Sen. Alex Padilla appears on CNN on Thursday. CNN

Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla says he attended Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s news conference today to hold the Trump administration accountable for what he says is a lack of transparency surrounding its immigration crackdown.

“We have questions,” Padilla told CNN’s Erin Burnett this evening, speaking hours after he was forcibly removed from the news conference after interjecting while Noem was speaking. “This is an administration that has been anything but transparent and accountable with — to the members of the Senate, to the Congress in general.”

Padilla said his removal from the room, after which he was taken to the ground by law enforcement and handcuffed, should serve as a warning of what the administration could be doing to others throughout the country.

“If this can happen to me, a United States senator representing the state of California … then imagine what they can do,” Padilla said. “Imagine what they are doing to people in communities, not just throughout Los Angeles, but throughout the country.”

Response to Noem’s comments: The California Democrat said he was escorted into the news conference by a National Guard member and FBI agent, rejecting Noem’s characterization that he “burst into the room” and “lunged” at her.

“Lies, lies, lies,” Padilla said, after watching a clip of Noem making the comments on Fox News.

The senator said he was standing in the back of the room listening to Noem when “the rhetoric got to be too much,” specifically, he said, the secretary’s comment that the administration was in LA to “liberate” the city.

Padilla said he did not resist after law enforcement took him out of the room, told him to get on his knees and pushed him down, and that he asked repeatedly why he was being detained but did not receive an answer.

Padilla said he took a meeting with Noem after the incident in hopes of getting answers to some of his questions, but that she was “still not forthcoming” and did not apologize for the incident.

On Thursday night, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily halted a lower court’s order that would have required former President Donald Trump to return control of California National Guard troops to Governor Gavin Newsom. On Thursday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals paused a lower court order for Trump to return control of California National Guard troops to Newsom. (Photo by RONALDO SCHEMIDT / AFP)(AFP)

The 9th Circuit Court, based in San Francisco, is one of the most powerful federal appeals courts in the country. It covers nine western states, including California. The three-judge panel reviewing this case includes two Trump appointees and one appointed by President Biden. A full hearing is set for Tuesday.

The decision followed a 36-page ruling by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer earlier that day, who said Trump had overstepped his legal authority. Breyer wrote that Trump’s move to federalise the Guard during protests over immigration raids was unlawful, saying the action “violated the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

“The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion,’” Breyer wrote. “The evidence is overwhelming that protesters gathered to protest a single issue—the immigration raids.”

SAN FRANCISCO — An appeals court late Thursday allowed President Donald Trump, for now, to keep the California National Guard deployed in response to protests in Los Angeles, blocking a federal judge’s move just hours earlier that ordered the Trump administration to return control of the troops to California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer had said the president acted illegally in dispatching the troops. He wrote that Trump acted improperly, “both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” and ordered him to relinquish control to the governor.

Though Breyer stayed his order until noon Friday, the government immediately filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The court quickly granted the government’s motion for a stay, and a hearing is scheduled for Tuesday.

Advertisement

When asked for comment on the appeals court ruling, the governor’s office pointed to Newsom’s earlier remarks in which he said he was “confident in the rule of law.”

The legal battle unfolding is in response to a lawsuit California filed this week against Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Defense Department seeking to restrict what the National Guard and the Marines can do in Los Angeles, and to allow them only to protect federal facilities and personnel. The state asked the judge to temporarily curb the troops’ actions and has questioned Trump’s right to deploy the National Guard and Marines in California without Newsom’s input or consent.

The administration called out 4,100 National Guard members and Marines in response to the protests, and 2,100 of the National Guard members are working in the L.A. area. All are part of Task Force 51, whose mission is to protect federal functions and property, according to U.S. Northern Command.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) spoke to reporters after a federal judge blocked President Donald Trump from deploying the National Guard to Los Angeles. (Video: The Washington Post)

Newsom, a Democrat who has sparred frequently with the president, argued that he was not trying to prevent the military from carrying out that mission, but rather seeking “narrow relief tailored to avoid irreparable harm to our communities and the rule of law that is likely to result if Defendants are allowed to proceed with their plans to use Marines and federalized National Guard to enforce immigration laws and other civil laws on the streets of our cities.”

Advertisement

The Trump administration called Newsom’s request for the temporary restraining order “legally meritless” and said it “would jeopardize the safety of Department of Homeland Security personnel and interfere with the Federal Government’s ability to carry out operations.”

In its appeal, the Trump administration called the order “an extraordinary intrusion” on the president’s authority, including his power to “mobilize state National Guards into federal service to quell riotous mobs committing crimes against federal personnel.”

“The order also puts federal officers in harms’ way every minute that it is in place,” Trump’s team added.

Local officials have challenged framing by the right suggesting there is a citywide crisis or extensive violence playing out in Los Angeles. Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman told reporters this week that “99.99% of people” who live in the area “have not committed any illegal acts in connection with this protest whatsoever.”

Advertisement

Breyer’s 36-page ruling on Thursday was a striking broadside against the administration’s approach, with the judge writing that “the continued unlawful militarization” of Los Angeles “inflames tensions with protesters, threatening increased hostilities and loss of life.”

He said that while courts treat presidents’ decisions on foreign policy and national security with great deference, this case involves “domestic use of military force, a matter on which the courts can certainly weigh in.”

Contrary to Trump’s assertions, Breyer wrote that the Los Angeles demonstrations “fall far short of ‘rebellion.’” He said the Trump administration identified instances of people acting violently, but not “a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole.”

He also wrote witheringly about the administration’s portrayal of state and local officials being “unable to bring rioters under control.” The judge said it was not up to the federal government “to take over a state’s police power whenever it is dissatisfied with how vigorously or quickly the state is enforcing its own laws.”

Advertisement

In a news conference immediately after the ruling, Newsom echoed the ruling’s language. “There’s no invasion. There’s no rebellion,” he said. “It’s absurd.”

The governor called the issues in the case “a test of democracy.” Trump has continually tested the limits of democracy, he said, but the order “makes clear that he is not above or beyond constitutional constraints.”

In its motion Thursday, California had reiterated that it was seeking only limited relief while the court case unfolds. It asked Breyer to block the Guard troops and Marines “from patrolling the streets of Los Angeles and engaging in activities that pervasively entangle military forces with civilian law enforcement,” saying this was necessary to avoid inflaming tensions in the area.

At the same time, the state’s attorney general contended the Trump administration was offering “a breathtaking vision of unlimited, unreviewable executive power.”

At one point in the hour-long hearing, Breyer — a former Watergate prosecutor and younger brother of retired Supreme Court justice Stephen G. Breyer — brandished a paper copy of the U.S. Constitution, reading aloud from Article II, which describes the powers of the executive branch.

Advertisement

“We’re talking about the president exercising his authority. And the president is of course limited to his authority. That’s the difference between a constitutional government and King George,” he said. “It’s not that a leader can simply say something and it becomes it. It’s a question of a leader — a president or a governor — following the law as set forth in both the Constitution and statutes.”

Brett Shumate, a Justice Department attorney, defended Trump’s actions, arguing that as governor, Newsom was “merely a conduit” for the president’s orders.

“The president doesn’t have to call up the governor and invite him to Camp David and have a summit and negotiate for a week, on what are the terms, we’re going to call up the National Guard in your state and what are the terms of deployment — no,” he said. “There’s one commander in chief, and the states are subservient to the president.”

Advertisement

Shumate later argued that the state’s demand for a restraining order was inappropriate because the federalized troops in Los Angeles were only there to protect federal personnel and property, not to engage in law enforcement or participate in immigration raids.

During a congressional hearing Thursday that focused heavily on the politicization of the U.S. military, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News personality and previously an officer in the Army National Guard, refused to commit to following any future judicial orders that might rein in the administration’s domestic agenda — though later he added, “We’re not here to defy a Supreme Court ruling.”

Neither the Justice Department nor the Pentagon immediately responded to requests for comment after the lower court ruling.

Some of the protests that have taken place in Los Angeles since the first immigration raids last Friday have included clashes between protesters and police, sporadic looting and vehicles being set on fire. The Trump administration has portrayed the metropolis as being overwhelmed — despite much of the city and county being completely unaffected — and in need of federal assistance to maintain order.

Advertisement

State and local officials have repeatedly said they can manage the situation and accused the federal government of inflaming tensions by dispatching the military.

“We have a very good relationship with our governor,” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said Thursday afternoon, repeating her point that Trump’s intervention was unnecessary. “If the National Guard is needed, I could have picked up the phone, called the police chief, called the sheriff, and said please make the request, and it would not have been denied.”

The governor said that when he again assumes control of the deployed Guard members, some would return to working on “border security” and working on counterdrug enforcement. Two years ago, Newsom doubled the number of California National Guard troops deployed at the U.S.-Mexico border to help intercept fentanyl and other illicit drugs.

Advertisement

Before the appeals court ruling, Jon Michaels, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles, said he was watching for what comes next. An order may not deter Trump, Michaels said: He might ignore it, or he could invoke the Insurrection Act, as administration officials have suggested in recent days. Another possibility, Michaels added, would be sharply stepped-up immigration raids that trigger more protests, changing the situation on the ground and providing more justification for military involvement.

“They’re not really looking to de-escalate,” he said of the administration. “This has now become, for better or worse, a signature standoff for Newsom, and I don’t think Trump wants to lose to Gavin Newsom.”