Condemning the Violent June 2025 Riots in Los Angeles, California

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 530, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 516) condemning the violent June 2025 riots in Los Angeles, California, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

The Clerk read the title of the resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KILEY of California. Res. 516.

Mr. Speaker, a couple weeks ago, the entire world witnessed horrifying scenes out of Los Angeles: Molotov cocktails and bricks being thrown at officers, Waymo cars being lit on fire, American flags being burned, and roadways being blocked.

Today, we will stand as a House to condemn these acts of violence and to condemn the irresponsible politicians who refused to adequately address them.

I think it is important to understand from the beginning the events leading to these horrific scenes.

We should first recognize that ICE was undertaking operations in Los Angeles that have been very standard across administrations, Democrat or Republican.

President Obama, after all, carried out millions of deportations, and the priority has always been to focus on those who have a criminal record and who pose a risk to the public. That is precisely what ICE was doing in Los Angeles. Among those targeted were murderers, pedophiles, and drug traffickers.

It should also be recognized that one of the reasons that some of these people had to be sought out in the community is that the city of Los Angeles and the State of California have chosen to enact sanctuary policies that explicitly forbid ICE from taking custody of these dangerous individuals in the safest and least disruptive setting, in a custodial setting, that is, in jails. That is the explicit purpose of our sanctuary laws.

Despite these facts, as these operations were being carried out in a standard and targeted way in Los Angeles, you had certain politicians who engaged in inflammatory rhetoric, who then had individuals gather to disrupt the activities of ICE and our Federal officers, and then you saw these extreme and horrifying acts of violence.

I will be very clear: I will defend in any way that I can the right to assemble and protest regardless of the content of what the protesters are advocating. This is foundational. It is fundamental to the American system of government, but violence is another matter entirely.

This is not just a matter of protests crossing a line. Violence is the antithesis of protests. It seeks to shut down the process of deliberation, argument, and debate. It seeks to exalt force over reason. It is an abandonment of the American experiment of self- government.

By the way, this is especially true when the very purpose of the violence is to impede the policies of a duly elected President from being carried out. It is to say that a violent agitator should be able to overthrow through force the will of a democratic majority that has been established through a democratic, free, and fair election.

That is what we bore witness to in Los Angeles. Yet, instead of doing everything possible to restore order, to protect the citizens of Los Angeles, to protect our law enforcement officers, and our Federal officers, you saw certain irresponsible vainglorious politicians in California decide that this was their star-making moment, where they would egg on the violent agitators, where they would try to pick a fight in every way they could with the President, even going so far as to file a frivolous lawsuit that was thrown out unanimously by the Ninth Circuit.

Worst of all, these politicians decided to place the blame for the violence on our incredible National Guard members, somehow saying it was their presence there that caused it. This is deeply offensive, and our National Guard members are owed an apology.

Today, I hope we can stand together, Republicans and Democrats, in making it very clear that protests and assembly are fundamental rights in this country and that acts of violence are a grave threat to those rights.

Specifically, this resolution recognizes the right to assemble and protest peacefully, condemns unequivocally the violence perpetrated against Federal, State, and local law enforcement, calls on local and State-elected leadership to work with the Federal Government to end the violent riots and restore peace, and expresses gratitude to law enforcement officers, including the Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, California Highway Patrol, Orange County Sheriff's Department, and other local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies, including the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement for keeping our communities safe in the face of danger.

Mr. Speaker, let's make sure that we are dealing with the facts as they actually occurred. The assertion the LAPD had the situation under control; we all saw otherwise on our television sets. The LAPD chief himself said that every person in Los Angeles should be disgusted by what occurred.

The Governor has, himself, in the past, recognized the virtue of using the National Guard when you had situations that required reinforcement.

This notion that somehow the President was taking over the State's law enforcement authority, the Ninth Circuit said otherwise unanimously. Even a Biden-appointed judge said: The President was exercising his authority to prevent the disruption of the enforcement of Federal law.

As to this notion that the violence was largely confined to downtown L.A., I can't agree with the assertion that it is somehow less objectionable to have violence occur within a concentrated area than on a more diffused basis.

Finally, this disparagement of our ICE officers for wearing masks. I think that this is outrageous. We have seen threats against our ICE officers absolutely skyrocket. It is very ironic for folks that had no problem forcing 2 year olds to wear masks all day, in defiance of even the World Health Organization's guidelines, that are now somehow objecting to Federal officers who feel the need to do this in order to protect themselves and their family.

As to the comments of my colleague from California, he set forth his view as to what the priority and the limitations ought to be when it comes to deportation policy. He is, of course, acting appropriately in doing so. That is his right, and that is his prerogative as a Member of Congress, as it is for any citizen.

This resolution does not have anything to do with the merits of his view. This resolution simply states that one should not use violence in order to advance that view. I would hope that this should be a principle we should be able to agree on on a bipartisan basis.

As to my colleague from Maryland's claim that this resolution is somehow set up in a partisan way, nothing could be further from the truth. The resolution simply condemns acts of violence. We are opposed to sanctuary policies. We are opposed to putting a target on the back of our Federal officers, and, frankly, to defunding the police.

It is not our fault that those who have allowed this violence, who have promoted sanctuary policies, who have put a target on the back of our officers, and who have called for defunding the police all happen to belong to one party.

Mr. Speaker, this notion that the President manufactured a crisis is simply asking us not to believe our eyes. You actually had Members of Congress from California who said that there was no violence, even though we all saw on television cars being lit on fire, Molotov cocktails, and bricks being thrown at officers. Among many other acts of violence, we had several officers who were injured during the process.

What did the President do? He asked our dedicated National Guard members to come in to protect Federal property and Federal officers.

To say that this somehow was what caused the crisis is not only completely at odds with the facts as we all witnessed them but is incredibly offensive to our dedicated National Guard members who went there and have successfully managed to keep the peace.

As to my colleague from Maryland who has now accused us of defamation with this cause, whereas California's leadership has prioritized protecting illegal immigrants and violent individuals over United States citizens, that is simply the very purpose of a sanctuary law, be it California's sanctuary State law or Los Angeles' sanctuary city law.

The entire purpose of these laws, their explicit effect, is to provide special protection for those who have not only come into the country illegally but have committed crimes.

I will give you an example of how sanctuary policies work in practice. We had a case not far from Sacramento where there was an individual who was in police custody for assaulting a peace officer. He had been arrested and was in custody. This is during the Biden administration, by the way.

ICE saw that he was in custody and asked to take custody of him from the sheriff's office so that he could be deported. The sheriff's office had to say, no, sorry, we are not allowed to do that under the sanctuary State law.

The next week, that man murdered his own three daughters as well as their chaperone, a horrific crime that never would have happened if not for California's sanctuary policies.

In a similar vein, many of the operations which ICE conducted in a targeted and standard way in L.A. would have been unnecessary if it were not for a sanctuary policy that forbade them from taking custody of these individuals within a custodial setting.

I would simply ask my colleague from Maryland: Are we to take it from his remarks that he would support reversing the sanctuary policies that have caused so much harm in California and Los Angeles?

Mr. Speaker, this is an odd notion that we have heard repeatedly, that the violence was only concentrated in part of L.A. and that we need to zoom out and look at the city as a whole.

For the folks who had to deal with this chaos in downtown L.A., it is little comfort to them that things might have been more serene in Beverly Hills.

My colleague from California uses the term ``hellscape'' for L.A. I am not sure I would use that term.

I can say that L.A. has had a lot of problems, so much so that the sheriff's department even had to come out and tell folks not to wear their jewelry when they go outside, to just put it on after they get to their destination.

As to the assertion that somehow this is a made-for-TV spectacle created by the President, I ask what made for more sensational TV images, the Waymos being set on fire and the Molotov cocktails being thrown at officers, which is to say that the things that happened before the National Guard got there, or our dedicated National Guard members standing outside Federal buildings, making sure that no further damage to property and life occurred?

Mr. Speaker, the assertion has been made repeatedly that the President's deployment of the Guard escalated tensions. We have seen zero evidence for that. We all saw the images of the horrifying violence that occurred before the Guard came in.

For my colleagues who continue to assert that there was something untoward about the President deploying the Guard, I would also remind them that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled otherwise.

In a unanimous decision, the court analyzed the relevant statute which provides that the President has the authority to make use of the Guard in order to stop the execution of Federal law from being disrupted.

The judges looked at the facts on the ground and said when Molotov cocktails are thrown at officers, when a commercial dumpster is used as a battering ram in order to break into a Federal office building's parking lot, when roadways are shut down, this looks a lot like there is a disruption of the ability to carry out Federal law.

Again, it is not me saying this. This is a unanimous panel of Trump- appointed and Biden-appointed judges who came to that determination.

I will happily answer the question of my friend from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) about what is the question when it comes to agriculture. Here is what the law says. The law says that coming into this country without authorization is categorically illegal.

Then it is within the discretion of the executive branch how to prioritize deportations. Across party lines, there has always been a strong focus on prioritizing those with criminal records. Beyond that, different Presidents have chosen to exercise that discretion in different ways.

For example, President Obama chose to deport millions of people during his time in office. It is ultimately a matter of how the President chooses to carry out that policy.

Here is the important point for purposes of today's debate. Whatever a person's views are on that matter, whether they favor deporting everyone in the country illegally or whether they favor deporting no one in the country illegally, we should not, cannot, and absolutely must not use violence in order to advance that point of view.

That is the principle at stake in today's debate. To vote against this resolution is to countenance what happened with the horrifying events we saw in my State.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, if it is true that law enforcement is somehow never allowed to be in something other than their uniform, I think there are a lot of people who have gotten tickets for running a stop sign, when there was an unmarked car there, who would be happy to hear that. They now have a new basis to challenge that.

I think we are all aware that there are circumstances, like when someone is undercover or when they are doing a stakeout, in which it doesn't make sense for the official to identify himself as an officer.

Of course, that is neither here nor there because in these very targeted operations, we have seen that these folks are very clearly identified. To the extent that some have chosen to not have their faces revealed, it is because we have seen the threats against ICE absolutely skyrocket over the last several months.

It is, again, quite ironic when there were folks on that side of the aisle who were all about masks in the most absurd of settings during the COVID years. We had people playing singles tennis or out on the ocean paddleboarding required to wear a mask. There were 2-year-olds wearing a mask all day when no other country did this.

Yet when Federal officers, undertaking dangerous activity, trying to do their jobs, yet facing threats, being doxed and feeling like they and their family are at risk, choose to take this protective measure, now my colleague has a problem with it?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, what happened in L.A. put on stark display years of reckless and failed policies, starting with the millions of people who came across the border illegally during the Biden years and then the sanctuary policies that California has enacted, not to mention the countless people who have been released from prison early thanks to reckless crime policies.

Today's resolution is not about any of that. Today's resolution is about something much simpler, a notion that I would hope would be unobjectionable: that in this country we settle our differences through reasoned arguments and debate and not through force and violence, that we make political decisions through elections and not through riots.

I hope that this resolution will receive strong bipartisan support on the floor today, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source