Discourse by Representative Adam Smith, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, delves into the subject of deploying troops in Los Angeles.
HOST:
We're diving into the fuss surrounding the current events, so let's hear from Congressman Adam Smith, the top Dem on the House Armed Services Committee from Washington state. Morning, sir! Thanks for joining us.
CONGRESSMAN SMITH: Good morning and thanks for having me!
HOST: So, with your background in armed services and being a lawyer, do you believe that President Trump is acting legally in calling up active-duty military?
CONGRESSMAN SMITH: Nah, I don't think so. He's using a technical statute that kinda gives him authority, but in the wrong way. It's meant for very specific situations, but he's broadening it in ways that the courts would likely strike down if it went to trial. Trump doesn't seem too keen on following the law like the rest of us. I agree with Senator Reed and Governor Newsom—the president wants this confrontation, partly because he wants to stress the immigration enforcement issue, but more because he wants to politicize the US military and use it as a law enforcement tool, which is incredibly dangerous.
HOST: As you're from Washington state and not California, but you've contended that the LAPD had things under control during the violent riots. The White House argues they observed "violent rioters" enabled by California's governor. How do you explain that discrepancy?
CONGRESSMAN SMITH: Well, I might've been vague in my statement, but I'd say the situation definitely wasn't out of control. The local law enforcement had it covered, for sure. But why did Trump bring in troops when it wasn't necessary? I believe it's part of his attempt to turn the military into his personal police force and legitimize those actions. He's looking to create chaos, escalate situations, and undermine democratic principles. This has got to stop.
HOST: I get how you might feel frustration since you were trapped on Capitol Hill during the January 6 mob attack when Trump took forever to condemn the violence or call for reinforcements. But what do you say to Democratic Senator John Fetterman's claim that Democrats lose the moral high ground when they refuse to condemn violence from protesters?
CONGRESSMAN SMITH: Fair enough, absolutely. We shouldn't tolerate protesters that damage property, incite violence, or threaten people. But it is an entirely different issue to have the president using the U.S. military to enforce what was, at its start, a relatively small protest. Trump is escalating this mainly to exercise power and control, and we should be worried about his authoritarian approach to governance.
HOST: Do you think you're hearing concerns from Republicans about the president's use of active-duty military in domestic situations? People with institutional authority who'd be interested in defending those principles?
CONGRESSMAN SMITH: I wish. Most of them are keeping mum, just as they've let Trump get away with all sorts of terrible things before. Republicans in Congress need to start standing up for law, rule of law, and democracy instead of blindly following Trump's lead.
HOST: In your opinion, what should happen now?
CONGRESSMAN SMITH: Courts should rule Trump's authority illegitimate, as he's abusing his emergency power yet again. This isn't an emergency as defined by law, and the president doesn't get to define emergencies to his liking. De-escalation on both sides is key. The protesters should cool it, and so should Trump.
- Congressman Smith expressed concerns that President Trump is using the US military as a law enforcement tool, which could politicize the military and undermine democratic principles, similar to the views held by Senator Reed, Governor Newsom, and others.
- The representative suggested that the courts should rule against Trump's use of active-duty military in domestic situations, as he believes the president is abusing his emergency power and not following the law by defining emergencies to his liking.
