Connect with us

Politics

Column: We were promised a 'softer' Donald Trump. What we got was a fully Trumpified Republican Party

Published

on

Column: We were promised a 'softer' Donald Trump. What we got was a fully Trumpified Republican Party

Donald Trump couldn’t restrain himself.

The former president’s aides had promised that his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention would showcase a “softer,” more conciliatory Trump — and, for perhaps 20 minutes, it did.

But for viewers who watched the whole 92-minute stem-winder, which devolved into a meandering list of bogus claims and well-worn grievances, the lesson was that there is no New Trump. If anything, this year’s version of Trump is even Trumpier than before — one committed to cementing the populist transformation of the GOP for at least another generation.

So the convention in Milwaukee ended with its mission only half accomplished.

Advertisement

Political conventions are lumbering anachronisms, but they survive because they serve two purposes. First, they ratify a choice of nominee and unify and inspire party activists. Then they take advantage of free television time to present their message to the uncommitted but persuadable voters they need to win.

This week’s convention ratified not only Trump’s third nomination, but also the lasting triumph of his grievance-based MAGA ideology over the rest of the GOP. It brought skeptical holdouts like former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley back into the Trumpist fold (even though she drew boos) and produced a show of party unity.

Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, who was Trump’s chief primary rival, was one of the former foes who fell in line behind the ex-president during the Republican National Convention this week.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

But when it came to a message that might persuade suburban voters, women and others in the center of the electorate that this year’s Trump is an improvement over previous models, the convention fell short — a missed opportunity for a candidate who has never won more than 47% of the popular vote.

The first time Trump won the GOP nomination, in 2016, it was a hostile takeover by an insurgent with weak Republican credentials. Dissidents like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio’s then-Gov. John Kasich warned that the New York real estate mogul was taking the party down a path to destruction.

The second time, in 2020, Trump’s nomination was automatic, the traditional act of a party denominating an incumbent president.

This time, the convention made it clear that the old business-dominated, “country club” Republican Party of Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushes is long gone.

“Trump has realigned the parties in a way that wasn’t there before,” said Geoffrey Kabaservice, author of “Rule and Ruin,” a history of modern Republicanism. “Almost every white working-class voter is going to be a Republican. Almost every college-educated voter is going to be a Democrat” — a reversal of the norm for more than half a century. “That realignment appears likely to last several decades at least.”

Advertisement

The most striking evidence is the nominee’s choice of Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance for vice president.

The 39-year-old populist was the Trumpiest of the three finalists; North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio had roots in the party’s pre-Trump establishment.

In his convention speech, Vance made it clear that, like Trump, he blames old-style Republicans like the Bushes for the nation’s ills as much as he blames Democrats.

“From Iraq to Afghanistan, from the financial crisis to the Great Recession, from open borders to stagnating wages, the people who govern this country have failed and failed again,” he said.

Vance’s selection may have partly reflected electoral strategy: He could help the ticket win white working-class voters in the industrial swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. But it was also a signal of the direction Trump wants the party to take in 2028.

Advertisement

“Vance is a generational play, not an electoral play,” Democratic strategist David Axelrod said.

In a second Trump administration, Vance would not act as a restraining influence, as Burgum or Rubio might have, but as an intensifier of Trump’s populist instincts.

Vance has been more explicit than Trump on his desire to end U.S. aid to Ukraine immediately. “I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine, one way or the other,” he said in 2022.

Intriguingly, Vance has broken from GOP orthodoxy — and from Trump’s positions — on several economic issues. He has said he does not think cuts in corporate taxes, a key part of Trump’s agenda, are necessary. He has suggested he could support a $20 minimum wage, anathema to most business leaders.

Some of the most interesting battles of a second Trump administration could center on those issues.

Advertisement

“What you have in this ticket is a weird amalgam of plutocratic populism,” Kabaservice said. “It’s incoherent and inconsistent. It’s not clear which parts Trump has signed onto. After all, which part of his agenda is most likely to pass? I think the answer is big corporate tax cuts.”

Trump’s acceptance speech was also a weird amalgam — between the kinder, gentler nominee his aides had hoped to showcase and the angry, resentful candidate he has been for most of the last decade.

On Thursday morning, daughter-in-law Lara Trump, vice chair of the GOP, promised that the acceptance speech would reveal “a bit softer version” of the nominee, who she said had been deeply affected by his brush with death after being wounded in a gunman’s assassination attempt.

But after a long description of the assassination attempt and a brief appeal to national unity — “We must not criminalize dissent or demonize political disagreement,” Trump said — he resumed demonizing President Biden and other Democrats, including “crazy Nancy Pelosi,” accusing them of “destroying our country.”

Trump’s definition of “unity,” it turned out, did not include mutual respect or bipartisan cooperation. It boiled down to accepting his policies and dropping every federal prosecution he faces.

Advertisement

“If Democrats want to unify our country, they should drop these partisan witch hunts,” he said.

Most of the address — much of which departed from his written text, as Trump usually does — was a loop of greatest hits from Trump’s stump speeches. It included a torrent of bogus claims, accusations and yet another admiring mention of the “late, great” fictional cannibal, Hannibal Lecter. The only sign of restraint was that this time, he did not use the word “vermin” to describe his political opponents or promise to prosecute them if he reaches the White House.

If he had accomplished the change in tone that his aides sought to broaden his appeal, he might have paved a path for his party to a popular-vote majority and control of the House of Representatives and Senate. But the speech he gave probably kept alive the doubts many voters have about his fitness for office.

And he gave Democrats an opening they can exploit — but only if they can settle on a nominee of their own.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Video: Why the U.S. Brought Back Kilmar Abrego Garcia

Published

on

Video: Why the U.S. Brought Back Kilmar Abrego Garcia

new video loaded: Why the U.S. Brought Back Kilmar Abrego Garcia

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, was flown back to the United States on Friday to face federal criminal charges. Devlin Barrett, who covers the Justice Department, explains the charges and what may come next for Garcia.

Recent episodes in Politics

Continue Reading

Politics

National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles County as anti-ICE protests rage: border czar Tom Homan

Published

on

National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles County as anti-ICE protests rage: border czar Tom Homan

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The National Guard will be deployed to Los Angeles County after anti-ICE protests continued to escalate Saturday afternoon, Trump administration border czar Tom Homan told Fox News Saturday.

On Saturday, tear gas was deployed near Home Depot in Paramount, California, where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers were allegedly conducting a raid.

Following the raid, a violent protest broke out and several arrests were made for assault on a federal agent, according to U.S. Border Patrol Chief Michael W. Banks.

President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to call out state and local leadership’s inaction.

Advertisement

“If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can’t do their jobs, which everyone knows they can’t, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!” Trump wrote.

People block off the street and set a fire during protests against ICE and immigration raids on Saturday, June 7, 2025 in Paramount, CA. (Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images) (Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

FEDERAL OFFICIALS SLAM DEMOCRATS FOR ‘DANGEROUS’ RHETORIC AS ICE AGENTS FACE VIOLENT MOBS IN LA, NYC

Newsom responded on X, claiming the federal government “is moving to take over the California National Guard” and deploy 2,000 soldiers.

“That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions,” Newsom wrote. “LA authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment’s notice. We are in close coordination with the city and county, and there is currently no unmet need. The Guard has been admirably serving LA throughout recovery. This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust.”

Advertisement
ICE riot LA

People hold Mexican flags and gesture next to a car in flames following multiple detentions by ICE, in the Los Angeles County city of Paramount, Calif., Saturday. (Reuters/Barbara Davidson)

Newsom noted California is deploying additional California Highway Patrol troopers to maintain safety on Los Angeles highways “to keep the peace.” 

“It’s not their job to assist in federal immigration enforcement,” Newsom wrote in another post. “The federal government is sowing chaos so they can have an excuse to escalate. That is not the way any civilized country behaves.”

Vice President JD Vance clarified the border crisis is an invasion.

“One of the main technical issues in the immigration judicial battles is whether Biden’s border crisis counted as an ‘invasion.’ So now we have foreign nationals with no legal right to be in the country waving foreign flags and assaulting law enforcement. If only we had a good word for that…”

Videos and photos provided to Fox News by a federal source showed Border Patrol agents’ perspective from inside their vehicle as they attempted to leave the protest area.

Advertisement

Footage shows their vehicle being pelted with rocks, stones, and concrete, as the windshield shatters.

Federal sources stressed the violence at the Paramount riot could have killed an agent or caused a crash.

Banks shared a photo of a Border Patrol agent’s bloody hand, which was injured by a rock flying through the windshield.

“ANY attack on our agents or officers will not be tolerated,” Banks wrote on X. “You will be arrested and federally prosecuted.”

A Border Patrol agent receives medical attention after being injured by a flying rock.

A Border Patrol agent receives medical attention after being injured by a flying rock. (Exclusive to FOX provided via Federal Source)

SOCIAL MEDIA, TRUMP ADMIN ERUPTS OVER LA MAYOR’S REACTION TO ICE RAIDS: ‘YOU’RE A CRIMINAL TOO’

Advertisement

While protesters reportedly targeted law enforcement vehicles, they also allegedly damaged and robbed nearby property.

FOX LA reporter Matthew Seedorff shared a video to X showing the station’s SUV with its windows smashed with bricks.

“F*** ICE” was spray painted in white on the passenger side of the car.

FOX LA's work SUV was damaged by anti-ICE protesters in Paramount, California.

FOX LA’s work SUV was damaged by anti-ICE protesters in Paramount, Calif., Saturday.  (@MattSeedorff via X)

“So this is what’s left of our work car,” Seedorff said in the video. “We had it parked near the scene. Obviously, we got here right at the beginning before we knew it was going to escalate to the situation that it got to. This is a brand-new news truck that we just got. Looks like the tires were slashed. They busted into the windows. Our personal bags were in the car [and] they stole all the stuff that was inside.”

In an interview with Fox News’ “The Big Weekend Show,” Homan said authorities are “stepping up” and “mobiliz[ing]” to address violence and destruction occurring near raid locations where demonstrators are gathering.

Advertisement

“American people, this is about enforcing the law, and again, we’re not going to apologize for doing it,” Homan said.

ICE operations in LA this week resulted in the arrest of 118 illegal immigrants, including five gang members and those with prior criminal histories of drug trafficking, assault, cruelty to children, domestic violence, robbery, and alien smuggling, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Nationwide, 2,000 illegal immigrants were arrested this week.

The Paramount protest comes less than 24 hours after more than 1,000 Los Angeles rioters surrounded a federal law enforcement building and assaulted ICE agents, slashed tires, and defaced buildings.

ICE and immigration raids

Police kick tear gas back toward a crowd as people block off the street and set a fire during protests against ICE and immigration raids on Saturday, in Paramount, Calif. (Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

ICE SWEEPS THROUGH LA BUSINESSES AS LOCAL DEMOCRATS CRY FOUL OVER TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

Though Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass did not immediately condemn the protests, she made a post on X late Saturday calling violence “unacceptable.”

Advertisement

“This is a difficult time for our city. As we recover from an unprecedented natural disaster, many in our community are feeling fear following recent federal immigration enforcement actions across Los Angeles County,” Bass wrote. “Reports of unrest outside the city, including in Paramount, are deeply concerning. We’ve been in direct contact with officials in Washington, D.C., and are working closely with law enforcement to find the best path forward. Everyone has the right to peacefully protest, but let me be clear: violence and destruction are unacceptable, and those responsible will be held accountable.”

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem took a stronger stance toward protesters.

“A message to the LA rioters: you will not stop us or slow us down,” Noem wrote in a post. “@ICEgov will continue to enforce the law. And if you lay a hand on a law enforcement officer, you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino said the agency is seeking information regarding the identity of those throwing rocks at vehicles conducting critical law enforcement operations. 

“One of the perpetrators in this video is wearing a helmet, and we’re going to use our investigative tools to locate the individual,” Bongino wrote in an X post. “I strongly suggest you turn yourself in, it’s only a matter of time.”

Advertisement

 

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and Los Angeles County Fire Department did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s requests for comment.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates. 

Continue Reading

Politics

The legal issues raised by Trump sending the National Guard to L.A.

Published

on

The legal issues raised by Trump sending the National Guard to L.A.

The Trump administration announced Saturday that National Guard troops were being sent to Los Angeles — an action Gov. Gavin Newsom said he opposed. President Trump is activating the Guard by using powers that have been invoked only rarely.

Trump said in a memo to the Defense and Homeland Security departments that he was calling the National Guard into federal service under a provision called Title 10 to “temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions.”

What is Title 10?

Title 10 provides for activating National Guard troops for federal service. Such Title 10 orders can be used for deploying National Guard members in the United States or abroad.

Erwin Chemerinsky, one of the nation’s leading constitutional law scholars, said “for the federal government to take over the California National Guard, without the request of the governor, to put down protests is truly chilling.”

Advertisement

“It is using the military domestically to stop dissent,” said Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. “It certainly sends a message as to how this administration is going to respond to protests. It is very frightening to see this done.”

Tom Homan, the Trump administration’s “border czar,” announced the plan to send the National Guard in an interview Saturday on Fox News as protesters continued confronting immigration agents during raids.

“This is about enforcing the law,” Homan said. “We’re not going to apologize for doing it. We’re stepping up.”

“We’re already ahead of the game. We were already mobilizing,” he added. “We’re gonna bring the National Guard in tonight. We’re gonna continue doing our job. We’re gonna push back on these people.”

In his memo, Trump cited “numerous incidents of violence and disorder,” and said federal immigration detention facilities are threatened.

Advertisement

“To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States,” the president’s memo says.

Trump called into federal service at least 2,000 National Guard troops for 60 days — or “at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense.”

Newsom criticized the federal action, saying that local law enforcement was already mobilized and that sending in troops was a move that was “purposefully inflammatory” and would “only escalate tensions.”

The governor called the president and they spoke for about 40 minutes, according to the governor’s office.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned in a post on X that “if violence continues, active-duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert.”

Advertisement

Newsom condemned that as a threat to deploy Marines against U.S. citizens and said: “This is deranged behavior.”

Other rarely used powers

Critics have raised concerns that Trump also might try to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to activate troops as part of his campaign to deport large numbers of undocumented immigrants.

The president has the authority under the Insurrection Act to federalize the National Guard units of states to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” that “so hinders the execution of the laws” that any portion of the state’s inhabitants are deprived of a constitutional right and state authorities are unable or unwilling to protect that right.

The American Civil Liberties Union said Trump’s use of the military domestically is misguided and dangerous.

“President Trump’s deployment of federalized National Guard troops in response to protests is unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “By taking this action, the Trump administration is putting Angelenos in danger, creating legal and ethical jeopardy for troops, and recklessly undermining our foundational democratic principle that the military should not police civilians.”

Advertisement

According to the ACLU, Title 10 activation of National Guard troops has historically been rare and Congress has prohibited troops deployed under the law from providing “direct assistance” to civilian law enforcement — under both a separate provision of Title 10 as well as the Posse Comitatus Act.

The Insurrection Act, however, is viewed as an exception to the prohibitions under the Posse Comitatus Act.

In 1958, President Eisenhower invoked the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Arkansas to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision ending racial segregation in schools, and to defend Black students against a violent mob.

Chemerinsky said invoking the Insurrection Act and nationalizing a state’s National Guard has been reserved for extreme circumstances in which there are no other alternatives to maintain the peace. Chemerinsky said he feared the Trump administration is seeking “to send a message to protesters of the willingness of the federal government to use federal troops to quell protests.”

Sen. Adam Schiff said in a social media post that “there is nothing President Trump would like more than a violent confrontation with protestors to justify the unjustifiable — invocation of the Insurrection Act or some form of martial law.”

Advertisement

In 1992, California Gov. Pete Wilson requested that President George H.W. Bush use the National Guard to quell the unrest in Los Angeles after police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. That was under a different provision of federal law that allows the president to use military force in the United States. That provision applies if a state governor or legislature requests it.

Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University Law School, said the president “is embracing a very broad view of executive power.”

“If the president does use the Insurrection Act,” Levinson said, “we’re going to see big legal battles in the next hours, days and weeks about whether or not those broad grants of authority can be used given these circumstances.”

She noted that while Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass have described the incidents as protests, the president has described it as a violent uprising.

“Everyone should pause when the president is using emergency powers and the governor and the mayor are saying, please don’t, we don’t need this,” Levinson said.

Advertisement

The Los Angeles Police Department said in a statement that demonstrations on Saturday “remained peaceful … and we commend all those who exercised their First Amendment rights responsibly.”

Chemerinsky wrote in an opinion article that the use of the military to quell protests “is something associated with dictators in foreign countries,” and that any military deployments in domestic situations “should be regarded as a last resort in the United States.”

“Unfortunately, President Trump likely has the legal authority to do this,” Chemerinsky wrote.

“This is not to deny that some of the anti-ICE protests turned violent. But they were limited in size and there is no reason to believe that law enforcement could not control them,” Chemerinsky said. “In the context of everything that we have seen from the Trump administration’s authoritarian actions, this recent action should make us even more afraid.”

California politics editor Phil Willon contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending