Senator Alex Padilla launched a scathing critique of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement and military deployment decisions during a CNN interview, claiming they create “terror” for law-abiding undocumented immigrants.
At a Glance
- Senator Padilla accused President Trump of setting a tone of “escalation and extreme enforcement actions”
- He claimed law-abiding undocumented immigrants are being subjected to “terror” from immigration operations
- Padilla criticized the deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles as unlawful and counterproductive
- The Senator questioned DHS Secretary Noem’s ability or willingness to de-escalate situations
- Padilla argued that focusing solely on dangerous criminals would eliminate disagreements over immigration policy
Senator Criticizes Immigration Enforcement Approach
California Democratic Senator Alex Padilla appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” to voice strong opposition to what he characterized as the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement tactics. During the interview, Padilla specifically targeted the administration’s approach to apprehending undocumented immigrants who have no criminal record, suggesting these actions create unnecessary fear in communities while diverting resources from focusing on genuine public safety threats.
The Senator’s comments come amid increasing tensions over immigration policy enforcement nationwide. Padilla emphasized that the administration’s approach goes beyond targeting dangerous individuals, instead casting a wide net that affects families and workers who pose no threat to public safety. His criticism highlights the growing divide between the administration’s “law and order” messaging and Democrats’ calls for more nuanced immigration enforcement.
Objections to Military Deployment in Los Angeles
Senator Padilla reserved particularly pointed criticism for the decision to deploy National Guard troops and Marines in Los Angeles, calling the move not only unnecessary but potentially illegal. He argued that the federalization of law enforcement in this context violates established boundaries between local and federal authority. The deployment followed protests in the city, which Padilla suggested were already de-escalating before federal forces arrived.
According to reports from Reuters, Marines were prepared for deployment in Los Angeles as protests spread across multiple American cities. Padilla suggested this military response reflected a pattern of escalation rather than conflict resolution, potentially worsening community relations and undermining trust in government institutions. His critique frames the deployment as part of a broader militarization of domestic law enforcement under the current administration.
Call for Focused Enforcement and De-escalation
Throughout the CNN interview, Padilla repeatedly stressed that there would be no policy disagreement if immigration enforcement strictly targeted dangerous criminals. Instead, he claimed the current approach sweeps up otherwise law-abiding individuals who are contributing to their communities. The senator also directly questioned Department of Homeland Security leadership’s commitment to de-escalation tactics.
“If all the Trump administration was doing was truly focusing on dangerous, violent criminals, as they suggest, there would be no debate, there would be no disagreement. But we’ve seen story after story after story of hardworking women and men, maybe undocumented, but otherwise law-abiding good people being subject to the terror that the this immigration enforcement operations is subjecting the people to. I needed to speak up. I needed to try to get the information from the secretary that they refuse to provide in hearing after hearing,” Senator Padilla said.
Padilla’s comments reflect growing concern among Democrats about immigration enforcement priorities and tactics. He specifically called out Secretary Noem, suggesting her leadership at DHS exemplifies an administration-wide preference for escalation over resolution. The Senator’s criticisms come at a time of heightened partisan divisions over immigration policy, with Republicans generally supporting stricter enforcement measures while Democrats advocate for more targeted approaches.
