logo
‘It's a winner for him': Dems work to turn LA debate from immigration to Trump's executive powers

‘It's a winner for him': Dems work to turn LA debate from immigration to Trump's executive powers

Politico12-06-2025
SAN FRANCISCO — Gavin Newsom has rallied Democrats in his war with Donald Trump, casting it as a fight for the future of American democracy. But maybe not for long.
As the left watches the clashes in Los Angeles drag on — with images of burning vehicles and protesters brawling with law enforcement proliferating — Democrats are also beginning to fear the imagery could hurt them by highlighting Trump's hardline positions on immigration that helped propel him to the White House.
'It's a winner for him. Remember, for (Trump), it's not California, it's not Massachusetts, it's not New York — it's that slim margin in the battleground states that he's playing for,' said Kevin de León, the former Democratic leader of the California state Senate. 'He's not going to pull back.'
For Democrats, it's a concern rooted in Trump's historic strength on immigration with voters not in Los Angeles, but watching on social media and TV in swing states and districts across the country.
'There's a background and a history, and so that limits the sympathy of lots of fair-minded Americans watching this spectacle unfold,' said Will Marshall, founder of Progressive Policy Institute, a center-left think tank.
In response, Democrats are scrambling to shift the debate away from deportations or immigration policy. Instead, they're trying to make it about Trump's use of executive power — and what they argue is the president's sweeping and unconstitutional overreach. Framing the conflict as an existential fight for the balance of power in America, Newsom in a speech Tuesday night delivered an ominous warning, claiming Trump is marching toward authoritarianism. He also mocked the president's plans to hold a military parade with thousands of soldiers Saturday on the streets of Washington, D.C. — saying Trump is forcing the military 'to put on a vulgar display for his birthday, just as other failed dictators have done.'
'Democracy is under assault right before our eyes,' Newsom said. 'The moment we've feared has arrived.'
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat who previously served in Congress, has similarly accused Trump of provoking violence by calling in the military. But Bass, too, was explicit in her concerns about the image her city was projecting. She has repeatedly urged residents to peacefully protest to avoid giving the Trump 'administration what they want' — arguing the president is sowing chaos to justify his power grab.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson accused Newsom of trying to distract from upheaval on the streets of Los Angeles. 'Gavin Newsom is desperately trying to turn the conversation away from the wall-to-wall coverage of how he enabled lawless, violent riots against American law enforcement in support of criminal illegal aliens,' she said in an email.
Democrats have some reason for optimism. A Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday found Trump's approval rating on immigration dropping 5 percentage points from April, to 43 percent. And YouGov polling this week found a plurality of Americans — 45 percent — disapproved of deploying the National Guard to the Los Angeles area, while 38 percent approved.
Democrats are pushing to keep the focus on the president's use of executive powers, with Newsom and state officials suing to stop Trump's unilateral deployment of Marines and commandeering of the state's National Guard troops. A U.S. District court hearing in San Francisco is scheduled for Thursday afternoon.
De León, the former state Senate leader, said the optics of Marines — wearing fatigues and trained for lethal combat — rolling into America's second largest city has given Democrats an opening to force a broader debate over presidential powers.
'It shocks your senses — this act should send shivers down every American citizen's spine, regardless of their political persuasion,' said De León, a former Los Angeles city councilmember who also authored California's sanctuary law that limits police cooperation with immigration agents. 'It's so un-American. These are things that you think about in some Eastern European country during the Cold War, or in the Soviet Union.'
Newsom has also highlighted the lack of logistical preparation for the deployments, including reports that Guard troops arrived without sleeping arrangements or funding for fuel, water and food. He and Bass both assailed Trump over the Pentagon's estimate that the deployments will cost $134 million, which they have called unnecessary and wasteful.
But as much as Democrats have forced Trump to play defense in the courts, the severity of civil unrest in Los Angeles, including burning cars and vandalism in pockets of downtown, have given many in the party heartburn.
'Gavin Newsom, take control of the situation,' former Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, a Democrat, told POLITICO. 'The more the national brand is aligned with this level of instability, and defending people that are beating up cops, that national storyline, that national brand is not going to be good for candidates.'
In a post on Truth Social on Wednesday, Trump said, 'If our troops didn't go into Los Angeles, it would be burning to the ground right now.'
Some Democrats insist they aren't thinking about the political calculation. Rep. Lou Correa, who represents nearby Orange County, flew home from Congress Monday night to deal with the havoc that immigration actions have wreaked in Santa Ana, a heavily Latino suburb that has been hit with ICE sweeps, including raids targeting day laborers at Home Depots.
'I don't know what the message is of the Democratic Party, but I can tell you as a member of Congress, that my message is, essentially, these are hardworking individuals,' Correa said. 'I mean, this is terror in our communities.'
Protests over escalating ICE sweeps are now spreading to other blue cities — including Austin, New York, Boston, Chicago and Portland.
In the Pacific Northwest, Portland Mayor Keith Wilson said his city is hoping to avoid the spectacle of Los Angeles by preparing its police force to tamp down unruly protesters. He said the city learned that lesson after it became a Republican target over its handling of 2020 racial justice protests, when Trump sent in Department of Homeland Security agents.
'The federal government coming here [in 2020 was] because we weren't properly handling the force,' Wilson said. 'But we've changed so much.'
When similar protests transpired in Seattle that year, then-Gov. Jay Inslee activated the Washington National Guard. Now, the city is preparing for the possibility that troops could be sent without the invite of newly-elected Gov. Bob Ferguson, another Democrat. House Armed Services Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-Wash.), whose district includes part of Seattle, cast a stark contrast between the 2020 protests in the Northwest and the current protests in Los Angeles or Seattle.
'Things were out of control in Seattle in 2020, there is no arguing that,' Smith said. 'This is an entirely different thing. This is the president superseding local and state authority to bring the military in where they are not needed.'
California Democrats argue Trump's deployment of the military wasn't triggered by an ineffective law enforcement response in the Los Angeles area, but by a desire to expand his presidential powers — a threat that many Democrats, including presidential nominee Kamala Harris, warned about during the 2024 election.
'It's as plain as day right now, and it's scary,' said Brian Brokaw, a veteran Democratic consultant and Newsom adviser. 'Now, what we are seeing is the practical manifestation.'
Brakkton Booker and Liz Crampton contributed to this report.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Censorship for Citizenship
Censorship for Citizenship

Atlantic

time28 minutes ago

  • Atlantic

Censorship for Citizenship

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Not that long ago, believe it or not, Donald Trump ran for president as the candidate who would defend the First Amendment. He warned that a 'sinister group of Deep State bureaucrats, Silicon Valley tyrants, left-wing activists, and depraved corporate news media' was 'conspiring to manipulate and silence the American people,' and promised that 'by restoring free speech, we will begin to reclaim our democracy, and save our nation.' On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order affirming the 'right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech.' If anyone believed him at the time, they should be disabused by now. One of his most brazen attacks on freedom of speech thus far came this past weekend, when the president said that he was thinking about stripping a comedian of her citizenship—for no apparent reason other than that she regularly criticizes him. 'Because of the fact that Rosie O'Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship. She is a Threat to Humanity, and should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her,' he posted on Truth Social. This must have been exhilarating to O'Donnell, who received a brief new grant of relevance and told the Irish broadcaster RTE, 'I am very proud to be opposed to every single thing he says and does and represents.' But once the exhilaration subsides, the fundamental idea is very disturbing: Trump appears to view both free speech and U.S. citizenship as conditional, things he can revoke based on his own whims. Writing off the threat to O'Donnell as just another instance of Trumpian trolling—or an attempt to distract from fatal flooding in Texas, dozens of incomplete trade deals, or intramural MAGA battles over Jeffrey Epstein —is tempting. And the odds that Trump would actually successfully strip O'Donnell of her passport seem slim. But that doesn't mean the threat is irrelevant. What in particular set Trump off here is unclear—he and O'Donnell have been feuding for years—but by all indications, the answer is simply that she has exercised her freedom of speech to jab him. Perhaps this should go without saying, but native-born American citizens like O'Donnell generally cannot be stripped of their citizenship. (Citizens can, however, choose to relinquish their citizenship—something that has become a somewhat popular option for people wishing to avoid U.S. taxes, including former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a New York native.) A president can't just decide that he wants to take it away. In other recent cases where the Trump administration has attempted to suppress speech, officials have at least claimed that they have evidence of criminality (though that's not to say even that was a legitimate standard; such accusations are also dangerous, and judges have dismissed them). With O'Donnell, Trump isn't even pretending she has crossed some sort of criminal line. He's also not (yet) taking action, but Trump often uses initially brash and outlandish threats as a way to acclimate the populace to his overreaching, as I wrote in the January 2024 issue of The Atlantic: 'When a second-term President Trump directs the Justice Department to lock up Democratic politicians or generals or reporters or activists on flimsy or no grounds at all, people will wring their hands, but they'll also shrug and wonder why he didn't do it sooner. After all, he's been promising to do it forever, right?' I wish this argument had aged worse. Trump has begun talking more frequently about revoking citizenship as a means of punishing political speech. He has mused about using the tool against political opponents, including the New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, alleging potential fraud, and his former buddy Elon Musk, who had the temerity to insult him. Both of these men are naturalized, which makes their citizenship marginally easier to remove—though, again, not for simple speech. The administration has also been pursuing denaturalizations of citizens whom it believes it can prove lied on their application, which is an established legal basis for stripping their legal status. Even if Trump doesn't normalize taking away citizenship, he is continuing to entrench the idea that the government—or, really, just the president on his own—can punish citizens who criticize it, or him. That's been one of the most prominent themes of his term so far: He has banished the Associated Press from some White House spaces simply for refusing to adopt his preferred terminology, extorted law firms that employed lawyers involved in the criminal cases against him, and demanded huge payouts from news organizations. He'll continue as long as he's successful. 'If we don't have free speech, then we just don't have a free country,' Trump said in a campaign video posted in 2022. 'It's as simple as that. If this most fundamental right is allowed to perish, then the rest of our rights and liberties will topple just like dominos one by one. They'll go down.' Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Today's News President Donald Trump announced a new weapons-transfer plan for Ukraine and threatened to impose high tariffs on Russia if a peace deal is not reached in 50 days. The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with dismantling the Education Department and firing nearly 1,400 workers. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration for withholding more than $6.8 billion in education funding, which helps pay for free or low-cost after-school programs and assistance for students learning English. Dispatches Evening Read The AI Mirage By Ian Bogost 'I'm not going to respond to that,' Siri responded. I had just cursed at it, and this was my passive-aggressive chastisement. The cursing was, in my view, warranted. I was in my car, running errands, and had found myself in an unfamiliar part of town. I requested 'directions to Lowe's,' hoping to get routed to the big-box hardware store without taking my eyes off the road. But apparently Siri didn't understand. 'Which Lowe?' it asked, before displaying a list of people with the surname Lowe in my address book … The latest version of Siri has 'better conversational context'—the sort of thing that should help the software know when I'm asking to be guided to the home-improvement store rather than to a guy called Lowe. But my iPhone apparently isn't new enough for this update. I would need cutting-edge artificial intelligence to get directions to Lowe's. More From The Atlantic Read. Alert the incels! The rest of us love Pamela Anderson, and we will always love her, Caitlin Flanagan writes. Let go. And let your kid climb that tree, Henry Abbott writes. It could actually make them safer. Play our daily crossword.

Sen. Schumer Channels Marx
Sen. Schumer Channels Marx

Wall Street Journal

time28 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

Sen. Schumer Channels Marx

In 'Chuck Schumer's Mamdani Test' (Review & Outlook, July 10), you ask whether the Senate minority leader will endorse Zohran Mamdani, the socialist who has given the OK to globalize the intifada. By doing so, Mr. Schumer would being turning his back 'on a good portion of his life's work.' Maybe. It seems to me that the senator's main achievement is simply getting re-elected. If bending the knee to Mr. Mamdani is what it takes to secure another term, count on it. Dana R. Hermanson

Trump Backs Bondi, Blames Dems For Epstein List Fiasco
Trump Backs Bondi, Blames Dems For Epstein List Fiasco

Yahoo

time29 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump Backs Bondi, Blames Dems For Epstein List Fiasco

President Donald Trump has sought to calm growing divisions within his political base by defending Attorney General Pam Bondi and dismissing renewed scrutiny over the handling of Jeffrey Epstein-related documents. Trump took to social media over the weekend and posted to support Bondi, writing that Bondi is 'doing a FANTASTIC JOB!' Trump claimed in his post that the Epstein 'client list,' which has recently been claimed nonexistent by the Department of Justice (DOJ), was created by previous Democratic leaders. 'For years, it's Epstein, over and over again. Why are we giving publicity to Files written by Obama, Crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan, and the Losers and Criminals of the Biden Administration…' wrote the President. 'They created the Epstein Files, just like they created the FAKE Hillary Clinton/Christopher Steele Dossier that they used on me, and now my so-called 'friends' are playing right into their hands. Why didn't these Radical Left Lunatics release the Epstein Files? If there was ANYTHING in there that could have hurt the MAGA Movement, why didn't they use it?' Trump also berated a reporter last week when asked about the handling of the Epstein documents, indicating that more important things were to be focused on than Epstein. 'And are people still talking about this guy, this creep?' Trump questioned. 'That is unbelievable.' These statements from the President come shortly after a joint memo from the DOJ and FBI claiming that there is no evidence supporting conspiracy theories about Epstein's death or the existence of a so-called 'client list.' However, the claims made by the FBI and DOJ directly contradict Bondi's previous statement, in which she claimed to have the client list ready for review. 'It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump,' she said in February when asked about the client list. Bondi has since attempted to clarify these comments, claiming that she meant to review more than just Epstein's files. 'I did an interview on Fox, and it's been getting a lot of attention because I said I was asked a question about the client list, and my response was, it's sitting on my desk to be reviewed – meaning the file along with the JFK, MLK files as well. That's what I meant by that,' she explained, per CNN. Despite the attempt at clarification, many political activists have now called for changes within the Trump administration. 'Blondi [sic] has been very DAMAGING to the admin and she has damaged public trust in the DOJ. She is hurting President Trump and his staff/advisors,' wrote Laura Loomer on social media. 'She lied on national TV and needs to be held accountable for harming the Trump admin and public trust.' Similarly, Tucker Carlson called out Bondi's claims, adding that he now believes that the government does not have 'much relevant information about Jeffrey Epstein's sex crimes.' 'Rather than just admit that, Pam Bondi made a bunch of ludicrous claims on cable news shows that she couldn't back up, and this current outrage is the result,' he explained during an interview with NBC News. Currently, there has been no indication made by the White House about plans to move on from Bondi, with many expecting the attorney general to retain her role for the foreseeable future.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store