White House Reacts to California Official Asking Gangs to Take on ICE
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A spokesperson for the White House has launched a scathing attack on a California official who called on gangs to defend their neighborhoods from immigration agents.
Cynthia Gonzalez, the vice mayor of Cudahy, a suburb in southeast Los Angeles County, asked why street gangs had not stepped forward to "help out and organize" against the "biggest gang there is" in a video posted on social media in June.
"Violence and crime perpetrated by illegal gangs are a serious issue that has wreaked havoc on American communities. Gonzalez's comments are despicable and mock the victims of gang violence in the United States," White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Newsweek.
"Violent crime is not a joke, and urging violent illegal gangs to fight ICE officers at a time when they are facing an 830 percent increase in assaults is even worse. Gonzalez should be ashamed of herself," she added.
Newsweek has contacted Gonzalez for comment via email outside normal office hours.
Cynthia Gonzalez, the vice mayor of Cudahy, California.
Cynthia Gonzalez, the vice mayor of Cudahy, California.
City of Cudahy
Why It Matters
California has become a key battleground state for immigration enforcement, with tensions running high between federal authorities and Democratic lawmakers, as well as their local communities. President Donald Trump has directed ICE agents to ramp up operations in sanctuary states as his administration looks to remove millions of migrants without legal status to fulfill his campaign pledge of widespread mass deportations.
What To Know
At a city council meeting on Tuesday, Gonzalez responded to the incident by saying: "I just want to take some time to address the short, satirical TikTok video I made recently that drew national headlines and public criticism. To be clear, I created this video in my personal time and on my personal page."
"The message was not about violence; It was about regular people … claiming ownership of our streets in a time of great distress and asking others, who I mentioned in my video, in organizing and protesting against the harm and violence being inflicted on our community."
The video has since been removed from her social media profiles.
In the now-deleted TikTok video, Gonzalez said: "18th Street, Florencia, where's the leadership at? Because you guys are all about territory. … You guys tag everything up—claiming hood. And now that your hood's being invaded by the biggest gang there is, there ain't a peep out of you.
"It's everyone else who's not about the gang life that's out there protesting and speaking up. We're out there fighting our turf, protecting our turf, protecting our people and, like, where you at?
"Don't be trying to claim no block, no nothing. If you're not showing up right now, trying to help out and organize, I don't want to hear a peep out of you once they're gone."
The Los Angeles Police Protective League has called for her resignation following the incident. Gonzalez has not publicly indicated that she is considering stepping back from her position.
What Are People Saying
Cynthia Gonzalez, the vice mayor of Cudahy, California, said at a meeting: "I want to apologize to city staff, members of the council and my community that my video took attention away from the pain our communities are experiencing and brought unnecessary attention to our city."
Tricia McLaughlin, an assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, previously told Newsweek: "Vice Mayor Gonzalez's comments are despicable. She called for criminal gangs—including the vicious 18th street gang—to commit violence against our brave ICE law enforcement. This kind of garbage has led to a more than 500 percent increase in assaults against our brave ICE law enforcement officers. Democrats must stop comparing ICE to the Gestapo and calling for violence against our law enforcement."
The City of Cudahy said in a statement on June 24: "The comments made by the Vice Mayor reflect her personal views and do not represent the views or official position of the City of Cudahy. The City will not be providing further comment."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
As US support for NATO wobbles, France and UK strengthen nuclear ties
Last week, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron signed the 'Northwood Declaration' committing themselves to 'deepen their nuclear cooperation and coordination.' They announced that 'a U.K.-France Nuclear Steering Group will be established to provide political direction for this work. It will … coordinate across nuclear policy, capabilities, and operations.' The agreement reflects growing apprehension on the part of both leaders that America's commitment to NATO is no longer as strong as it once was, at the very time that Vladimir Putin's Russia poses the greatest security threat to Europe since the Cold War. This fear is explicitly reflected in their respective updated national security strategies. Britain issued its 'Strategic Defence Review' on June 2 and France released its national strategic review on Bastille Day, July 14. Both documents have almost identical language when discussing the Russian threat, both stress the importance of their 'independent' nuclear deterrents to European security and both mention their growing cooperation and reference the Northwood Declaration. This is not the first time London and Paris have committed themselves to work more closely on strategic nuclear matters. As the U.K. review notes, 'The 1995 Chequers Declaration stated that there is no situation in which a threat to a vital interest of one is not a threat to both.' In reality, in the three decades since that earlier declaration, not all that much changed in the strategic nuclear ties between France and the U.K., despite some progress in the 2010 Lancaster House agreements. The reason is that there are fundamental differences between the nature of the two deterrents that are difficult to overcome. The British nuclear deterrent has been closely tied to that of the U.S. since the 1950s. A 1958 mutual defense treaty between the two countries (updated in 2014 and extended indefinitely in 2024) provides for the transfer of classified nuclear information, fissile material and technology from the U.S. to the U.K. and for Britain to use American testing infrastructure. But the history here is complicated. In December 1962, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who in June of that year had called independent nuclear capabilities 'dangerous, expensive, prone to obsolescence and lacking in credibility as a deterrent,' canceled the air-to-surface nuclear Skybolt missile that Britain had planned to purchase from the U.S. Within days of the cancellation, and fearing that Washington wanted to undermine Britain's deterrent, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan reached an understanding with President John F. Kennedy that British nuclear forces would be based on American submarine-launched ballistic missiles that would carry British nuclear warheads. At that time, Macmillan asserted Britain's freedom to act on its own 'where Her Majesty's Government may decide that supreme national interests are at stake.' Nevertheless, given Britain's dependence on America for so many aspects of its nuclear program, it is not at all clear just how independent London's strategic deterrent really is, even when its 'supreme interests are at stake.' Britain remains constrained by the 1958 treaty should it wish to 'communicate classified information or transfer or permit access to or use of materials, or equipment … to any nation' without U.S. permission. That places significant limits on potential nuclear cooperation with France. France has no such limitations. French nuclear development has a significantly different history. The French deterrent has always been truly independent, to the degree that for decades Paris pursued a 'tous azimuts' or 'in any direction' strategy that, in theory, trained its strategic nuclear deterrent as much against the U.S. as against the Soviet Union. Unlike Britain's deterrent, which is explicitly committed to the defense of NATO, the French nuclear deterrent addresses threats to France itself, though that includes those territories in the Pacific, Indian Ocean and the Caribbean that are considered part of the French state. In light of uncertainty regarding President Trump's commitment to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, Macron has dropped ever-broader hints that France might extend its nuclear umbrella beyond its borders, thereby more closely aligning its strategy with that of the U.K. Notably, Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz have announced the creation of a Franco-German security council, which appears to be the first step toward the creation of an extended French nuclear umbrella, though Macron has made it clear that final decision authority would remain with France. Merz has also sought a similar relationship with Britain that goes beyond London's more general commitment to NATO. In that regard, it is significant that both Britain and France deployed their nuclear submarines in response to Moscow's implicit (and on occasion explicit) threats to employ tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine. It is arguable that the Kremlin took note of these deployments and as a result toned down its nuclear saber-rattling. Still, neither country is truly prepared to go it alone in the strategic nuclear realm without American support. Their forces are simply too small relative to those of Russia or, for that matter, China. Britain and France are clearly moving closer toward real strategic nuclear coordination, despite the limitation of the 1958 treaty between Washington and London. The Northwood Declaration may indeed yield greater results than previous avowals of cooperation. Their joint deterrents may prove compelling, as they appear to have been in support of Ukraine. Nevertheless, it is America's strategic nuclear deterrent, not those of London and Paris, that continues to undergird NATO. It is therefore crucial that Washington's commitment to support the alliance with its nuclear umbrella remain as strong as it has been since it was first extended in the early decades of the Cold War. Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987.
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Greene knocks Republicans, Democrats after all her defense funding amendments fail
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) early Friday blasted her Republican and Democratic colleagues after all six of her amendments to the House's defense appropriations bill failed. The lower chamber advanced the legislation, which allocates around $832 billion in funding for Department of Defense (DOD) programs for fiscal 2026 in a vote overnight. Greene's amendment to cut funding for the Israeli Cooperative Program — an agreement through which the U.S. provides Israel $500 million for programs for missile defense — was shot down in a 6-422 vote. The amendment garnered support from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and a group of progressive Democrats: Reps. Al Green (Texas), Summer Lee (Pa.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) Additionally, the Georgia Republican's amendment to bar funds in the bill from being used for assistance to Ukraine was not approved, getting rejected in a 76-353 vote. All 76 lawmakers who backed the amendment were House Republicans. 'Tonight all of my amendments to cut $1.6 billion of foreign aid out of our Defense budget failed because both Republicans and Democrats refuse to stop sending your hard earned tax dollars to foreign countries,' Greene wrote in a post on social media platform X. 'For example, $118 million to foreign countries for disaster relief like floods that haven't even happened yet,' the lawmaker added. 'And $15 million for AIDS education activities for soldiers in Africa. I mean can't they figure that out by now? And my amendment to stop sending money to Ukraine. Yep that one failed too.' She also warned that the U.S. is '$37 TRILLION in debt and Congress will never ever fix it because they will never ever stop the insane out of control spending that drives inflation up and makes your life unaffordable.' The House overall passed the defense funding bill in a 221-209 vote. Three Republicans opposed it, while five Democrats joined the rest of the GOP lawmakers in getting the bill over the hump. The legislation bolsters funding for active, reserve, and National Guard by $6.6 billion over the current funding levels. If signed into law, basic pay for military personnel would increase by 3.8 percent starting next year. The bill also secured $174 billion for procurement and $283 billion for operation and maintenance, among other measures. It marks only the second appropriations bill Republicans have been advanced for fiscal 2026, as efforts to pass the now-signed ' big, beautiful bill ' full of President Trump's spending and tax priorities took up much of the party's focus in recent months.
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
ICE will soon have nation's Medicaid data: What to know
The personal health information of 79 million people will soon be in the hands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials, who will use the data trove to find undocumented migrants in the U.S. amid President Trump's immigration crackdown. ICE plans to use the nation's Medicaid database to 'receive identity and location information on aliens identified by ICE,' according to an agreement obtained by The Associated Press. Information available to ICE officials will include: Addresses Birthdates Ethnic and racial information Social Security numbers The agreement between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not allow ICE officials to download the data. Instead, officials will be allowed to access the data for a limited period from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, until Sept. 9. Medicaid is only available to noncitizens in emergencies While immigrants who have entered and remained in the U.S. illegally are not eligible for Medicaid, every state is required to provide emergency Medicaid coverage for life-saving situations. Some states also make exceptions for children and certain adults. That means, despite not qualifying for the federally funded coverage, some noncitizens' information is still available in Medicaid records. The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) estimated that emergency care for undocumented patients accounted for less than 1 percent of Medicaid spending from 2017 to 2023. Democrats, advocates slam ICE-Medicaid data disclosure Politicians and immigrant advocates alike have opposed the agreement due to concerns over data privacy and human rights violations. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Thursday on social media that 'the massive transfer of the personal data of millions of Medicaid recipients should alarm every American.' Immigration attorney Anibal Romero echoed Schiff's concerns. 'So eventually, what could end up happening is someone might transfer information about … a U.S. citizen, with a Latino name, and all of a sudden, now I have ICE officers in my house, even though I was born here only because my name is Raul Lopez,' Romero told NewsNation. 'So, it's scary. I think it's wrong.' Early this month, a coalition of 20 Democrat-led states sued the Trump administration over the agreement. California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) said it has 'created a culture of fear that will lead to fewer people seeking vital emergency medical care.' 'We're headed to court to prevent any further sharing of Medicaid data — and to ensure any of the data that's already been shared is not used for immigration enforcement purposes,' he added. In a statement, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said the agencies are 'exploring an initiative to ensure that illegal aliens are not receiving Medicaid benefits that are meant for law-abiding Americans.' The White House has deferred questions about the agreement to ICE.
