Condemning the Violent June 2025 Riots in Los Angeles, California

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Kim resolution.

Now, had it just condemned violence and thanked the National Guard and the Marines, who did not ask for this assignment, I think we would all be on board.

Instead, the resolution really is engaging in partisan games with misleading and inflammatory provisions.

Trump said he was going to go arrest and deport violent criminals. People are okay with that. Instead, armed, masked ICE agents, some refusing to identify themselves, aggressively, and in some cases even violently, took down day workers at Home Depot, busboys, gardeners, and a union leader, and regular people in Los Angeles objected to that. Then, as the First Amendment provides, they peacefully protested against it.

Unfortunately, there were some hooligans and rowdies who infiltrated that group, and they committed violent acts and vandalism. For that, they should be prosecuted. They should be brought to justice and condemned, which we do.

However, the resolution really creates a misleading picture of what happened. On the first page, it says: ``Whereas these protests quickly escalated into violent riots across Los Angeles, where acts of arson, widespread looting, property destruction . . . lighting streets on fire. . . . '' The fact is that these demonstrations were largely confined to about a 10-block area in downtown Los Angeles.

The police, LAPD, had the situation under control. There is an elaborate system of mutual aid in California, and had they needed additional forces, it was readily available under mutual aid.

I will point out to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in case they need a reminder, L.A. County is 4,060 square miles, not the 10 blocks. When President Trump deployed the Marines and National Guard in L.A., it was not at the request of local officials, the chief of police, or the Governor. It was unprecedented, unnecessary, and a clear attempt to take over the State's law enforcement authority. In fact, I think it did aggravate tensions in the area.

Now, the National Guard remains in Los Angeles to this day. They have nothing to do. We heard a report from a former commander that less than 20 percent are doing anything and they have been taken away from jobs where they were needed; for example, helping in efforts of forest fire prevention and the like.

As the elected chair of the California Democrat delegation, I was proud to join my colleague (Ms. Barragan) in introducing a resolution that, unlike this one, is based in fact.

Our resolution condemns the President's authoritarian response to First Amendment expressions of dissent, unlike the Kim resolution. It expresses support for law enforcement and for the National Guard and for the Marines, and it condemns violence by those who committed it.

Now, why is this important? In the resolution, it is so partisan. It says: ``Whereas California's leadership has prioritized protecting illegal immigrants and violent individuals over United States citizens.''

That is absurd. That is insulting to our elected officials, but it is right in keeping with what the President has said. He has indicated publicly that he intends to target cities and States that are democratically elected, that have Democrats elected in government.

What a strange thing to say.

The executive order that nationalized the California National Guard applies to anywhere in the United States. It is not just L.A. It is not just California.

I think this resolution really, as false as it is, is serving as a predicate, as a foundation for the military to be used in places all over the United States on any pretext, so that the military can go in and assume civilian authority away from those who are democratically elected.

That is why it is important that we do not approve this resolution with its false whereases, and that we do not participate in a scheme to replace the democratically elected officials in cities and counties and States across the United States.

I will just end with this: Who should we be more concerned about? What should we be more afraid of: the gardeners that are being arrested by ICE, the busboys, the farmworkers, or the concept that the administration may be taking the steps to replace, with the military, civil authority that has been duly elected around the United States?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source