underpins lawsuits from organizations like the ACLU, feeds investigative reporting by national news outlets like the Atlantic and the New York Times, and has been cited in federal court filings. The team—which also includes data scientists Anthony Barente and Emma Mairson and a growing team of volunteers—gathers information from public databases, whistleblowers, and grant recipients themselves, who can submit documentation through web forms. They vet each case, verify grant IDs and award data, and attempt to match submissions with official government records. Selected NIH grants identified by Grant Watch as terminated, excerpted from the complaint filed in ... More American Public Health Association et al. v. National Institutes of Health et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:25-cv-10787, filed April 2, 2025). The group operates without institutional funding. 'We are in some conversations with funders to just get enough to bring in someone for a day and a half a week to help with back-end database and website maintenance stuff, so we can focus on more investigations and outreach. But so far no one has paid for anything,' Ross said. Ross, who also works on infectious disease forecasting and serves as executive director of rOpenSci, a project that focuses on improving the R programming language, sees Grant Watch as a kind of data journalism project—one that enables rather than replaces traditional reporting. 'We can't tell all the try to present the information as richly and with as much context as possible so that others can.' That model is working. In just a few months, Grant Watch has become an essential resource for understanding the rapid dismantling of American scientific infrastructure. While official agency reports are often incomplete or internally contradictory, Grant Watch cross-references its data, flags discrepancies, and updates entries as new information becomes available. When asked why anyone should trust the data that Grant Watch is producing, Ross replied: 'My first and favorite reason is that scientists are very quick to tell us if we are wrong about their stuff. We have made mistakes, but we've been told immediately about them every time.' Despite its technical complexity, the project is ultimately motivated by a basic civic concern: transparency. The federal government is not just reducing science budgets; it is actively terminating grants, in some cases midstream, without clear justification or process. The result is not only the loss of valuable research but also a profound disruption to the scientific enterprise itself—students without funding, labs disbanded, data lost. And while the political motivations remain murky, the operational reality is plain to see. As Ross put it: 'We can't tell all the stories. But we can make sure no one can say they didn't know.'
Associated Press
21 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Finding a strong candidate for governor in Pennsylvania may help GOP protect its US House majority
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Job No. 1 for Republicans in Pennsylvania is to scrounge up a candidate to contest next year's reelection bid by Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro — if only to run interference for other Republicans on the ballot who are clinging to seats in Congress. In other words, the unalluring mission of next year's Republican gubernatorial nominee could be just to not get blown out by the relatively popular incumbent. That's because a lopsided victory by Shapiro could otherwise doom Republicans up and down Pennsylvania's ballot — and, with them, the GOP's narrow majority in the U.S. House that backs President Donald Trump's agenda. That's one more reason Pennsylvania could again find itself at the center of attention, even during the midterms and even if the GOP faces long odds against beating Shapiro. Democrats are targeting four GOP-held congressional seats in Pennsylvania alone — more than in any other state — and they need to flip only three seats nationwide to retake the majority they lost last year. Having a valuable standard-bearer is important, analysts say. That is the candidate who often sets the tone for the party in the state, delivers the party's message and drives the enthusiasm of the party's faithful to go out and vote. Republicans had Trump atop their ticket in 2024, and he proved formidable in Pennsylvania. Next year, it will be Democrats with a familiar name leading the way, and he, too, brings considerable heft. Shapiro has won three statewide races, is working to sustain his robust public approval ratings and carries a reputation as a disciplined messenger and powerhouse fundraiser who is on the party's shortlist for top White House contenders in 2028. He'll run at what could be a difficult time for Republicans. During a midterm election, the party of the president — in this case, Trump — typically loses seats in what pollsters describe as a political readjustment by an electorate that tends to punish the status quo. 'The big question I have is, 'Would you as a Republican thinking about this office want to choose 2026 as the time you want to make that run?'' said Christopher Borick, a pollster and director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion. 'You're thinking, 'Well I want to be governor,' but you're thinking, 'I have to first take on a well-funded incumbent who's never lost a race in the state, and I have to do it in a period where my party is facing headwinds.'' The four Republican congressmen in Pennsylvania being targeted by Democrats are Rob Bresnahan, Brian Fitzpatrick, Ryan Mackenzie and Scott Perry. Fitzpatrick and Perry are survivors of repeated challenges. Bresnahan and Mackenzie are freshmen. Fitzpatrick is one of just three House Republicans nationally to represent a district won by Democrat Kamala Harris in last year's presidential election. He won by 13 percentage points. But Perry, Bresnahan and Mackenzie each won by 1.6 percentage points or less, putting their victories among the narrowest of 2024. Those victories came without political headwinds on a GOP ticket led by Trump, who carried battleground Pennsylvania by nearly 2 percentage points. Plus, Republicans lost a slew of seats in Pennsylvania the last two times an incumbent Democratic governor ran for reelection in midterms with a Republican president. There's also this to consider: Shapiro won all four districts when he won his 2022 contest by almost 15 percentage points. Republicans would rather forget that election, when the party nominated a relative political novice who ran an insular, ham-handed campaign — and got blown out. It's going to be 'super-important' for Republicans' down-ballot races to have a strong top-of-the-ticket candidate, said Bob Salera, a Republican campaign strategist who has worked on campaigns for governor in Pennsylvania. But, Republicans acknowledge, Shapiro enters the race from a position of strength. 'He's turning into a national figure, so he'll have all the money possible at his disposal to win in 2026,' Salera said. 'He's a formidable candidate, for certain, and it'll take a formidable Republican to beat him.' Defeating Shapiro is obviously the GOP's preference. But a competitive race could at least protect other Republicans and damage Shapiro's popularity in Pennsylvania enough to pay dividends in the next presidential contest. 'Josh Shapiro is a fairly strong candidate,' said Bill Bretz, the GOP chair of heavily Republican Westmoreland County. 'He's someone we need to identify the chink in the armor here and need to set back his candidacy for governor so that we can set him back in 2028.' In any case, it's a little early for that conversation, Bretz said. No Republican has declared a candidacy for the GOP nomination, and, for now, only two say they're considering it. One is U.S. Rep. Dan Meuser, who hails from a Trump-friendly congressional district in northeastern Pennsylvania. At Trump's rally at a U.S. Steel plant earlier this month, Trump singled out Meuser in the crowd and said nice things about him. 'He's been a great congressman, and if you run, you have my support totally, and you'll win,' Trump said. Meuser said he'll decide by July 1. The other is state Treasurer Stacy Garrity, a two-time statewide winner who has campaigned for other Republicans all over Pennsylvania but has raised only a fraction of the money Shapiro did while winning two low-profile races. All told, Democrats have put a target on 35 Republican-held House districts, needing to flip just three to transform a 220-215 majority into a minority. All four of the targeted Republicans in Pennsylvania voted last month for Trump's big tax cut and spending bill, helping it pass by one vote — a vote that Democrats say will cost them. For his part, Shapiro smashed Pennsylvania's campaign spending record in 2022, and he's running for reelection in a state that's friendly to incumbent governors. Shapiro's most recent public approval ratings resemble those of a candidate who'll cruise to reelection, said Berwood Yost, a pollster and director of the Center for Opinion Research at Franklin and Marshall College. Shapiro unified the party and its allies behind his candidacy in 2022, after winning two statewide elections for attorney general. Shapiro has ably managed the levers of state government and avoided any major scandal. He has raised his profile nationally, including making Harris' shortlist of vice presidential running mates, and kept his grip on party unity. For a candidate to run against Shapiro, there aren't many incentives, Yost said. Timing can be everything in a successful — or unsuccessful — political career, he said. 'You never know what's going to happen, but you're signing up for something you know will be incredibly challenging,' Yost said. 'You have to wonder, if you're an ambitious politician, timing is important. 'Maybe you wait this one out. There's always another statewide race.' ___ Follow Marc Levy on X at:
Washington Post
24 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Tulsi Gabbard gave a nuclear-hot take. Good effort — but I have notes.
Like a lot of government officials these days, Tulsi Gabbard is spending at least as much time being a public commentator as carrying out her traditional duties as director of national intelligence. During President Donald Trump's second term, we have gotten used to seeing Cabinet members who appear on Fox News more often than some people who have contracts there, or who post videos of themselves playing action heroes.
