ICE protests in LA are forcing a tough choice on Democrats
Until a few days ago, most Americans probably had never heard the name Alex Padilla. The 52-year-old Democrat, who serves as California's senior U.S. senator, is about as mild-mannered and low-key as politicians come. But then federal agents decided to drag him from a news conference in Los Angeles, shoving him to the ground and handcuffing him, all for having the temerity to ask a question of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
"If this is how the Department of Homeland Security responds to a senator with a question,' an emotional Padilla told reporters on Thursday in a clip that has since gone viral, "you can only imagine what they're doing to farmworkers, to cooks, to day laborers out in the Los Angeles community and throughout California and throughout the country.'
Now Padilla, whose parents came to the U.S. as undocumented immigrants from Mexico, is being lauded as a hero. And the policy views he has long held about creating more protections and pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants are now being heard by more Americans.
It's just one more way that U.S. President Donald Trump's contentious decision to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, has pushed the state's brand of unapologetically progressive, resistance-style politics back to the forefront of the Democratic Party. So much for focusing on the price of eggs.
Several Democrats now sound like Padilla, who has spent a career advocating for protections for long-term undocumented residents. At a congressional hearing on Thursday, for instance, Illinois' JB Pritzker admonished Republicans that "it's wrong to tear children away from their homes and their mothers and fathers who have spent decades living and working in our communities.'
In the short term, this has mostly been popular with the Democratic base, as evidenced by the swell of grassroots energy as Americans have taken to the streets in many cities this week to protest immigration raids in solidarity with the people of Los Angeles. Many more are likely to come out on Saturday for the "No Kings' protests during the Army's 250th anniversary parade in Washington, which Trump is rebranding as his own to celebrate his birthday.
In the long term, though, putting Californians in charge of messaging could cause some headaches.
As the rightward shift among voters in the last election made abundantly clear, the state's politics don't always translate to other parts of America. Therefore, for months, many Democrats have been trying to distance themselves from anything that smacks of "progressive,' figuring such politics were the undoing of Californian and former Vice President Kamala Harris. Even Newsom, widely expected to run for president in 2028, has previously called his party "toxic.'
Trump is clearly betting he is on the right side of public opinion — and he might be correct. Polls consistently show that voters tend to give Republicans higher marks than Democrats on immigration policy and border security.
But as masked federal agents have gone about carrying out Trump's mass deportation plan, indiscriminately raiding farms, car washes and Home Depot parking lots, smashing car windows and breaking up families live on TikTok, polls have started to show some cracks in public opinion.
A recent poll from YouGov found that half of Americans disapprove of the president's handling of deportations, while 39% approve and another 11% are unsure. Another poll from CBS News found that most Americans believe the administration is prioritizing "dangerous criminals.' But of those who realize that's not true, 58% disapprove of Trump's deportation program.
This could provide an opening for Democrats who — like Padilla and Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass — keep telling the stories of law-abiding undocumented immigrants — from men deported from jobs they've had for decades at car washes to a weeping 12-year-old boy whose parents were deported while working at a farm.
"He has no brothers, no sisters, no family,' the governor said, his voice cracking. "He literally is on his own.'
One thing is for sure: California Democrats are now unified in forcefully opposing Trump and in standing up for progressive values and are unlikely to back off or change course, even if some in the national party would prefer to change the subject. Quite simply, immigration is an unavoidable topic in a state with millions of residents who are undocumented and living in mixed-status households.
"You had Democrats kind of going at each other about the budget, about wildfire relief, about homelessness funding and things like that,' said Raphael Sonenshein, a longtime political analyst in California and executive director of the Haynes Foundation in Los Angeles. "And this just overshadows it.'
Newsom has hopped off the fence that he has been straddling ever since January, when fires leveled parts of Los Angeles and he suddenly found California was in need of billions of dollars in federal disaster aid (which Republicans still haven't agreed to).
In a speech on Tuesday, he warned of authoritarianism. "Trump's government isn't protecting our communities. They are traumatizing our communities. And that seems to be the entire point.'
In many ways, this moment is what Democrats at all levels of California's government have long been girding for. As Rep. Jimmy Gomez of Los Angeles told MSNBC: "This is something that President Trump and his adviser, Stephen Miller, always had in mind — this confrontation between California and their federal government.' Representative Maxine Waters, also of Los Angeles, was more blunt: "He's trying to make an example out of us.'
Meanwhile, Los Angeles is a tinderbox of uncertainty. The question of whether Trump has the legal right to keep the National Guard in Los Angeles, much less send in the Marines for a total fighting force that would outnumber those stationed in Iraq and Syria, won't be answered until at least next week. That's when a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will consider a lower court order it paused late Thursday that would've returned control of the troops to Newsom.
"In the end, California is going to rally around itself,' a member of the state assembly, Isaac Bryan, told me recently. We'll see how long the Democratic Party rallies around California.
Erika D. Smith is a politics and policy columnist for Bloomberg Opinion.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NHK
3 hours ago
- NHK
Australian PM Albanese: AUKUS serves US interests
As the US rethinks its role in the AUKUS security pact, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says he'll ask Donald Trump to stay committed to the framework. Albanese says it serves American interests. Albanese said AUKUS, which calls for Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States to expand their fleets of nuclear-powered submarines "is something that will make the Indo-Pacific area more secure. That is in the interests of the United States." Albanese will hold his first in-person meeting with the US president Tuesday on the sidelines of the Group of Seven summit in Canada. At a news conference Sunday, Albanese touted the benefits America reaps from the pact, pointing to submarines Canberra will buy from Washington and access to Australian shipyards that will extend US subs' reach. AUKUS was signed in 2021 by Australia, the UK and the US during the Biden administration. Under the pact, Australia will acquire nuclear-powered attack subs from America in the 2030s.
Japan Times
6 hours ago
- Japan Times
Nippon Steel may have gotten the deal it wanted all along
Nippon Steel has committed to spending more than $25 billion to buy United States Steel and make further investments into the storied American company, and even after all that — after buying 100% of the equity — it won't fully control the steelmaker. In the transaction, the United States government will receive a golden share in the U.S. steelmaker, which will give it veto power over a number of activities and a degree of control over its board of directors. The incredibly restrictive conditions, which are permanent, might have been accepted because they align with what the Japanese steelmaker was planning on doing all along; the conditions might not restrain the future parent at all. Nippon Steel always said it would make a big investment into the company — about equal in size to the purchase price — as well as maintain domestic U.S. production capacity, keep the company's headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and have a board in which the majority of the directors are American citizens. That's about what the U.S. government will be requiring it to do. Questions have also been raised about whether the national security requirements would pass legal muster if the U.S. government were to try to enforce the restrictions. Takahide Kiuchi, executive economist at Nomura Research Institute, wrote in a report Monday that even though the golden share fix may constrain the post-acquisition management of U.S. Steel, much of it could be interpreted as symbolic. 'It is possible that Nippon Steel accepted them in the belief that these measures are largely symbolic, aimed at reassuring the American public and others who are wary of a foreign acquisition of U.S. Steel, and that their actual enforceability is limited,' Kiuchi wrote. On Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump officially rolled back a January order issued by his predecessor that scotched the $14.9 billion deal on national security grounds. Trump is allowing the transaction to go ahead on the condition that a national security agreement is signed between the bidder and the U.S. government. An executive order issued Friday by Trump maintained that the transaction could jeopardize U.S. national security, but added that these concerns could be successfully mitigated with a national security agreement. The order provides few details on the terms of the agreement, but in a statement issued on Friday, the two companies said the national security agreement outlines approximately $11 billion in new investments by 2028, governance-related commitments that include a golden share to be issued to the U.S. government and commitments related to domestic production and trade matters. The acquisition is being referred to as a "partnership" by the U.S. government and the companies themselves. 'With those approvals, all necessary regulatory approvals for the partnership have now been received, and the partnership is expected to be finalized promptly,' the companies said in the statement. A rally by U.S. President Donald Trump in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania, on May 30. A golden share will give the U.S. government veto power over some corporate decisions at U.S. Steel after its acquisition by Nippon Steel. | Reuters U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, in a Sunday post on social media platform X, offered details about the terms of the golden share fix. The special share, which Lutnick says will not sunset, will forbid certain corporate decisions without the president's approval, including relocating the company's headquarters from Pittsburgh, changing the company's name, transferring jobs or production outside the U.S., closing or idling plants barring safety concerns or upgrades, or reducing or delaying the investments that Nippon Steel had pledged. 'The golden share held by the United States in U.S. Steel has powerful terms that directly benefit and protect America, Pennsylvania, the great steelworkers of U.S. Steel and U.S. manufacturers that will have massively expanded access to domestically produced steel,' he wrote. Unconfirmed reports have said the special share might give the president more authority than originally expected. The president will have the power to directly appoint one of the three independent directors on U.S. Steel's board, The New York Times reported on Sunday without naming the sources. Trump publicly opposed the transaction during his presidential campaign, but later said he would support Nippon Steel's 'investment' in U.S. Steel instead of a takeover, and that U.S. Steel will 'remain U.S. controlled' after the transaction is completed. For Nippon Steel — a company that sees market expansion in the Americas and Southeast Asia as key to its growth — acquiring U.S. Steel in its entirety has been a non-negotiable objective since Day 1. Neither Lutnick nor Trump's presidential order outlined U.S. Steel's precise ownership structure after the transaction, but Japan's Nikkei and other news outlets reported that Nippon Steel will acquire 100% of U.S. Steel's regular shares, which falls in line with Nippon Steel's objective. 'There's no such thing as free technology. We're offering up all our advanced steel manufacturing know-how, so we can't make an investment without expecting a return,' Nippon Steel Vice Chairman and Executive Vice President Takahiro Mori was quoted as saying by Nikkei. Friday's announcement was made ahead of Trump's meeting with Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba during the annual Group of Seven gathering in western Canada beginning Monday, during which a preliminary trade deal could be signed. Ishiba on Sunday called the approval of the U.S. Steel acquisition 'a symbolic case' of strengthened U.S.-Japan partnership. A day earlier, trade minister Yoji Muto said in a written statement the Japanese government welcomes Trump's decision, as it views the investment as a way to strengthen the innovation capabilities of the steel industries in both countries and deepen their partnership.
Japan Times
7 hours ago
- Japan Times
ICE protests in LA are forcing a tough choice on Democrats
Until a few days ago, most Americans probably had never heard the name Alex Padilla. The 52-year-old Democrat, who serves as California's senior U.S. senator, is about as mild-mannered and low-key as politicians come. But then federal agents decided to drag him from a news conference in Los Angeles, shoving him to the ground and handcuffing him, all for having the temerity to ask a question of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. "If this is how the Department of Homeland Security responds to a senator with a question,' an emotional Padilla told reporters on Thursday in a clip that has since gone viral, "you can only imagine what they're doing to farmworkers, to cooks, to day laborers out in the Los Angeles community and throughout California and throughout the country.' Now Padilla, whose parents came to the U.S. as undocumented immigrants from Mexico, is being lauded as a hero. And the policy views he has long held about creating more protections and pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants are now being heard by more Americans. It's just one more way that U.S. President Donald Trump's contentious decision to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, has pushed the state's brand of unapologetically progressive, resistance-style politics back to the forefront of the Democratic Party. So much for focusing on the price of eggs. Several Democrats now sound like Padilla, who has spent a career advocating for protections for long-term undocumented residents. At a congressional hearing on Thursday, for instance, Illinois' JB Pritzker admonished Republicans that "it's wrong to tear children away from their homes and their mothers and fathers who have spent decades living and working in our communities.' In the short term, this has mostly been popular with the Democratic base, as evidenced by the swell of grassroots energy as Americans have taken to the streets in many cities this week to protest immigration raids in solidarity with the people of Los Angeles. Many more are likely to come out on Saturday for the "No Kings' protests during the Army's 250th anniversary parade in Washington, which Trump is rebranding as his own to celebrate his birthday. In the long term, though, putting Californians in charge of messaging could cause some headaches. As the rightward shift among voters in the last election made abundantly clear, the state's politics don't always translate to other parts of America. Therefore, for months, many Democrats have been trying to distance themselves from anything that smacks of "progressive,' figuring such politics were the undoing of Californian and former Vice President Kamala Harris. Even Newsom, widely expected to run for president in 2028, has previously called his party "toxic.' Trump is clearly betting he is on the right side of public opinion — and he might be correct. Polls consistently show that voters tend to give Republicans higher marks than Democrats on immigration policy and border security. But as masked federal agents have gone about carrying out Trump's mass deportation plan, indiscriminately raiding farms, car washes and Home Depot parking lots, smashing car windows and breaking up families live on TikTok, polls have started to show some cracks in public opinion. A recent poll from YouGov found that half of Americans disapprove of the president's handling of deportations, while 39% approve and another 11% are unsure. Another poll from CBS News found that most Americans believe the administration is prioritizing "dangerous criminals.' But of those who realize that's not true, 58% disapprove of Trump's deportation program. This could provide an opening for Democrats who — like Padilla and Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass — keep telling the stories of law-abiding undocumented immigrants — from men deported from jobs they've had for decades at car washes to a weeping 12-year-old boy whose parents were deported while working at a farm. "He has no brothers, no sisters, no family,' the governor said, his voice cracking. "He literally is on his own.' One thing is for sure: California Democrats are now unified in forcefully opposing Trump and in standing up for progressive values and are unlikely to back off or change course, even if some in the national party would prefer to change the subject. Quite simply, immigration is an unavoidable topic in a state with millions of residents who are undocumented and living in mixed-status households. "You had Democrats kind of going at each other about the budget, about wildfire relief, about homelessness funding and things like that,' said Raphael Sonenshein, a longtime political analyst in California and executive director of the Haynes Foundation in Los Angeles. "And this just overshadows it.' Newsom has hopped off the fence that he has been straddling ever since January, when fires leveled parts of Los Angeles and he suddenly found California was in need of billions of dollars in federal disaster aid (which Republicans still haven't agreed to). In a speech on Tuesday, he warned of authoritarianism. "Trump's government isn't protecting our communities. They are traumatizing our communities. And that seems to be the entire point.' In many ways, this moment is what Democrats at all levels of California's government have long been girding for. As Rep. Jimmy Gomez of Los Angeles told MSNBC: "This is something that President Trump and his adviser, Stephen Miller, always had in mind — this confrontation between California and their federal government.' Representative Maxine Waters, also of Los Angeles, was more blunt: "He's trying to make an example out of us.' Meanwhile, Los Angeles is a tinderbox of uncertainty. The question of whether Trump has the legal right to keep the National Guard in Los Angeles, much less send in the Marines for a total fighting force that would outnumber those stationed in Iraq and Syria, won't be answered until at least next week. That's when a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will consider a lower court order it paused late Thursday that would've returned control of the troops to Newsom. "In the end, California is going to rally around itself,' a member of the state assembly, Isaac Bryan, told me recently. We'll see how long the Democratic Party rallies around California. Erika D. Smith is a politics and policy columnist for Bloomberg Opinion.
