Gavin Newsom Seeks ‘Sanctuary' From Stephen Miller's ‘Stupidity'
Gavin Newsom's office has lashed out at the 'stupidity' of Stephen Miller after he misrepresented how the state's sanctuary policies work.
The White House deputy chief of staff posted on X during the Los Angeles protests against federal immigration raids that California's Sanctuary State law means that 'every criminal alien arrested' by local police is 'set free back into the community instead of being handed over to ICE.'
The California governor's team fired back, writing: 'Yes, we seek sanctuary from your stupidity.' The post included a 2020 Washington Post review of the book Hatemonger: Stephen Miller, Donald Trump, and the White Nationalist Agenda.
Twisting the knife, Newsom's office also referred to Miller as 'Voldemort'—the villain from the Harry Potter franchise, a nickname critics use for the Trump ally—while citing data showing California's prison system has coordinated with ICE to transfer 10,588 inmates into federal custody since Newsom took office in 2019.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Beast.
Miller, seen as the mastermind behind many of Trump's hardline immigration policies, also launched a bizarre attack on Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass after she said the unrest in the city only began after the 'intervention of the federal government.'
Sharing a clip of Bass' remarks on X, Miller accused her of issuing a 'threat' that the 'mob violence' would only stop once federal law enforcement was withdrawn from the city.
'This is the definition of insurrection,' Miller wrote, giving a rather creative interpretation of both the term and Bass' comments.
In a further comment not seemingly based in reality, Miller added that Los Angeles and California are 'demanding the nullification of the election results, of federal law, of national sovereignty.'
Trump has also inflamed tension surrounding the L.A. protests by feuding with Newsom.
On Monday, the president went so far to say it would be a 'great thing' if his border czar, Tom Homan, arrested Newsom if found to have obstructed law enforcement—something Homan admitted the governor has not done.
In response, Newsom said Trump's remarks were 'an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
32 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
The gift Trump never meant to give: the spotlight to Democratic adversary Gavin Newsom
SACRAMENTO — President Trump craves attention and will stoop to any depth to grab it — even pour gasoline on a kindling fire in Los Angeles. But this time he unwittingly provided priceless attention for an adversary. Because Trump needlessly deployed National Guard troops and — more ridiculous, a Marine battalion to L.A. — California Gov. Gavin Newsom was granted a prime-time speaking slot on national cable television to respond. 'We honor their service. We honor their bravery,' Newsom said of the troops. 'But we do not want our streets militarized by our own armed forces. Not in L.A. Not in California. Not anywhere … . 'California may be first — but it clearly won't end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault right before our eyes. The moment we've feared has arrived.' I'm not sure the 'democracy is under assault' message has much traction, but keeping armed combat forces off our streets must be a salable pitch. Regardless, governors almost never get national TV time to deliver entire speeches, even as brief as Newsom's. You've practically got to be nominated for president. But the publicity-thirsty sitting president provided the cameras for California's governor. Newsom's strong address probably boosted his stock within the Democrat Party and revived dormant speculation about a 2028 presidential bid. No longer was the Democratic governor playing respectful nice guy and tempering criticism of the Republican president. Now he was standing up to the bully who loves to use California, Newsom and our progressive politics as a punching bag. Trump's red-state supporters love every swipe at this 'left coast' state. Newsom rose to the occasion, using his greatest asset: invaluable communication skills coupled with telegenic looks. He laid out his version of what happened to turn relatively peaceful protests against federal immigration raids into destructive street violence. And it's the correct version by objective accounts. On Saturday, Newsom said, federal immigration agents 'jumped out of an unmarked van' near a Home Depot parking lot and 'began grabbing people. A deliberate targeting of a heavily Latino suburb … . In response, everyday Angelenos' exercised their constitutional right to protest. Police were dispatched to keep the peace and mostly were successful, the governor continued. But then tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades were used — by federal agents, Newsom implied. Then Trump deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops 'illegally and for no reason,' the governor asserted. 'This brazen abuse of power by a sitting president inflamed a combustible situation … . Anxiety for families and friends ramped up. Protests started again … . Several dozen lawbreakers became violent and destructive.' Newsom warned: 'That kind of criminal behavior will not be tolerated. Full stop.' And hundreds have been arrested. But he emphasized: 'This situation was winding down and was concentrated in just a few square blocks downtown. But that's not what Donald Trump wanted … . He chose theatrics over public safety.' In Trump's twisted view, if he hadn't sent in the National Guard, 'Los Angeles would be completely obliterated.' Never mind that the violence was confined to a few downtown blocks, a fraction of a city that spreads over 500 square miles. 'We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free and clean again,' the president promised. Veteran Republican strategist Mike Murphy had it right, telling CNN: 'He's lighting the fire as an arsonist, then claiming to be the fireman.' It reminded me of President Lyndon B. Johnson's manufactured Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964 that Congress passed, enabling him to vastly escalate U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Johnson reported a North Vietnamese attack on U.S. destroyers that many experts later concluded never happened. But I think Trump mainly is obsessed with attracting attention. He knows he'll get it by being provocative. Never mind the accuracy of his words or the wisdom of his actions. Sending in the Marines certainly was an eye-opener. So is staging a military parade on his birthday — an abuse of troops for attention, personal glorification and exercise of his own power. He'll say anything provocative without thinking it through: Tariffs one day, suspended the next. He'll boast of sending San Joaquin Valley water to L.A. for fighting fires when it's physically impossible to deliver it. While Trump was playing politics with immigrants and L.A. turmoil, a poll finding was released that should have pleased him. Californians no longer support providing public healthcare for immigrants living here illegally, the independent Public Policy Institute of California reported. Adult state residents were opposed by 58% to 41% in a survey taken before the L.A. trouble erupted. By contrast, a PPIC poll in 2021 found that Californians favored providing state healthcare for undocumented immigrants by 66% to 31%. Polling director Mark Baldassare concluded the public opposition stems mostly from the view that California taxpayers can't afford the costly program — not that they agree with Trump's anti-immigrant demagoguery. In fact, Newson has proposed paring back the state's multibillion-dollar program of providing Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented immigrants because the state budget has been spewing red ink. Given all the rhetoric about the L.A. protests, the statement that particularly impressed me came from freshman Assemblyman Mark Gonzalez (D-Los Angeles), whose downtown district stretches from Koreatown to Chinatown. 'Rocks thrown at officers, CHP cars and Waymo vehicles set on fire, arson on the 101 freeway — have nothing to do with immigration, justice or the values of our communities,' he said in a statement Sunday. 'These are not protesters — they were agitators. Their actions are reckless, dangerous and playing into exactly what Trump wants.' Gonzalez is a liberal former chairman of the L.A. County Democratic Party who stuck to his point: Hoodlums can't be tolerated. And, thanks to Trump, Newsom was able to make a similar point about the president on national TV: His dangerous, self-serving actions can't be tolerated either.
New York Post
37 minutes ago
- New York Post
Federal judge questions constitutionality of Trump sending National Guard to LA riots: ‘President is, of course, limited'
WASHINGTON — A federal judge expressed skepticism Thursday about the constitutionality of President Trump's order to deploy thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell anti-ICE riots. Senior San Francisco US District Judge Charles Breyer heard arguments from attorneys for Trump's Justice Department and California Gov. Gavin Newsom after the Democrat had sued the feds over dispatching roughly 4,000 Guard members to protect officers carrying out immigration enforcement operations. 'We're talking about the president exercising his authority, and the president is, of course, limited,' Breyer, the younger brother of liberal former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, said at one point in the hearing. Advertisement 3 AP 'That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George.' Brett Shumate, the head of the DOJ's Civil Division, disputed Breyer's characterization of the president's order throughout the hour-long hearing, arguing that the commander-in-chief had 'delegated' the federalizing of the Guard through California's adjutant general, as legally required. Advertisement Shumate also claimed that Newsom was merely a 'conduit' for that order as it passed through the chain of command from Trump to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to the state Guard. 'There's no consultation requirement, pre-approval requirement,' he argued. 'There's one commander-in-chief of the armed forces.' The California attorney general's office countered that allowing Trump's action to stand implied there would be 'no guardrails' for further abuse by the executive branch. 3 Clashes have erupted in LA over the last several days sparked by ICE raids. Barbara Davidson/NYPost Advertisement 3 A demonstrator points his finger towards members of the California National Guard during a protest against federal immigration sweeps in downtown Los Angeles. REUTERS 'The president, by fiat, can federalize the National Guard and deploy it,' an attorney for Newsom said, 'whenever there is disobedience to an order.' While Breyer took issue with the deployment of the National Guard, he appeared more inclined to let stand Trump's order sending around 700 US Marines to the Golden State to assist with the federal immigration crackdown. 'I don't understand how I'm supposed to do anything with the Marines, to tell you the truth,' the judge responded, quibbling with Newsom's legal team over whether their involvement violated the Posse Comitatus Act. Advertisement Breyer did not immediately issue a ruling, but said he hoped to put one out 'very soon.' This is a developing story. Please check back for more information.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Analysis: Padilla was pushed to the ground and handcuffed. It highlights a growing trend in the Trump administration
When the Trump Justice Department took the extraordinary step of arresting a local judge seven weeks ago, plenty feared what it could portend. Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan's case will play out in the weeks and months to come – she's pleaded not guilty to obstructing the arrest of an undocumented immigrant – but arresting judges and public officials isn't something to undertake lightly. Critics warned of the chilling effect it could lead to and the precedent it would set. Virtually nothing in the past seven weeks will have tempered those fears. The fervor to arrest public officials who run afoul of the Trump administration doesn't appear to be going away. Since Dugan's arrest: The Justice Department has criminally charged a big-city mayor and a Democratic congresswoman. A Republican congressman floated arresting 100 more judges who ruled against President Donald Trump. Trump earlier this week floated arresting Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom. And on Thursday alone, a Republican congressman advocated criminally charging three Democratic governors, while Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla of California was handcuffed after interrupting a press conference from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Some in the MAGA movement are now pushing for Padilla to be charged, though there's no indication he will be. Almost all of these situations involved officials on the opposite political side of Trump's aggressive immigration crackdown. As with Dugan, it's important to account for the nuances of these situations. There's much we have to learn about Padilla being handcuffed, for instance. His office said he was just trying to ask Noem a question, while DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin claimed that he 'lunged toward Secretary Noem.' (There is video – from multiple sources and angles – for people to draw their own conclusions.) It's also not clear that those who handcuffed him knew who he was. Padilla did announce himself at one point as a US senator. McLaughlin said Padilla wasn't wearing his Senate security pin and that the Secret Service 'thought he was an attacker.' Noem said, 'Nobody knew who he was.' Padilla told reporters after the incident that he was not arrested. But other instances of apprehension – or threats of it – more clearly point to zealous attempts to go after the other side criminally. And the totality of them certainly paints a picture. GOP Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana was talking about arresting 1 out of every 18 federal judges in the United States, for instance – apparently for the crime of ruling against Trump. (Republicans have claimed these judges are engaged in a 'judicial coup' against the president.) Rep. Gary Palmer of Alabama on Thursday floated arresting Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul for alleged obstruction of justice over sanctuary policies in their states. He did so even though the courts have generally upheld such policies. 'And charges … for obstruction should be brought against each one of you for doing this,' Palmer said. 'I'll leave that up to the Department of Justice.' (Palmer struck his own comments from the record after Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York argued he was intimidating the witnesses.) Trump's justification for floating Newsom's arrest was even less robust, saying that 'his primary crime is running for governor, because he's done such a bad job.' And in at least one case, the Justice Department has already reversed course. After charging Democratic Newark Mayor Ras Baraka for his actions at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility last month, it withdrew the charges. That was followed by a rebuke from a judge that's pretty notable for this moment in time. The magistrate judge told interim US Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba that it was 'a worrisome misstep by your office' and suggested it involved 'political agendas.' 'An arrest, particularly of a public figure, is not a preliminary investigative tool,' the judge said, calling it 'a severe action, carrying significant reputational and personal consequences.' Such concerns don't appear to be carrying the day in the Trump administration or the MAGA movement. The arrest of the judge in Milwaukee has only preceded more arrests – including of Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver of New Jersey, who was indicted for the same scenes Baraka was involved in. The indictment alleges she impeded and interfered with immigration officers outside the detention center. Some legal analysts have questioned the strength of that case, while McIver has disputed the allegations as baseless and defended her presence at the facility as part of her authorized role as a member of Congress. Her lawyer has referred to the prosecution as 'political retaliation against a dedicated public servant.' It's at this point that many Trump supporters will say: Well, Democrats started it. It's true that Trump was indicted no fewer than four times in recent years. But the only criminal case to actually reach a conclusion resulted in a conviction. And the substance of his federal indictments were things even many Republicans had criticized Trump for. A historic number of GOP senators voted to convict Trump in connection with the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, and Trump's own former attorney general, William Barr, repeatedly said that Trump's classified documents indictment was 'entirely of his own making.' In other words, these were serious cases involving weighty issues of trying to overturn a democratic election and protecting national secrets. What we're seeing today is a much more cavalier application of the concept of criminally charging public officials. And the fact that examples keep coming in quick succession suggests we've reached something of a turning point. And that's regardless of the propriety of what happened with Padilla.
