Sen. Alex Padilla on WHCD Shooting, Iran, Immigration, DHS, and the Dodgers

Added: 2026-05-06

[00:00:00]Actually, the story is and and look at this. Welcome to Washington, D.C. Yeah.

[00:00:04]>> For the capital. Pretty nice background you got going. Um it it's been a an upsetting weekend for a lot of people with what happened at the White House Correspondents Dinner. And now there's this discussion of sort of who's to blame. Yesterday at the podium, Karoline Leavitt, the White House Press Secretary, mentioned you by name and suggested that you bear some responsibility. She quoted you as saying, "People are dying because of fear and terror caused by the Trump administration." And said, "That is inflaming tensions." What's your response to that?

[00:00:33]>> Uh well, is it quite a might taken out of context?

[00:00:37]Pretty sure that was reference to two United States citizens dying in Minneapolis for being out there exercising their First Amendment rights in the wake of the cruel immigration enforcement that we've seen over the last year. But sadly, it's not surprising from this administration always trying to deflect, always trying to blame others when this is really an opportunity for the president to sort of rise above. Let him take the lead on lowering tensions, lowering the temperature, and lowering the political rhetoric. But he can't help himself. Uh instead of doing the right thing, he seeks to attack, attack, attack. I mean, there's no doubt uh that the president has used some inflammatory rhetoric. There's no doubt also that some Democrats have too. I mean, how how do we put the genie back in the bottle?

[00:01:25]How do we collectively cool down tensions?

[00:01:27]>> Yeah, look, I think we we try to lead by example. And some of it is what we're doing in our respective states and communities and across the country. A lot of it is the work that's done here in the capital. Give you one example.

[00:01:38]Department of Homeland Security, right?

[00:01:41]Republicans are quick to point out to it's the one department that doesn't have an approved federal spending plan for the fiscal year. The Senate has done its job on a bipartisan basis not once, but twice sending over a package to the House. The House has refused to take it up. And in the meantime, the president will be quick to point to Democrats when he's got it all wrong. But on to that point, now the Republicans go are going this process called reconciliation, which is a budgetary process to essentially kick the Democrats out of it and pass it on a party line vote to fund all of the Department of Homeland Security and and essentially make no changes to ICE. If Republicans stay together on that, is there anything you can do to stop them?

[00:02:24]Look, it is a choice that they're trying to make, right? Democrats have been clear. You know, we want to fund the Department of Homeland Security. We have no objection to TSA, to the Coast Guard, to FEMA, to our cybersecurity agency.

[00:02:40]But when it comes to ICE and CBP, desperately needed reforms are necessary. But instead of engaging with us on what those thoughtful, proven law enforcement best practices should be, they'd rather go around and try to strictly partisan way to fund these agencies. That's the choice that Republicans are making and why they've led us to this record partial government shutdown. But if they stay together, there really isn't anything you can do to stop them, right?

[00:03:08]>> It's uh through the reconciliation process that there is some leverage because not everything can be done through reconciliation. There's strict rules when it comes to budget budgetary impacts, not major policy changes, and it all has to go through the Senate Parliamentarian. Um in terms of the war with Iran, you represent California, which has more Iranian Americans than any other state in the country. They call it Tarangeles. And right after this war was launched, we saw thousands of Californians in the streets celebrating the idea of taking on this regime that many of them say killed their family members. They're in in agreement with this. What do you say to them? Well, and I have been talking to a lot of the community leaders. Initially, there was a lot of excitement because nobody was a fan of the regime. There's some bad folks there.

[00:03:58]But first of all, how we take our country into war is very clear. The president needs to seek authorization from Congress, which he did not do.

[00:04:07]Number two. So how successful was this first round of this military operation?

[00:04:13]Cuz there's been no justification.

[00:04:15]There's been no clear, consistent rationale. If it was because there was an imminent threat, I thought he took out he obliterated was his words their nuclear capabilities last year. So was that the case? Was that not the case?

[00:04:28]Hard to believe this administration is not is not exactly forthcoming or honest with Congress or the American people.

[00:04:35]And here we are a couple months later, the regime hasn't changed. The individuals at the top may have arguably attained an a more extreme regime. The people of Iran, who my constituents have family members that are still there, how is their life any better because of what Donald Trump has done? That is completely unclear. And by the way, it's costing us a billion dollars a day and at least 13 service members have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Have we lost the war with Iran already? Uh I think that's militarily to be determined because we're not done yet. We may be in a ceasefire, but a ceasefire is exactly that. It's a ceasefire. It's not a peace agreement.

[00:05:14]And in the meantime, the American people are paying the price not just at the pump, but especially at the pump. What's an off-ramp that you could support where president gets to save face, maybe Iran gets to save face, and we move on from this? What does that look like to you?

[00:05:29]>> you think that's something the president ought to have thought about before he fired the first shot? That's the question.

[00:05:36]But for you, as a United States Senator, we are where we are. And the Senate has a role in oversight in terms of all of this. And where do you think we go from here?

[00:05:45]Yeah. Well, I think negotiations should continue. I hope the ceasefire stays and continues until there's ultimately an agreement addressing Iran's military capabilities.

[00:05:57]Absolutely a question not just for the sake of the Middle East, for the sake of the United States, but for the sake of global stability.

[00:06:04]And then once that happens, as we slowly withdraw from the region, I think the economic stresses will also come down.

[00:06:12]Do you think the blockade that's now in effect is actually a good policy in terms of taking away some of Iran's leverage and putting up pressure on their economy? Do you think that the blockade is working? Well, from the outside looking in, it may seem like, "Oh, that makes perfect sense." Which blockade? Their blockade or our blockade, right? That's how Trump has chosen to respond. A blockade for a blockade. But in the meantime, what is happening is not just the movement of money. Is Iran making money here or not?

[00:06:41]The issue of mines in and through the straits that can pose a wreak a lot of havoc not just to the ships and the transport of oil and other commodities through the strait, but with that lingering uncertainty, we'll continue to feel the economic pinch.

[00:06:58]Senator Alex Padilla of California. I asked for his thoughts on the royal visit and the race for governor back home in California.

[00:07:06]We are talking with Senator Alex Padilla of California. As we are here on Capitol Hill, the king of England is here. King Charles is here.

[00:07:17]And you had a chance to be at the British Embassy with him this week. He's also visiting Capitol Hill and spending time in New York as well. Um What do you make of the fact that this country was founded to get away from the king, and yet so many people are drawn to the king? Yeah, well, it's uh interesting. A little joke yesterday at the embassy when the deputy sort of acknowledged that in our national anthem, right? The Star-Spangled Banner. We talk about the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air. Those are the British bombs that were being referenced there. But you know, here we're celebrating 250 years of a relationship of some sort between Britain and the United States.

[00:07:58]We wouldn't be here but for those bombs and the red glare referencing the national anthem.

[00:08:03]I think the moment that we're in, given how many of our allies, not just in Europe, but around the world are really questioning the relationship with the United States because of the Trump administration. I think it's a reflection of efforts on both sides.

[00:08:17]Some of my colleagues that have traveled to to NATO gatherings, for example, or other EU convenings to reinforce the United States is still a reliable friend and partner when it comes to military, when it comes to the economy, when it comes to political alignment in the world.

[00:08:35]This is I think the the United Kingdom come to the United States in response to that and saying, "Yes, we've been together for a long, long time. We're going to stay together for a long, long time."

[00:08:46]The politics of the moment are just that of this moment. It's temporary. I mean, do you think that that he has real political impact on your colleagues here and and on sort of the American political system, even though he's not supposed to be a political figure? Does his presence here impact all of you? Uh to different extents, right? Different people have different constituencies, relationships, political beliefs. But I do think it is impactful. And it's not here from a partisan political standpoint. I think the political effect is really one of diplomacy and governance. The relationship between the United States, the UK, the EU, and other allies around the world, those alliances remain important. Let's talk about some of the other stuff happening here on Capitol Hill. President Trump has been very focused on this idea of the Save America Act. This idea that there needs to be more sort of eyes on voting, that there should be more regulations, that there should be voter ID. You were the Secretary of State for California. You oversaw California's election. You expanded vote by mail in California.

[00:09:50]What's wrong with the idea of voter ID?

[00:09:53]Something that like 80% of Americans support. Well, first of all, let's just be clear when it comes to elections and election integrity in California, our elections are safe, they are secure, and we want to keep them as accessible as possible. To premise changes to how we administer elections based on the false narrative of massive voter fraud is simply wrong. And so therefore, the SAVE Act or the voter ID measure that looks headed to the November ballot in California are a solution in search of a problem. Right, the SAVE Act is not a voter ID bill, it is a voter suppression bill.

[00:10:26]The way it is written, the ID that you and I would assume gets would get us into the polling place, our driver's license, is not sufficient. What they're including is original birth certificates or passports. Half of United States citizens don't even have a passport. So, they're creating problems for people trying to vote and exercise their right to vote. But the SAVE Act does a lot more than just that. It would hand over to Trump's Department of Homeland Security. Here we go again.

[00:10:54]The information for every registered voter in the country, including the private information of every voter in California. Why? These test cases that they've run with states that have cooperated on a pilot basis ends up identifying eligible voters, United States citizens, them getting kicked off the rolls. So, the political context for all this is Donald Trump and the Republican Party desperate [clears throat] to hold on to power in November because their record has been so bad. Their only hope is to rig the elections. That's why they're doing this. But there is this effort in California that is focused more on voter ID. What is wrong with the concept if I show up to vote at my polling place that I have to show an ID? When I have to show an ID to buy alcohol, I have to show an ID to get on a plane, I have to show an ID through so many aspects of my life. What's wrong with showing an ID to vote?

[00:11:44]>> I go back to it's a solution in search of a problem. In California, our elections are safe, they are secure, we want to keep them as accessible as possible.

[00:11:53]>> Well, but this could also keep eligible people from voting. If you forgot your ID or you forgot to renew it, you know, the week before, now it's all of a sudden it's expired and you're not allowed to vote. It's a solution in search of a problem. In terms of voting in California, California's about to vote for governor.

[00:12:11]And you chose not to run for governor.

[00:12:13]There was some reporting from CNN's Edward Isaac Dover that suggested that Governor Newsom was pushing you to run for governor. Is that true? Was he telling you you should run? We we talked about it. And as you know, I actually seriously considered it. That included several conversations with the governor who I've known for a long And what what did he say to you? He he wanted me as helpful as he could be through the decision-making process. Answer all the questions about what it was like and some of the key issues that he's been working through for years and years and years. And of course, what it means for an individual and for your family because none of us does public service alone. Did he tell you you should do it?

[00:12:51]He was encouraging, that's for sure.

[00:12:53]We've known each other for a long time.

[00:12:55]So, what ultimately made you decide not to do it? There was actually a lot of considerations both for and against running. Among the biggest, to be honest, was what's going on here in Washington, D.C. There's so much coming out of the White House on a daily basis. I couldn't imagine having to split my time and attention between campaigning for office right now versus responding to the constant attacks coming out of the White House, not just against California, but especially against California. When it comes to immigration, when it comes to our energy projects, when it comes to our water projects, when it comes to just fundamental federal funding. Yeah, do do you when you see the field now and you see this possibility of two Republicans advancing, are you thinking about maybe I need to endorse somebody, maybe I should work with the governor to endorse somebody? Are you thinking about what you can do as a leader to make sure that that doesn't happen? Look, I think all all along I have uh not been inclined to endorse or get engaged in the race, not really buying this theory of two Republicans coming in top two and Democrats being boxed out.

[00:14:03]If we get a little bit closer to election day and that seems like a real possibility, then that might change you know, my my thinking here. But for now, I'm confident letting the voters of California decide. Anybody's been pressing you?

[00:14:15]The I know them all. I serve with all of them in different [laughter] capacities.

[00:14:19]So, all the Democrats I think agree by and large on most of the critical issues.

[00:14:24]We know you're a big Dodger fan. You were one of the pitchers on the Congressional Baseball team.

[00:14:29]There are some in other parts of the country that feel like the Dodgers have an unfair advantage, that baseball should have some sort of salary cap or something because they're too stacked, too loaded, too talented. What do you say to them? Well, I say well uh if you you're making me go there, like the Braves had the option of giving Freddie Freeman, you know, the kind of contract he was asking for. The Red Sox had the option of giving Mookie Betts the kind of contract he was asking for.

[00:14:56]So, yes, I think the Dodgers ownership are generously paying some of the players, but it's still incumbent on the players to stay healthy and to perform. Right, the World Series last year went to game seven. Yeah. Extra innings. It could have gone either way. It could have been the Blue Jays almost just as easy as it was the Dodgers at the end. So, ultimately there is does have to be competition. No so no salary cap for baseball. Oh, that's between the players and the owners. But what And And how do you feel about the Dodgers this season?

[00:15:23]So far, so good. Took a good start and the Padres are right on their heels. And are you going to be playing in the Congressional Baseball game now? I am going to try, but we'll see what's happening on the ground in Los Angeles or anywhere in California for that matter come June. Okay. Senator, great to see you. Thanks for having us in D.C.

[00:15:40]>> Alex. Good talking back.