The Manhandling of Alex Padilla Was a Red-Line Moment for America
In May 1856, Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner took to the floor of the Senate to deliver a speech denouncing slavery. Sumner was a fiery abolitionist; in his maiden speech on the floor of the Senate four years earlier, he had called for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, which an Alabama senator disparaged thus: 'The ravings of a maniac may sometimes be dangerous, but the barking of a puppy never did any harm.' Sumner continued to inveigh against slavery and its apologists throughout his first term. Clearly, he suffered from Pierce Derangement Syndrome (Franklin).
Among those Sumner attacked directly in his May 1856 speech was his Senate colleague Andrew Butler of South Carolina. His words were, to be sure, impolitic: '[Butler] has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean the harlot, Slavery.'
Two days later, in one of the most infamous incidents in American political history, Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina, a first cousin once removed of Butler's, walked over to the Senate chamber, waited until no women were present in the gallery (Southern chivalry!), and attacked Sumner on the Senate floor with a metal-topped cane, beating him within an inch of his life.
Alex Padilla, the Democratic California senator, did not bleed Thursday. He wasn't even hurt. But the sight of a U.S. senator being manhandled by FBI agents was shocking enough. Lawrence O'Donnell said Thursday night that Padilla was the first senator in history to be so accosted by law enforcement officials. I don't know for sure that that's true, but (1) I suspect if there were another, we'd know about it, and (2) even if he's the second or third, that wouldn't make how he was treated any better.
The incident didn't last that long. But the real damage came after, when the lie machine reliably revved itself into action. It started with Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary whose press conference Padilla had interrupted. She went on Fox News within the hour to say he 'burst in' and was 'lunging' toward her and 'did not identify himself.'
All lies. As anyone can see from the video, he was a good 10 feet away from Noem. But even if he had lunged—and even if he were not a senator but a mere citizen, or really any human being who is not threatening violence—this is how Donald Trump's FBI treats such people? Escort them away—OK. But push them to the ground and cuff them, when they've left the room and are no longer in any way a plausible 'threat'?
And it was in that moment—the decision by the agents to take the matter to a totally unnecessary, completely gratuitous extreme—that we find lurking the essence of Trumpism.
The essence of Trumpism is just this: Dig in the heel of the boot; step on the enemy's neck; determine in any situation the action that would be appropriately small-d democratic, and then do the opposite—go intentionally overboard, do something that shocks and offends the democratic sensibility. And then lie about it and try to reverse reality—to convince America that it didn't see what it just saw. That truth is the opposite of what it seems.
A few Republican senators, and I mean a precious few, responded appropriately. Like, one: Alaska's Lisa Murkowski said, 'It's horrible. It is shocking at every level. It's not the America I know.' Susan Collins emitted the usual timorous excretion. Otherwise? Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said on Morning Joe Friday that he and colleagues Cory Booker and Brian Schatz waited on the Senate floor—who knows, perhaps not far from Sumner's Desk 29, occupied today by New Hampshire Democrat Jean Shaheen—for their GOP colleagues to appear and denounce what happened. Not only did they not do that, Murphy said: 'They basically said he deserved what he got simply because he was disrespectful to the president.'
But Trump was surely most pleased by House Speaker Mike Johnson, who put all the blame on Padilla and called on the Senate to censure him: 'I think that that behavior at a minimum rises to the level of a censure. I think there needs to be a message sent by the body as a whole that that is not what we're going to do; that's not what we're going to act.' Note the 'at a minimum,' which leaves dangling the insane possibility that Padilla should … what? Just be expelled? Again, the essence of Trumpism is found in those three words.
This is what they do. All the time. Trump federalizes the National Guard and sends in the Marines; he crows that if he hadn't acted, Los Angeles would have been 'completely obliterated.' Think about the scale of that lie, referring to protests in a four- or five-block area in a city of 500 square miles. He told it over and over in various forms, as did Noem and others. The behavior has its precedents in the United States: Southerners accused Sumner of faking his injuries. They argued that the cane was not heavy enough to cause severe injury. Others, more direct about matters, piped up that Sumner deserved a caning every day.
And the right-wing media, like the Southern press in the 1850s, reliably echoed every word Trump, Noem, and the others said. Meanwhile the mainstream media failed dramatically this week by accepting the lazy frame that immigration is a 'winner' for Trump. Two polls came out—this one and this one—showing this emphatically not to be the case. The second poll, from Quinnipiac, was bleak for Trump across the board. Only 27 percent of the country supports the big ugly bill. That's not even all of MAGA America. People are beginning to understand that they indulged themselves last year in some fantasy projection of 'Donald Trump.' They're seeing the real article now, and they're remembering his viciousness, his ignorance, his incompetence, and his lawlessness.
And it's going to get worse. Trumpism proceeds by the successive breaking of taboos. Each time a new one is broken, the previous one is normalized, made to look not so bad by comparison. The cuffing of Padilla was a red-line moment. And yet: There's plenty of reason to worry that in four months, we'll look back on it as a moment of comparative innocence.
This article first appeared in Fighting Words, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by editor Michael Tomasky. Sign up here.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mike Lee Shoves Another Bad Land Sale Provision into the Senate's Final Budget Bill
UPDATE: Facing overwhelming opposition from all Democrats and a growing number in his own party, Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee tonight withdrew his proposal to sell millions of acres of public land to help balance the federal budget. Universally reviled legislation that will sell up to 1.25 million acres of BLM land around the West starting this fall has been placed in the Senate's final budget bill which will face floor votes as early as today. Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that oversees the Interior Department's budget, released new language Friday night that doubles down on his longstanding desire to reduce the federal estate, using veiled language that justifies land sales to alleviate housing shortages in fast-growing Western cities. The bill's latest draft tightens problematic language of earlier versions that risked being flagged by the Senate parliamentarian as non-conforming for a reconciliation bill, say sources who reviewed Lee's draft late last night. But it contains the most unacceptable provisions to public-land advocates, and could open some of the West's most remote and cherished public lands for sale. Because it now includes unallocated mineral leases, it could also balloon the amount of land eligible for sale. Specifically, the final draft expands the definition of eligible BLM land, which Lee says is designed to promote affordable housing and urban infrastructure, by prioritizing federal land sales within five miles of the border of 'population centers.' Instead of using the commonly accepted definition of a population center as a municipality of 2,500 or more people, the new draft defines a population center as 'a census-designated place or incorporated municipality with a population of not less than 1,000 persons.' This provision greatly expands the eligibility of BLM land that could be sold surrounding unincorporated rural communities. Last night's draft also now allows leasing of some previously protected lands, omitting national preserves, national seashores, lakeshores, national historic sites, and national memorials and battlefields from the categories of land that could not be considered for sale. It includes unallocated subsurface mineral leasing as a qualifying covenant for land sales, along with earlier drafts that omit active surface uses and BLM land with active livestock-grazing leases from sale consideration. This allowance of unsubscribed mineral rights could greatly increase the number of eligible acres for sale to something over 3 million, say sources. That's because the BLM administers subsurface mineral rights on some 700 million onshore and offshore acres. If millions of those acres now qualify for sale because of Lee's new language 'we could be talking about the sale of way more than 1.25 million acres,' says a land-use expert who was still researching the question as of this morning. 'We could be talking 3 million and more, depending on the answer to the question of whether the BLM owns those rights or simply administers them.' Lee's latest draft also changes the definition of who can bid on this 'surplused' public land. Nominations for tracts can come from what Lee defines as 'qualified bidders.' That term is not defined in the bill. The bill extends the mandatory sale deadline from five to 10 years and increases the amount of federal money that will be used to execute these sales from $5 million to $15 million. But what's especially galling to critics of the bill, who note the many loopholes that allow disposal of federal land for purposes other than affordable housing, is that the new draft adds criteria for disposal of our most valuable lands to include a mechanism for consolidating large ranches and for including 'isolated tracts that are difficult to manage.' That last provision could list for sale some of the most valuable hunting and fishing acreage in the West. Sources noted, with rising alarm, that Lee's latest draft appears to be calibrated to make it through Senate parliamentary scrutiny. 'This appears to be an effort to try and survive parliamentarian review,' says David Willms, associate vice president for public lands for the National Wildlife Federation. 'Adding a priority of selling the highest value lands, and including subsurface rights along with the surface rights seems to be an effort to sell the provision as one with primarily budget impacts, which is necessary to survive the Byrd Rule' that requires items in reconciliation bills to have budgetary, rather than policy, implications. 'Obviously, to anyone that cares about public lands, however, that's simply a smokescreen to sell an area more than twice the size of Rocky Mountain National Park to an as-yet-undefined 'qualified bidder,'' says Willms. 'But it's also an indication of the sloppy and haphazard nature of this latest bill.' Lee's new draft is so contrary to and tone-deaf to the hundreds of thousands of calls, letters, and emails to congressional offices over the past week that some critics of the bill suggest that it's designed to fail in full Senate voting that starts today. In an Instagram reel, New Mexico Sen. Martin Heinrich (D) noted that the groundswell of calls to congressional offices is the 'broadest and deepest coalition that I have ever seen for public lands in my life. Keep it up. We are winning.' View this post on Instagram A post shared by Senator Martin Heinrich (@senatormartinheinrich) Fellow Republican Senators, including Montana's Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy and Idaho's Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, have publicly stated their opposition to the bill. The news site NOTUS yesterday reported that Daines has the votes to kill Lee's draft in the budget reconciliation process. That's the expedited process that requires only a simple majority in both the House and Senate for passage. Republicans hold a 3-vote majority in both chambers. At least five Republicans in the House of Representatives have said they won't vote for any version of the budget bill that contains the land-sale provision. They include Montana's Ryan Zinke, Mike Simpson from Idaho, Dan Newhouse from Washington, Oregon's Cliff Bentz, and David Valadao from California — all Westerners with large public-land holdings in their congressional districts. 'At the end of the day, I would bet on this [bill language] getting kicked out, but it's gonna be a slog,' says a public-land advocate who asked not to be named as they were still reviewing the bill draft. 'I'm still wondering if, in the long run, Lee is doing more to help public lands, by inspiring so much advocacy, than to hurt them.' Land Tawney, whose group American Hunters and Anglers has been a vocal opponent of the land-sale legislation, says the latest draft confirms Lee's inability to read the national mood. Read Next: Silencer Deregulation Plan Fails in the Senate 'Regardless of how Mike Lee polishes his public lands sell off proposal, it's still a piece of shit,' says Tawney. 'Not a square inch of our public lands should be used to pay off tax breaks for billionaires.'


CBS News
6 minutes ago
- CBS News
How will "big, beautiful bill" impact Medicare, Medicaid in Massachusetts?
Republican senators are trying to pass the "big, beautiful bill," which will cut Medicaid for millions of Americans across the country. Here's how the bill could change healthcare coverage in Massachusetts. "If the current version of the bill becomes law, then about 250,000 people members of Massachusetts could lose access to their healthcare," says Jennifer Obadia. Obadia works at Project Bread, a non-profit working to end hunger in Boston. She says that the cuts in the bill will also impact food assistance programs. "Many people across the state of Massachusetts face trade-offs, whether it's between food and their medicine or their rent. So our programs exist to help try alleviate that burden. What's currently being voted on in the Senate would fundamentally strip away a lot of ability to do that work," she explained. But Obadia says that if the bill passes, Project Bread will continue to fight for the people who need their help. "It will continue with advocacy at the state level, advocacy at the federal level, and programs to bring those policy changes to people across the state." Bill will close rural hospital in Greenfield Senator Ed Markey has been outspoken about his opposition to the "big, beautiful bill." He spoke on the Senate floor on Monday and said that slashing programs like Medicaid and SNAP will put millions at risk. "This is a huge issue for hospitals and for individuals that are dependent upon these federal programs to take care of their families, to keep their families healthy," Markey explained. The cuts would also result in the closing of several hospitals, including one in Greenfield. "If one of our rural hospitals closed down, for example, in Greenfield, the ambulance ride is much longer. Access to treatment will take much more time. The emergency room won't be as close. So all of this is central to the well-being of the community," Markey explained. President Trump has encouraged Republican senators to pass the bill by July 4. Senators continue to debate the bill.


Fox News
10 minutes ago
- Fox News
Special Report w/ Bret Baier - Monday, June 30
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: 'Vote-a-rama' begins as senators offer amendments to Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill'