White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt criticized reporters for asking questions about the Los Angeles anti-ICE riots during Wednesday’s briefing, calling one query ‘stupid’ and another a ‘disingenuous attack.’ Responding to a reporter’s inquiry about Trump’s support for peaceful protests, Leavitt remarked, ‘Of course, the president supports peaceful protest. What a stupid question,’ before moving on to other inquiries. This exchange followed a series of heated interactions where Leavitt defended the Trump administration’s handling of the riots, asserting that the president’s response was directly informed by his observation of the violence.
The anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles erupted after ICE conducted immigration raids, prompting widespread demonstrations. News outlets reported that protests turned chaotic, with reports of property damage and confrontations with law enforcement. Leavitt emphasized that Trump had seen footage of the riots, including images of border patrol and ICE agents being targeted, which justified the administration’s decision to deploy federal resources. She argued that the president’s actions had been effective, stating, ‘That’s what prompted the president to have this response that has clearly worked.’ This stance has drawn sharp criticism from Democrats, who have accused the administration of instigating the violence by federalizing the National Guard.
Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass faced backlash for their public support of illegal immigrants, which some have linked to the unrest. Newsom’s decision to challenge the Trump administration’s deployment of the National Guard through a lawsuit has exacerbated political tensions. Leavitt accused Newsom of contributing to California’s ‘mess’ by failing to take meaningful action. The situation has also drawn attention to the broader political divide, with Democrats framing the riots as peaceful demonstrations and Republicans accusing them of being a direct consequence of the administration’s policies.
Leavitt’s remarks reflect a larger ideological battle over immigration enforcement and federal authority. The incident has also raised questions about media scrutiny and the administration’s communication strategy as it navigates this contentious issue. Meanwhile, the political fallout continues, with lawmakers and commentators weighing in on both sides of the controversy, highlighting the deepening polarization over immigration policy and law enforcement practices in the United States.