Newsom challenges JD Vance to debate after he calls Sen. Alex Padilla ‘Jose'

Gov. Gavin Newsom challenged Vice President JD Vance to a debate after Vance attacked the governor and maligned Sen. Alex Padilla, referring to him by 'Jose,' during a press conference in Los Angeles Friday.
Vance, who was in the city to meet with federal officials after weeks of protests of immigration raids and detentions, repeatedly slammed Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass during the press conference for their stances on immigration and pushback against the administration of President Donald Trump ordering the National Guard and U.S. Marines into the city.
When asked about the Trump administration cracking down on Democrats, Vance referenced Padilla's detention in handcuffs last Thursday.
'I was hoping Jose Padilla would be here to ask a question. But unfortunately I guess he decided to not show up because there wasn't the theater,' Vance said. 'It's pure political theater.'
Padilla, who is California's first Hispanic senator, was forcibly removed from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's press conference last week after identifying himself as a senator asking a question — though she later claimed she did not know he was a senator — and was handcuffed before being released.
'JD Vance served with Alex Padilla in the United States Senate. Calling him 'Jose Padilla' is not an accident,' Newsom wrote.
The Associated Press reported that Taylor Van Kirk, a JD Vance spokesperson, responded by saying of Vance: 'He must have mixed up two people who have broken the law.'
Newsom also posted to Vance that it was 'nice of you to finally make it out to California.'
'Since you're so eager to talk about me, how about saying it to my face? Let's debate. Time and place?' Newsom wrote.
The governor's press office X account also responded Friday evening, posting an altered photo of Vance at the press conference with a cartoonish version of his face and saying: 'Donald, you should send @JDVance out to California more often. He's absolutely crushing it!'
Vance claimed Newsom and Bass 'actively encouraged illegal migration into this community, have strained public services, have strained law enforcement and, really, have offered generous benefits, not to American citizens, but to illegal immigrants to break the law.'
Vance also claimed Newsom and Bass 'egged on' violent 'rioters' including encouraging them to harm federal and local law enforcement, which he called 'disgraceful.'
Vance said during the press conference that National Guard and military members will stay in the city in case protests 'flare back up.'
'These people need to be stopped,' Vance said of demonstrators.
Staff writer Tara Duggan contributed reporting.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

New York Post

31 minutes ago

• New York Post

Vance: ‘No interest in boots on the ground' — but bracing for poss. sleeper-cell attacks in US

Vice President JD Vance on Sunday insisted the US has no interest in putting boots on the ground in Iran — while admitting the administration is bracing for potential terror attacks from sleeper cells in America. 'We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program,' Vance told NBC's 'Meet the Press.' 'We have no interest in a protracted conflict. We have no interest in boots on the ground,' he said. 'We didn't blow up diplomacy. 'We only took this action when it was clear, as the president said, that the Iranians were tapping us along,' the vice president said of the US strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities Saturday. 'The Iranians are clearly not very good at war. Perhaps they should follow President Trump's lead and give peace a chance if they're serious about it. I guarantee you, the president of the United States is,' Vance said. 4 Vice President JD Vance on Sunday warns Iran against retaliation. NBC 4 The Pentagon laid out a timeline for how 'Operation Midnight Hammer' unfolded against Iran on Saturday. Dept of Defense The vice president insisted Iran's network of terrorist proxies in the region is already washed up, as is its nuclear program, though comprehensive damage assessments haven't been finished. After announcing the successful military campaign late Saturday, Trump dramatically warned that any retaliation from Iran 'will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed' during the strikes on its Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan nuclear sites. Vance reiterated that warning and underscored that 'it would be the stupidest thing in the world if they' seek retribution. He also indicated that the US has been battening down the hatches just in case. 'We're, of course, doing everything that we can to keep our people safe. I think that we're prepared in the event that the Iranians do retaliate,' Vance said — before later warning about possible sleeper cells in the US. 'Unfortunately, we know that a lot of people who we don't have full accounting of were let in over the last four years under the Biden administration,' Vance said. Also among the fears of reciprocation from Iran is that Tehran could target US bases and other military assets in the Mideast or close off the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway through which about 20% to 25% of the world's oil consumption flows. 4 Vance joined President Trump in the Situation Room to monitor the strikes Saturday. The White House/X Vance said it would be 'suicidal' for Iran to try to shut the strait, particularly given the havoc that would wreak on its already beleaguered economy. But he reiterated that 'our biggest red line is the Iranian nuclear weapons.' Vance, throughout his tenure as an elected official, has staked out a staunch anti-war position. He had long been skeptical of protracted US aid to war-torn Ukraine. In March, a leaked Signal message chat revealed that he was privately apprehensive about Trump's strike against the Houthis in Yemen. Despite that, Vance was adamant Sunday that Trump is being prudent with his use of military force and that preventing Iran's theocratic regime from obtaining a nuke is within America's core interests. 'The president has actually been one of the fiercest critics of 25 years of failed foreign policy in the Middle East, which is why he did what he did: a very precise, a very surgical strike tailored to an American national interest,' Vance said. 'I don't fear that this is going to become a protracted conflict because I think that we have a president who knows what's in America's interest.' The vice president also juxtaposed Trump's use of military action against Iran with how past presidents have dealt with conflicts in the tumultuous region. 4 Top military officials are still assessing the damage done to the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant and other facilities. MAXAR Technologies 'I certainly empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East,' he stressed. 'I understand the concern. But the difference is that back then we had a dumb president.' Shortly after news of the strikes broke, a chorus of Democrats called for Trump to be impeached, accusing him of exceeding his military authority. Even some Republicans, such as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), called the airstrikes unconstitutional. Vance, a former Ohio senator, shrugged off those concerns and stressed that 'the president has clear authority to act to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.' Earlier this year, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified before the House and Senate intelligence committees that the US intelligence community assessed that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.' She later accused the media of misconstruing her words. 'They were way too close to a nuclear weapon for the comfort of the president of the United States, which is why he took this action,' Vance said of the Iranians. 'We had a narrow window of opportunity. 'We might not have been able to carry out this attack six months down the road,' he added. 'It would have been irresponsible, I think, for the president not to take the action that he did. 'What happens next is up to the Iranians,' Vance assessed at another point in the interview.

USA Today

39 minutes ago

• USA Today

Trump was right to bomb Iran. Even Democrats will be safer because of it.

The fact that progressives can't give President Trump this win − a win that will give us a safer world − is yet another indicator of why the Democratic Party continues to devolve into irrelevance. While the Middle East slept early on June 22, the Islamic Republic of Iran discovered that the Trump administration's diplomatic efforts have an end date. With a planned and precise show of controlled force, the U.S. military "obliterated" three of Iran's major nuclear sites. In a June 22 news conference, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, dispelled any notion that the strike on Iran was ad hoc or done to goad Iran into a full-blown war with the United States. "The order we received from our commander in chief was focused, it was powerful and it was clear," Hegseth said. "We devastated the Iranian nuclear program." That is good news for the United States and its allies. The fact that progressives can't give President Donald Trump this win − a win that will give us a safer, more stable world − is yet another indicator of why the Democratic Party continues to devolve into irrelevance. With 'Operation Midnight Hammer,' Trump sent Iran a message Trump is already receiving extraordinary criticism for this attack on Iran. Democrats like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York have called for his impeachment because Trump, like other presidents before him, launched the attack without congressional approval. Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine said Trump's decision displayed "horrible judgment." Yet, there is ample precedent of presidents, including Joe Biden, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, ordering targeted military strikes without prior congressional approval under the War Powers Act. Did Congress approve Iran bombing? AOC howls about impeaching Trump. But president had the authority to bomb Iran. | Opinion Reactionary and partisan criticism from the left detracts from the success of this mission, which anyone, regardless of party affiliation, should appreciate. It appears that Operation Midnight Hammer was an incredible show of the U.S. military's strength and precision. "The scope and scale of what occurred last night would take the breath away of almost any American if you had an opportunity to watch it in real time," Hegseth said June 22 at the Pentagon. He noted that America's B-2 Spirit stealth bombers "went in and out ... without the world knowing at all. In that way it was historic." Iran's nuclear capabilities were a threat Concerns about retaliation from Iran are serious, of course, and U.S. forces are braced for it. But the threat of Iran, a country that has long bankrolled terrorism in the Middle East and around the world, building nuclear weapons shouldn't be minimized. That fact has nothing do with political ideology or partisan politics. Hegseth reminded reporters the morning after the attack that Trump was "fully committed to the peace process" and gave Iran "plenty of time to continue to come to the table and give up enrichment" of nuclear materials. Iran has a long history of attacking Americans, including holding more than 50 U.S. Embassy workers hostage in 1979 for more than a year. It's accused of bankrolling the 1983 bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 241 American service members. Now, the Iranian regime has orchestrated attacks against American interests and allies through its terrorist proxies. Opinion: Trump must back Israel against Iran. 'Kooky' Carlson is wrong about nuclear threat. Despite these facts, it seems that liberals hate Trump so much that they are loathe to acknowledge that this president has now done what other presidents have done − act boldly to protect our nation and its citizens. Trump is a different president in many ways than any who have come before him. But like other presidents, he has shown he will do what is needed to protect America and our allies and to secure long-term peace. For that, all Americans should be thankful. Nicole Russell is an opinion columnist with USA TODAY. She lives in Texas with her four kids. Sign up for her newsletter, The Right Track, and get it delivered to your inbox.

Los Angeles Times

an hour ago

• Los Angeles Times

How Iran could retaliate after the U.S. strikes on its nuclear program

DUBAI — Iran has spent decades building multi-tiered military capabilities at home and across the region that were at least partly aimed at deterring the United States from attacking it. By entering Israel's war, the U.S. may have removed the last rationale for holding them in reserve. That could mean a wave of attacks on U.S. forces in the Middle East, an attempt to close a key bottleneck for global oil supplies, or a dash to develop a nuclear weapon with what remains of Iran's disputed program after American strikes on three key sites. A decision to retaliate against the U.S. and its regional allies would give Iran a far larger target bank and one that is much closer than Israel, allowing it to potentially use its missiles and drones to greater effect. The U.S. and Israel have far superior capabilities, but those haven't always proved decisive in America's recent history of military interventions in the region. Ever since Israel started the war with a surprise bombardment of Iran's military and nuclear sites June 13, Iranian officials from the supreme leader on down have warned the U.S. to stay out, saying that direct American involvement would have dire consequences for the entire region. It should soon be clear whether those were merely threats or a grim forecast. Here's a look at what Iran's next move might be. The Strait of Hormuz is the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf, through which some 20% of all oil traded globally passes, and at its narrowest point it is just 21 miles wide. Any disruption there could send oil prices soaring worldwide and hit American pocketbooks. Iran boasts a fleet of fast-attack boats and thousands of naval mines that could potentially make the strait impassable, at least for a time. It could also fire missiles from its long Persian Gulf shore, as its allies, Yemen's Houthi rebels, have done in the Red Sea. The U.S., with its 5th Fleet stationed in nearby Bahrain, has long pledged to uphold freedom of navigation in the strait and would respond with far superior forces. But even a relatively brief battle could paralyze shipping traffic and spook investors, causing oil prices to spike and generating international pressure for a ceasefire. The U.S. has tens of thousands of troops stationed in the region, including at permanent bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — Arab Gulf countries just across the Persian Gulf from Iran — and much closer than Israel. Those bases have the same kinds of sophisticated air defenses as Israel's, but would have much less warning time before waves of missiles or swarms of armed drones. And even Israel, which is several hundred miles farther away, has been unable to stop all of the incoming fire. Iran could also choose to attack key oil and gas facilities in those countries with the goal of exacting a higher price for U.S. involvement in the war. A drone attack on two major oil sites in Saudi Arabia in 2019 — claimed by the Houthis but widely blamed on Iran — briefly cut the kingdom's oil production in half. Iran's so-called 'Axis of Resistance' — a network of militant groups across the Middle East — is a shadow of what it was before the war ignited by Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel out of the Gaza Strip, but it still has some formidable capabilities. Israel's 20-month war in Gaza has severely diminished the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups, and Israel decimated Lebanon's Hezbollah last fall, killing most of its top leadership and devastating much of southern Lebanon, making its involvement unlikely. But Iran could still call on the Houthis, who had threatened to resume their attacks in the Red Sea if the U.S. entered the war, and allied militias in Iraq. Both have drone and missile capabilities that would allow them to target the United States and its allies. Iran could also seek to respond through militant attacks farther afield, as it is widely accused of doing in the 1990s with an attack on a Jewish community center in Argentina that was blamed on Tehran and Hezbollah. It could be days or weeks before the full impact of the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear sites is known. But experts have long warned that even joint U.S. and Israeli strikes would only delay Iran's ability to develop a weapon, not eliminate it. That's because Iran has dispersed its program across the country to several sites, including hardened, underground facilities. Iran would probably struggle to repair or reconstitute its nuclear program while Israeli and U.S. warplanes are circling overhead. But it could still decide to fully end its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and abandon the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. North Korea announced its withdrawal from the treaty in 2003 and tested a nuclear weapon three years later, but it had the freedom to develop its program without punishing airstrikes. Iran contends that its program is peaceful, though it is the only non-nuclear-armed state to enrich uranium up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. U.S. intelligence agencies and the IAEA assess Iran hasn't had an organized military nuclear program since 2003. Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East but does not acknowledge having such weapons. Krauss and Gambrell write for the Associated Press.