In June, Alex Padilla, the senior senator from California, found himself at the center of a defining moment in President Trump’s second term. Protests against Trump’s immigration policies had broken out on the streets of Los Angeles, and the secretary of homeland security, Kristi Noem, was holding a news conference in the city to address the issue. When Padilla interrupted the conference to try to ask Noem a question, he was grabbed, hustled out of the room, pushed to the ground and handcuffed.
That violent removal of a United States senator made headlines around the world. It also raised Padilla’s profile; before this, he was not a nationally known figure.
The son of Mexican immigrants who worked low-wage jobs (his mother was a housekeeper, his father a short-order cook), Padilla first became politically active in an earlier moment of protest, working against a California ballot measure, Proposition 187, that aimed to restrict undocumented immigrants’ access to social services, including public school. Padilla rose through the ranks of California politics and became the state’s first Latino senator in 2021, when he was appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom to replace Kamala Harris. Now in his second term, Padilla told me that the lessons of that Prop 187 fight have stayed with him, though I was surprised to learn what those lessons are.
We sat down in his Senate office this week, just before the government shutdown, to talk about that formative political experience, his run-in with Noem, the immigration raids that have roiled California and the country since, California’s outsize role in our national debates, and what he’s weighing as he considers a run for California governor next year.
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Amazon | iHeart
California is at the center of so much right now in our current conversation: immigration, state power, redistricting. I’d like to start, though, with a moment that I think surprised a lot of people who know you very well, because you’re not exactly known as a rabble-rouser. On June 12, you were handcuffed after trying to ask a question to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. Can you take me back to that moment? What was going on? Never would I have imagined that that would have happened in response to a question, especially to a senator trying to ask a question. The moment in Los Angeles was the militarization of the city of Los Angeles, without a clear mission, defined objective or justification that had been communicated to Congress, let alone the public. And so after numerous attempts to obtain that information here in Congress, I finally had a scheduled briefing, which took place in a federal building. That’s why I was in the building to begin with. That’s important for people to understand.
As I was waiting in the conference room for the folks who were going to brief me, we learned that Secretary Noem was about to have a press conference down the hall. My briefing was now delayed, so I asked if I could listen in while we were waiting to see if there was any new information that would be provided, and when Secretary Noem said that the mission was to liberate the people of Los Angeles, to liberate the people of California from their duly elected leaders, I felt compelled to speak up and to try to ask some specific questions. But before I can get a few words out — I mean, you saw what the reaction was. And now here we are, months later, looking back at their numerous efforts trying to quelch dissent.
The secretary and you talked afterward. What was that conversation like? Did she apologize? No apology, but honestly, not surprised, given how this administration tends to carry itself. I wish I could say it was more substantive or more constructive. She finally did say: Well, I understand you’re asking for more information. What’s your question? We kept hearing story after story of people with no violent criminal history being rounded up. And so I wanted to get some statistics. I wanted to ask the secretary, you put three, four, five names up on a slide show during a press conference, but who are the dozens and dozens of others that have been detained, that have been arrested?
You were very emotional afterward. You spoke very passionately about what had happened. We also saw Vice President JD Vance, when referring to you and that incident, use the wrong name. He called you “Jose Padilla.” How did you understand that misnaming? Sadly, not surprised because this is how petty this administration is. And I knew what he was trying to do. To call a Latino man Jose flippantly, that’s their way of trying to ridicule us. For Vice President Vance in particular, let’s remember who Jesus’ parents were. They were Jose and Maria. Joseph and Mary. Look, I know a lot of Joses. A lot of Joses are hard workers. So if that’s what you’re going to call me, then I’m going to wear it as a point of pride.
But back to the press conference and what happened. It was clear to me that if that’s how this administration would respond to a senator with a question, imagine not just how they could treat so many other people, but how they are treating so many other people when the cameras are not on. This should be a wake-up call. And it started in Los Angeles. We’ve seen National Guard troops now roving the streets of Washington, D.C. Threats to now be sent into Portland or Memphis or San Francisco, New York. This is a very, very heady time for our country.
What I’m hearing you say is that you felt that what happened to you and what happened in Los Angeles was the canary in the coal mine. That the way that they were treating a U.S. senator who’s Latino is emblematic of a wider attitude and objective? Without a doubt. And again, we were in an F.B.I. office in a federal building and they knew who I was. I had an escort from the moment I entered the front door.
And you think it was deliberate or a mistake? At a minimum, it was a hell of an overreaction. But they knew who I was. Just like Vice President Vance knows my name, but he chose to call me Jose. We served together for two years in the Senate, for Christ’s sake. He knows who I am, but it’s the way they choose to go about things.
I was thinking about this in the context of your own upbringing, how you got into politics, and the things that drew you into this work. There is a through line there. You grew up in the San Fernando Valley. Your parents immigrated from Mexico. Why did they come to the U.S.? And what did they want for you? My father is from the state of Jalisco. My mother was from the state of Chihuahua. They came separately to Los Angeles. They met. They fell in love. They decided to get married and they applied for green cards, in that order. And I thank the United States government every day for saying yes to those applications, because you can imagine if they would have been denied, opportunities in life would be very different for me than what they have been. But they became legal residents. For 40 years my dad worked as a short-order cook. When I speak at colleges and high schools, I remind the kids, “When you go out to a diner and think of who’s scrambling the eggs, who’s flipping the pancakes, that’s what my dad did.” And for the same 40 years, my mom used to clean houses. On their modest incomes they raised three of us. I have vivid memories of my dad interrupting me studying or doing my homework and telling me in Spanish, “Hijo, cuando crezcas, quiero que trabajes con tu mente y no con tu espalda.”
“I want you to work with your mind and not with your back.” Right. And there’s a lot of honor in manual labor, but that was his way of saying I want better for you.
You ended up going to M.I.T. I spent four cold winters in Massachusetts, came back with a mechanical engineering degree, ready to start my career. And what do I see on television? The year was 1994. The Republican governor of California at the time, Pete Wilson, was up for re-election, down at the polls and championing Proposition 187, which sought to make immigrant families no longer eligible for public services. [Prop 187 was aimed at undocumented immigrants.]
What was it about that that drew you into politics? The cruelty of the message. The language, the scapegoating, the demonizing of immigrants. He was talking about my family. He was talking about my community. And it was offensive and enraging. And I realized that engineering degree looks nice on the wall and I’ll at some point come back to that, but right now I have to get involved.
Prop 187 passed, but it never took effect because of legal challenges. However, that particular fight is really credited with giving Democrats their supermajority in the state, because Latinos were activated in a huge way for many years. You’re the perfect example of that. In that context, I’m wondering how you look at the legacy of Prop 187 now. Because over the years the Democratic Party ended up taking more liberal stances on immigration. Do you think that Democrats took the wrong lessons from those debates? I don’t think so. Maybe they’re not done reading the lesson plan. Just one final note on the proposition itself to underscore the cruelty of it. There was a clause that would have required school personnel to report to the authorities anybody they suspected of being undocumented. Turning teachers and counselors and school personnel into immigration officers. That’s how bad it was.
It was deemed unconstitutional, but it was a heck of a wake-up call. And not just for my generation of young people at the time deciding, Hey, we’ve got to get involved somehow, but also for people like my parents — legal residents, but with no sense of urgency or desire to become citizens. And finally they did so, and not just to protect themselves but so that they could register to vote and have a say in our democracy. Huge numbers of people like them did that, fundamentally changing the electorate in California and as a result not just who our representatives are but the political priorities and the political agenda at all levels.
We’re still having those debates today. And part of the lesson one could say of Prop 187 now is that it was really popular. It passed in California. People actually wanted to implement some of the things that were in that law. But think about that. It was popular. It was deemed unconstitutional. And what prevailed? The Constitution. That’s an important lesson.
But as you know, we are having a wider conversation in this country after the election of Donald Trump about what we owe our undocumented community. There is a lot of opposition in this country to giving people who are here illegally access to the same rights and privileges that people who are citizens of this country have. Aren’t you worried that Democrats have lost the argument on this? No. I think the question may be too narrow. The real question is not just what do we owe undocumented or what do we owe legal immigrants, but what do you owe America? We owe America a much better immigration system than we have today. Our immigration system is outdated. It needs to be modernized. Democrats and Republicans agree we need a safe, secure, humane, orderly southern border of the United States. That’s one element of it.
Second, let’s ask ourselves: Does everybody who wants to come to the United States deserve to just be able to come no matter what? Of course not. But our systems of being able to come on a work visa, on a student visa, to seek asylum — those are outdated. They need to be modernized. And at times there are actually substantive negotiations on how to do that. But what gets lost in the conversation, what too many of my colleagues seem to quickly forget, is the millions of people who not just are here but have been here for years, in some cases decades, working, paying taxes, raising families, purchasing homes, and are an integral part of communities across the country. If you’re otherwise law-abiding — not the dangerous, violent criminals that Trump likes to talk about — but if you’re otherwise law-abiding, I believe you deserve an opportunity to come out of the shadows and take a step toward legal status. That notion is widely supported by Democrats and Republicans and independents across the board. Unfortunately, just not at this moment in the halls of Congress.
I wonder what you make of a very clear discussion by Vice President Vance, articulated to me when I interviewed him, and the president that illegal immigration is a drain on this country, that it is taking away jobs from Americans. That message resonated among Latinos. We saw Latinos take a big swing to the right. Why do you think that is? I disagree with the big swing to the right. I think there was some element of the Latino vote that swung to the right, more men than women. But a bigger swing to sitting it out. Turnout was down this last election. So yes, Democrats have a lot of work to do to win back some voters that maybe went Republican this last election, but also to re-engage a lot of voters that decided to sit it out. That’s one.
No. 2, what Trump and Vance campaigned on was this emphasis on dangerous, violent criminals. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard voters saying, “This isn’t what I signed up for.” They knew Trump talked a lot about immigration during the course of the campaign, but the cruelty of these indiscriminate raids, the racial profiling supported by the Supreme Court, my god! Saying yes, appearance alone is enough to arrest or detain somebody, somebody’s accent or their perceived occupation. That’s wrong. You cannot enforce the law by breaking the law.
Part of the reason I think it’s been pretty well shown that there was this move to the right by Latinos and others was because of what happened on the border under President Biden — over 250,000 encounters a month at its height. There’s no question that the measures President Trump has taken have been effective. You opposed asylum restrictions at the border under President Biden. I’m just wondering if you look back now and think perhaps you might have taken a different stand on that debate. I’ve had so many conversations with my colleagues, both sides of the aisle, and they tell me in private: “Alex, Dreamers deserve better. I’m with you on that. But first we have to get the border under control.” “Farmworkers, they deserve better. We rely on them. They help feed the nation. But first we have to get the border under control.” OK, so you’re telling me that based on the numbers, the border is now under control. Now what? Now where’s the assistance for the Dreamers and the farmworkers and so many others?
But I want to stay in 2024 because you voted alongside your Republican colleagues to kill the bipartisan border security bill that President Biden had championed. And you not only joined Republicans, but you also helped change the minds of some of your fellow Democratic senators for the reasons that you say: that this bill did not allow any sort of path to legalization for Dreamers or to do anything more broadly for our immigration system. I’m wondering now, would you make the same decision to vote against the bill knowing the result? Because perhaps if that bill had passed and given more security at the border, Democrats might have not lost so badly. It might have not given President Trump what was a very, very useful issue for him. On policy, I still stand by my vote because there was no recognition and no willingness to commit to some relief or assistance for Dreamers, essential workers more broadly. When it comes to the takeaways from the election, I’m not going to say immigration as an issue didn’t have a role to play, but I would argue that economic anxiety played a larger role than just the situation at the southern border.
I understand as a policy matter, but as a political matter, do you think you made the right choice in helping to kill that bipartisan bill? Yeah, because the political leverage that I have I am going to utilize to keep advancing the need to do better by Dreamers, by farmworkers, by essential workers and so many others that deserve to come out of the shadows.
You’ve made it very clear that you oppose a lot of what is happening with mass deportations. I am wondering, since you got your start in politics at a difficult moment of protest against immigration, what are you seeing in terms of how the community is responding? Well, first let me recognize that the fear in a lot of communities is very, very real. And when I say the fear is real, I mean you can see it in the economic impact. When you go to restaurants, they used to be bustling every day at the lunch hour, now half full, maybe. Some workers are afraid to go to work. A lot of people are afraid to go out because these raids can take place anywhere. They’ve taken place not just at Home Depots and construction sites. This administration has chosen to try to conduct these raids in hospitals, in schools, in churches, houses of worship. Really? Because that’s where the worst of the worst tends to hang out? So it’s having that real-world impact. But the courage to stand up and speak up is impressive. That has to continue because this administration is out of control.
I’d also like to ask you about California’s new No Secret Police Act, which bans some federal law enforcement from wearing masks in many situations. This is going to pit state law against federal law, because federal lawmakers and the administration are saying federal agents have a right to wear a mask. This protects their identity from people filming them, from those who might want to dox them while they’re just doing their job. Who do you think federal law enforcement is supposed to listen to? And what if they don’t comply? It may very well end up in the courts, and maybe it will take some time to hash out, but in the meantime, whether it’s a city, whether it is a state dictating the rules of law enforcement in their particular jurisdiction, I believe that is valid. It’s important to remember that this requirement of identifying yourself, of not being masked, with certain necessary exemptions, is not a new concept. Other federal law enforcement agencies are required to do so. State law enforcement agencies are required to do so. Local police departments and sheriff departments around the country are required to do so. So how is it that they can go about their law enforcement public safety duties while identifying themselves, not having to mask up, and ICE doesn’t?
I want to talk about another national debate that is California-centric, which is redistricting. Trump has pushed a wave of redistricting in G.O.P.-led states that may mean more Republican congressional seats. This started in Texas. It’s moved beyond. In response, California has put forth a ballot initiative known as Proposition 50 that’s going to be voted on in November and would temporarily redraw California’s map and possibly add up to five Democratic seats. A lot of Democrats are happy to see Democrats employ this strategy. But of course, as we know, endless gerrymandering is bad for democracy. It leads to a more polarized Congress because people are in safe seats, so they don’t feel like they need to work across the aisle. You used to be against gerrymandering. You’re in support of the measure now. Can you explain your thinking on this? Sure. Let’s make a couple things very, very clear. No. 1, we would not be here if it wasn’t for the fact that Donald Trump called Governor Abbott in Texas and said, Find me five more Republican seats, in a very similar way that he called the secretary of state in Georgia after losing the 2020 election saying, Find 11,000 more votes. Not just Trump making the call, but the governor and the legislative leadership of Texas saying, Yes, sir. That’s the only reason California is doing this.
I agree that redistricting should be independent, should happen only once every 10 years after the census in all 50 states. That’s the ideal scenario. But that’s not what’s happening here. And the reason they’re doing that, I mean, let’s look at a bigger picture: Under normal times, a political party in power would be more than happy to run on their record in the next election and seek to stay in power. Republicans have the majority of the House, the Senate, and they occupy the White House. Their record has been so bad for American families that they’re running from it. So the only chance they have at holding on to power is to rig the election before it even starts. And because the House majority is so thin, the only way to try to hold on to their majority is to do this partisan redistricting. California would not normally do this, but the stakes are so high. Because of the damage and destructiveness of this administration, California is fighting back, absolutely. Because it started in Texas and it’s not going to end there. You hear the chatter in Indiana, in Missouri, in Florida, Ohio. Republicans are playing hardball, and Democrats need to do the same.
I want to move to Congress briefly because as we’re speaking, the government looks like it might shut down tomorrow because Democrats aren’t going to vote to fund it. It’s a risky move politically. Having seen other shutdowns, it really can go either way as to who the population blames. They are, generally speaking, unpopular. In a similar moment in March, I spoke to Chuck Schumer. And he changed his mind at the last minute and voted with Republicans to keep the government open, with the rationale that it was going to hurt the American people, that it would hurt the federal work force. What is your understanding of what has changed this time around? Here’s one of the most significant things that has changed since March: Maybe some of my colleagues took Republicans at their word that they will continue to negotiate in good faith and work on these issues. That continuing resolution, right, kept the government funded. In a matter of months, with both a budget reconciliation bill and a budget rescissions bill, we got unilateral partisan cuts to the budget. So how do you go back into the next round of budget negotiations and say, Let’s do this bipartisan, let’s do it in good faith, knowing that there is a 100 percent chance that Republicans will come back in a matter of weeks or maybe a couple of months when Donald Trump tells them to and unilaterally cut Democratic priorities, but only keep Republican priorities intact? We need some reassurances that they will honor whatever deal is made.
Look, there’s no good option here. On the one hand, I know who shutdowns hurt the most. It’s the most vulnerable in our country. Nobody wishes that. But I also know that who’s been hurt systematically since the beginning of this administration are the most vulnerable in our country, so something’s got to change. We have to exercise any leverage point to try to reel this administration in and protect what safeguards we have. It’s real simple. Republicans occupy the White House. They have majorities in both houses. It’s incumbent upon them. If they wanted to keep the government open, they know how to do that. They’re choosing not to. They would rather shut down the government than work with Democrats.
On the other side, though, Democrats and Democratic leadership is also incredibly unpopular — among Democrats. As a Democrat who sees the poll numbers, sees what people are saying, that this is a party that’s broken, that the leadership of Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries is not meeting the moment, what would you say to them? Let’s just look back over the course of a couple of years and see what’s happened. Because it’s been by and large the same Democratic leadership that passed a measure that got us out of the Covid-19 pandemic. It’s by and large the same Democratic leadership that helped us pass the Inflation Reduction Act, the bipartisan infrastructure law, the CHIPS and Science Act.
But that was under a Democratic president. But you’re talking about the same Democratic leaders in Congress. So we’re dealing with a different president right now. And why? Because, yeah, we had a tough election cycle last year. I’m not saying that’s not the case. But I think the values and the principles are still there. And it’s a lot harder to push for them from the position of being in the minority, but we are.
People are very unhappy with Chuck Schumer. They’re very unhappy with Hakeem Jeffries. So maybe earlier in the year, they didn’t see the fight. They’re seeing it more now. Look, when people ask me, What can Democrats do? We’re pushing, trying to find these leverage points, being in the minority in Congress. That’s important. But it’s not in isolation. Look at what attorneys general and other organizations across the country are doing in terms of litigation. They’re suing this administration at every turn because of their overreach. But the most important thing that we can do as Democrats is to continue to organize and mobilize, not just in anticipation of the next midterm elections — in California, it’s all about Proposition 50. The stakes are high, not just for the people of California, but for the country.
Many people are talking about your future. Governor Newsom is term limited. The race to replace him next year is heating up. You’re close to the governor. He appointed you to the Senate in the first place. And in speaking to people in California who know a lot more than I do, they say that you have a real possibility of winning, should you put your hat into the ring. You haven’t made an announcement yet, so I’m wondering if you’d like to make it now? There won’t be any such announcement happening right now. [Laughs] Look, California is home. I love California. I miss California when I’m in Washington. And there’s a lot of important work to do there, whether it’s economic opportunity for Californians, the future of health care, future of the education system, on and on and on. But also California plays an important role in the national dialogue. So I’m enjoying being a senator. Tough times right now, but important. I see how some people could find the position of governor of California as attractive in advancing a lot of those same issues.
I’m just trying to think through: Where can I be most impactful? Not just short-term, but midterm and long-term. Is it from here? Is it from there? Or do I have a role to play in shifting how Democrats look at some of the issues, including but not limited to immigration, or look to some of the diversity that’s out there, including but not limited to the Latino community, as a way of continuing to build strong political momentum for a better future for our country?
So you’re weighing it. I am weighing it. But my focus is first and foremost on encouraging people to vote for Proposition 50. The other decision? That race is not until next year. So that decision will come.
This interview has been edited and condensed. Listen to and follow “The Interview” on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, iHeartRadio or Amazon Music.
Director of photography (video): Aaron Katter
Lulu Garcia-Navarro is a writer and co-host of The Interview, a series focused on interviewing the world’s most fascinating people.
The post Sen. Alex Padilla Says His Viral Moment Was a Sign of Things to Come appeared first on New York Times.
