Connect with us

Politics

Five takeaways from the testy U.S. Senate debate between Schiff and Garvey

Published

on

Five takeaways from the testy U.S. Senate debate between Schiff and Garvey

The only head-to-head debate in California’s high-stakes U.S. Senate race between Rep. Adam B. Schiff and former Dodger Steve Garvey was dominated Tuesday by contentious exchanges on a host of national political issues — from immigration to the economy, expanding conflict in the Middle East, reproductive healthcare and global warming.

The sharpest exchanges, however, related to the two candidates’ vastly different stances on former President Trump.

Schiff, a Burbank Democrat with more than 20 years of experience in the House and a commanding lead in the polls, cast Garvey as an inexperienced Trump backer who would push conservative rather than Californian values in Washington.

Californians, Schiff quipped, are “not looking for some MAGA mini-me in a baseball uniform.”

Advertisement

Garvey, a Palm Desert Republican with no political experience but high name recognition from his days as a Major League Baseball star, suggested Schiff was too caught up in party politics and his vendetta against Trump to focus on the issues most important to California voters.

“How can you think about one man every day and focus on that when you’ve got millions of people in California to take care of?” Garvey said. “I think it’s unconscionable.”

The debate was testy from the start. When Schiff in his first remarks accused Garvey of turning a blind eye to the worst impulses of Trump — who Schiff said wants to “be a dictator on Day One” — Garvey replied, borrowing a famous Ronald Reagan line used in a 1980 presidential debate, “There you go again.”

During a separate exchange on immigration, in which Schiff accused Garvey of supporting Trump’s plan for mass deportations, Garvey said, “One of the two of us is honest and straightforward.”

“I would agree with that,” Schiff shot back.

Advertisement

The debate offered a final chance for the two candidates to square off in public before voters decide between them in the November election. Californians will be asked to vote twice in the Senate race: First, to choose Schiff or Garvey to serve out the remainder of the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s final term, which ends in early January, and, separately, who should serve a subsequent six-year Senate term.

Tuesday’s debate was the first since Garvey and Schiff won the two highest totals of votes in a more crowded primary field, in which Schiff bested Democratic rivals Reps. Katie Porter of Irvine and Barbara Lee of Oakland. Polls show Schiff with a substantial lead over Garvey.

Trump loomed over immigration debate

Moderators of the fast-paced, hour-long debate — hosted by KABC-TV in partnership with Univision and the League of Women Voters — asked Schiff and Garvey multiple questions about immigration and border security.

Schiff said the country needs to “get control of the border” with more personnel and technology to interdict people and drugs. But it also needs a “comprehensive immigration policy” that treats people humanely and provides relief for farmworkers and undocumented people who arrived in the U.S. as children.

And he blasted Garvey for backing Trump, saying Trump’s plan is for mass deportations that will devastate the country and immigrant communities.

Advertisement

“You’re voting for mass deportations when you say you’re for Donald Trump,” Schiff said.

Garvey said his campaign has focused heavily on Latino communities. He also said border security needs to be greatly enhanced. He said Schiff, alongside President Biden, had created an “existential crisis” by backing an “open border.”

“What we have to do is secure the border. We have to finish off the wall. We have to reinstate ‘remain in Mexico,’” Garvey said. “We have to reinforce our border patrol. We have to get back to building facilities at the border that will detain these illegal immigrants, then a judicial system that will will try them.”

A record number of people have been stopped at the U.S.-Mexico border during the Biden-Harris administration, and Republicans across the country — including Garvey — are pushing to make border security a campaign liability for Democrats.

“A lot of Americans are concerned about immigration,” said Mindy Romero, the founder of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at USC. “The reason why Republicans are talking about it so much is because it works.”

Advertisement

While Garvey’s chances of winning the Senate race are low given how deeply blue California voters are overall, Romero said, he is still the highest-ranking Republican on the ballot after Trump — and what Garvey says about immigration could still matter for Republicans.

“In California, we’re not a monolith and we’re not all in sync on this issue,” Romero said. “What Garvey says and does could help motivate and mobilize Republicans.”

Garvey struggled to state a clear position on abortion

The moderators sought, without success, to bring clarity to Garvey’s position on abortion rights.

He has said that he personally opposes abortion and would not support a federal ban on abortion.

“I am a Catholic,” Garvey said Tuesday night. “I believe in life at conception. I believe that God breathes a soul into these fetuses. So I am steadfast in terms of my policies on abortion, and also pledge to support all the people of California.”

Advertisement

But Garvey also pledged to “support the voice of Californians.” He said he supported the amendment enshrining a right to abortion in the state Constitution that two-thirds of Golden State voters supported in 2022 after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

If Garvey is “listening to the voices of Californians like he claims, he would hear their voices loud and clear,” Schiff said. “Californians want a national right to reproductive freedom and they don’t want the government in the business of making that decision for women.”

Schiff has been a longtime vocal advocate for access to abortion services, and said Tuesday that he supports establishing a national right to abortion access.

A UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll in early August, co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times, found that more than half of likely California voters surveyed — 52% — said electing someone who “would be a strong voice in defending abortion rights in the Senate” was very important to them.

Differences on government’s role on the economy

The differences in how Schiff and Garvey see the role of government was fully on display when they were pressed on how to address the rising cost of goods and housing.

Advertisement

“We’re much worse off than we were four years ago,” Garvey said. He said he supported more free-market policies, and knocked Schiff for what he described as “Schiff-flation.”

Housing is a local issue and more federal regulation could lead to the government being “overinvolved,” Garvey said.

Asked how he would help renters, he said he’d do so by getting the U.S. economy “roaring again.”

Schiff said he would support more direct federal spending on housing, and as well as an expansion of Section 8 vouchers, a government subsidy that enables eligible tenants to find housing with private landlords. He also proposed a “renter’s tax credit,” akin to the tax deduction that allows homeowners to write off their mortgage interest payments.

Garvey said he would support tariffs on imported goods shipped by “a company that threatens the success of an American company.” But, he said, he would prefer to see lower domestic taxes to foster more small businesses and reduce the need to import foreign goods.

Advertisement

Schiff said he doesn’t support Trump’s “across-the-board tariffs,” which he said would lead to higher prices for consumers. He said he would support “targeted tariffs” when China dumps cheap goods into the country “to try to drive American businesses out of business.”

Feinstein’s legacy stirs debate

Throughout the debate, the political specter of the woman whose seat Schiff and Garvey are vying for loomed large.

Right out of the gate, KABC anchor and moderator Marc Brown brought up Feinstein having authored an assault weapons ban in 1994, and asked Garvey whether he would take any action on guns were he elected.

“I believe in the Constitution, I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe it will never be overturned, nor should we attempt to overturn that,” Garvey said. “I do have sympathy for all of those who may have been victims of shootings, but I think that the most important thing is a stringent background check that goes much deeper than it is today, in order to to preserve the integrity of the Second Amendment and to be able to provide for people to defend themselves.”

Schiff said Californians need leaders like Feinstein who are willing to “stand up to” the National Rifle Assn.

Advertisement

“I would support an assault weapons ban. I would support extended and universal background checks. I would support a ban on extended ammunition clips and my own bill, which would strip away the NRA’s immunity from liability,” Schiff said. “Mr. Garvey was asked just a couple weeks ago if he would support any gun control measure, and his answer was unequivocal, no, that is not what Californians are looking for. Californians want a leader like Dianne Feinstein, who will stand up to the NRA.”

Later in the debate, Feinstein came up again, on the issue of environmental regulations — and whether Schiff would ease water restrictions on farmers.

Schiff said he would not “support eviscerating” regulations, but would do what Sen. Feinstein did, which is “look for those opportunities where we can have a win, both for our farms, our cities and our environment.”

Garvey said environmentalists in the state need to work with farmers, and that he is a “consensus builder” who can help make that happen. He called water the “platinum issue in California,” and one Schiff doesn’t know how to fix.

Schiff would later evoke Feinstein’s name on the economy, saying he realizes many in California are struggling financially and that he will work with “community leaders and stakeholders in every part of this Golden State” in “Feinstein’s model.”

Advertisement

“Mr. Schiff, you’re no Dianne Feinstein,” Garvey said. “I remember when this state was the heartbeat of America, and now it’s just a murmur.”

Schiff, in response, said Feinstein was a friend of his, and would never “pretend to be the equal” of hers, because she was a “giant.” But he suggested he is far more similar to Feinstein than Garvey.

“While Mr. Garvey was signing baseballs for the last 37 years, I was seeing presidents of both parties and governors of both parties sign my bills into law,” Schiff said.

Back to Trump

After the debate, in small gaggles with reporters, both Schiff and Garvey came back to another politician not in the room: Trump.

Schiff said it was clear from the debate that Garvey is “for Trump” and his agenda.

Advertisement

“He’s for states being able to ban abortion. He’s against any form of gun safety legislation. He’s for opening up the oil spigots. These are views right out of Project 2025 and Trump, but they are not in sync in California,” Schiff said.

Garvey said he felt he had been unfairly tied to Trump.

“People know that we’re two entirely different people,” he said.

He said Schiff’s attempt to “paint me far-right” wouldn’t stand up, because “people know I’m conservatively moderate.”

Garvey declined to say whether he would vote for Trump in November, but confirmed that he voted for Trump for a third time in this year’s primary.

Advertisement

Politics

Mamdani’s response to Trump’s Iran strike sparks conservative backlash: ‘Rooting for the ayatollah’

Published

on

Mamdani’s response to Trump’s Iran strike sparks conservative backlash: ‘Rooting for the ayatollah’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

New York City’s socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani is facing blowback from conservatives on social media over his post condemning the U.S. attack on Iran that led to the killing of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

On Saturday, as a joint strike on Iran by the United States and Israel was developing, Mamdani blasted the Trump administration’s decision in a post on X that has been viewed roughly 20 million times. 

“Today’s military strikes on Iran — carried out by the United States and Israel — mark a catastrophic escalation in an illegal war of aggression,” Mamdani wrote.

“Bombing cities. Killing civilians. Opening a new theater of war. Americans do not want this. They do not want another war in pursuit of regime change.”

Advertisement

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani speaks to reporters during a news conference in New York Feb. 17, 2026.  (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Mamdani said Americans prefer “relief from the affordability crisis” before speaking directly to Iranians in New York City.

“You are part of the fabric of this city — you are our neighbors, small business owners, students, artists, workers, and community leaders,” Mamdani said. “You will be safe here.”

The post was quickly slammed by conservatives on social media making the case that Mamdani’s response appeared sympathetic to Iran’s brutal regime and pointing to his lack of public reaction to the Iranian protesters killed in recent years.

“Comrade Mayor is rooting for the Ayatollah,” GOP Sen. Ted Cruz posted on X. “They can chant together.”

Advertisement

OBAMA OFFICIAL WHO BACKED IRAN DEAL SPARKS ONLINE OUTRAGE WITH REACTION TO TRUMP’S STRIKE: ‘SIT THIS ONE OUT’

“Do u say anything pro American ?” Fox News host Brian Kilmeade posted on X. “do u know any Iranians – ? they hate @fr_Khamenei they celebrate his death, you should be celebrating his death ! hes killed thousands of American’s and just killed 30k Iranians, did u even say a word about that? You are an embarrassment !! Please quit.”

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, questions Pam Bondi, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to be attorney general, during her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing in Hart building Jan. 15, 2025.  (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

“I don’t feel safe in New York listening to someone like you, Mamdani, who sympathizes with the regime that killed more than 30,000 unarmed Iranians in less than 24 hours,” Iranian American journalist Masih Alinejad posted on X. 

“We Iranians do not allow you to lecture us about war while you had nothing to say when the Islamic Republic shot schoolgirls and blinded more than 10,000 innocent people in the streets. You were busy celebrating the hijab while women of my beloved country Iran were jailed and raped by Islamic Security forces for removing it. 

Advertisement

“And NOW you find your voice to defend the regime? No. I will not let you claim the moral high ground. The people of Iran want to be free. Where were you when they needed solidarity?”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“How is it that you can’t differentiate between good and evil?” Billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman posted on X. “Why is this so hard for you?”

“It takes a particular kind of audacity, or ignorance, for a city mayor to appoint himself the conscience of American foreign policy while his constituents step over garbage on their way to work,” GOP Rep. Nancy Mace posted on X. “History will not remember his bravery. It will not remember him at all.”

“Iranian New Yorkers are thrilled today and see right through you,” Republican New York City Councilwoman Vickie Paladino posted on X. 

Advertisement

Bill Ackman, CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management LP, speaks during the WSJ D.Live global technology conference in Laguna Beach, Calif., Oct. 17, 2017. (Patrick Fallon/Bloomberg/Getty Images)

“When Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, UAE, Bahrain all support today’s operation eliminating world’s #1 sponsor of terror, but New York City’s Mayor @ZohranMamdani is shilling for Iran,” Republican New York City Councilwoman Inna Vernikov posted on X. 

Fox News Digital reached out to Mamdani’s office for comment.

Shortly after Mamdani’s post, it was announced by President Trump and Israeli officials that the military operation resulted in Khamenei’s death.

Israeli leaders confirmed Khamenei’s compound and offices were reduced to rubble early Saturday after a targeted strike in downtown Tehran.

Advertisement

“Khamenei was the contemporary Middle East’s longest-serving autocrat. He did not get to be that way by being a gambler. Khamenei was an ideologue, but one who ruthlessly pursued the preservation and protection of his ideology, often taking two steps forward and one step back,” Behnam Ben Taleblu, senior director of FDD’s Iran program, told Fox News Digital.

Related Article

Omar, Squad lash out at Trump in response to Iran strike: 'Illegal regime change war'
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump vowed to end wars. He is now opening a new front against Iran

Published

on

Trump vowed to end wars. He is now opening a new front against Iran

For a decade, President Trump promised to end what he calls forever wars, casting himself as a leader opposed to prolonged conflicts in the Middle East and who would rather pursue peace in the world.

Now, early in his second term, Trump is taking military action against Iran that could expand well beyond a limited effort to halt the country’s nuclear program.

In a video posted on Truth Social, the commander in chief said American forces also plan to “raze their missile industry to the ground” and “annihilate their navy.” He warned members of Iran’s military to surrender or “face certain death.” And urged the Iranian people to take the moment as an opportunity to rise up against their government.

“This regime will soon learn that no one should challenge the strength and might of the United States armed forces,” Trump said.

A few hours after relaying that message, Trump confirmed in a separate social media post that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, was among those killed by U.S. and Israeli strikes. Even with his death, Trump said that “the heavy and pinpoint bombing” would continue in Iran “as long as necessary to achieve our objective of PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD!”

Advertisement

Trump, who has been considering a strike on Iran for several weeks, acknowledged he reached the decision to attack Iran while aware of the human toll that could come with it.

“The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties. That often happens in war,” he said. “But we are doing this, not for now, we are doing this for the future, and it is a noble mission.”

Trump’s military campaign in Iran is a sharp turn in tone for a president who has long been critical of open-ended conflicts in the Middle East, and marks a shift from an America-first agenda message that helped him return to the White House.

“I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars,” Trump said in his November 2024 victory speech as he promised to focus national resources on domestic priorities rather than foreign conflicts.

As Trump advocated to bring home American forces from deployments around the world and to withdraw from key defense treaties, his position resonated with a war-weary electorate in the lead-up to the election.

Advertisement

Fewer than six in 10 Americans (56%) believed the United States should take an active role in world affairs ahead of the election — the second-lowest level recorded since the question was first asked in 1974, according to polling by the Council on Foreign Affairs.

Trump’s posture on war in the Middle East had been largely consistent before he ran for office.

In 2013, he criticized then-President Obama’s negotiations with Tehran, predicting in a post on Twitter that Obama would “attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly.” That same year, Trump warned that “our horrendous leadership could unknowingly lead us into World War III.”

And in a heated February 2016 debate, Trump attacked former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, stating that his brother George W. Bush lied about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities to get the U.S. into the Iraq war. Trump called the Iraq war a “big, fat mistake” that “destabilized the Middle East.”

“They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none,” he said.

Advertisement

At the time of the Iraq war, however, Trump had said he supported it.

Trump’s confrontation with Iran bears little resemblance to his earlier rebukes.

Trump has yet to present evidence of an imminent threat to the United States from Iran’s nuclear program — a capability he claimed to have “obliterated” just eight months ago — and has instead framed the military campaign as one to ensure Tehran never develops nuclear weapons at all.

“It is a very simple message,” he said. “They will never have a nuclear weapon.”

Trump’s shift has already drawn the attention of congressional Democrats, many of whom are calling the president out for backing out on his promise to end foreign wars — and are demanding that he involve Congress in any further military actions.

Advertisement

“Regardless of what the President may think or say, he does not enjoy a blank check to launch large-scale military operations without a clear strategy, without any transparency or public debate, and not without Congressional approval,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) criticized Trump for “drawing the country into yet another foreign war that Americans don’t want and Congress has not authorized.”

The military involvement in Iran is not the first time that members of Congress have complained about the Trump administration’s willingness to sideline the legislative branch on decisions that could trigger broader conflicts this year.

In January, Trump ordered military forces to capture former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and said the United States would run the sovereign nation until further notice. He threatened military action in Colombia, whose leftist President Gustavo Petro has been one of Trump’s most vocal critics.

Trump has alienated allied nations when he said he was willing to send American troops to seize Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of Denmark. And on Friday, he said U.S. is in talks with Havana and raised the possibility of a “friendly takeover of Cuba” without offering any details on what he meant.

Advertisement

His actions have coincided with his annoyance at not being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. At one point, the president said he no longer felt an “obligation to think purely of Peace” because he didn’t get the recognition.

Trump’s shifting tone, and his use of violent war imagery in his pretaped remarks about Iran, have rattled even part of his base.

“I did not campaign for this. I did not donate money for this,” said former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a conservative who recently left Congress after a bitter fight with Trump. “This is not what we thought MAGA was supposed to be. Shame!”

Republican leaders, however, are largely standing behind the president.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said Iran “posed a clear and unacceptable threat” to the United States and has refused “the diplomatic off-ramps.” House Speaker Mike Johnson (D-La.) said Trump took the action after exhausting “every effort to pursue peaceful and diplomatic solutions.”

Advertisement

Other top Republican lawmakers rallied behind Trump, too.

“The butcher’s bill has finally come due for the ayatollahs,” Sen. Tom Cotton, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote in a post on X. “May God bless and protect our troops on this vital mission of vengeance, and justice, and safety.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Iran fires missiles at US bases across Middle East after American strikes on nuclear, IRGC sites

Published

on

Iran fires missiles at US bases across Middle East after American strikes on nuclear, IRGC sites

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Iran launched missile and drone strikes targeting U.S. military facilities in multiple Middle Eastern countries Friday, retaliating after coordinated U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iranian military and nuclear-linked sites.

Explosions were reported in or near areas hosting American forces in Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Jordan, according to regional officials and state media accounts. Several of those governments said their air defense systems intercepted incoming projectiles.

It remains unclear whether any U.S. service members were killed or injured, and the extent of potential damage to American facilities has not yet been confirmed. U.S. officials have not publicly released casualty figures or formal damage assessments.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) described the operation as a direct response to what Tehran called “aggression” against Iranian territory earlier in the day. Iranian officials claimed they targeted U.S. military infrastructure and command facilities.

Advertisement

Explosions were reported in or near areas hosting American forces in Bahrain, pictured above. (Photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Adelola Tinubu/U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/U.S. 5th Fleet )

The United States military earlier carried out strikes against what officials described as high-value Iranian targets, including IRGC facilities, naval assets and underground sites believed to be associated with Iran’s nuclear program. One U.S. official told Fox News that American forces had “suppressed” Iranian air defenses in the initial wave of strikes.

Tomahawk cruise missiles were used in the opening phase of the U.S. operation, according to a U.S. official. The campaign was described as a multi-geographic operation designed to overwhelm Iran’s defensive capabilities and could continue for multiple days. Officials also indicated the U.S. employed one-way attack drones in combat for the first time.

IF KHAMENEI FALLS, WHO TAKES IRAN? STRIKES WILL EXPOSE POWER VACUUM — AND THE IRGC’S GRIP

Smoke rises after reported Iranian missile attacks, following strikes by the United States and Israel against Iran, in Manama, Bahrain, Feb. 28, 2026. (Reuters)

Advertisement

Iran’s retaliatory barrage targeted countries that host American forces, including Bahrain — home to the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet — as well as Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base and the UAE’s Al Dhafra Air Base. Authorities in those nations reported intercepting many of the incoming missiles. At least one civilian was killed in the UAE by falling debris, according to local authorities.

Iranian officials characterized their response as proportionate and warned of additional action if strikes continue. A senior U.S. official described the Iranian retaliation as “ineffective,” though independent assessments of the overall impact are still developing.

Smoke rises over the city after the Israeli army launched a second wave of airstrikes on Iran in Tehran on Feb. 28, 2026. (Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Regional governments condemned the strikes on their territory as violations of sovereignty, raising the risk that additional countries could become directly involved if escalation continues.

Advertisement

The situation remains fluid, with military and diplomatic channels active across the region. Pentagon officials are expected to provide further updates as damage assessments and casualty reviews are completed.

Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin contributed to this report. 

Related Article

Iraq War flashbacks? Experts say Trump’s Iran buildup signals pressure campaign, not regime change
Continue Reading

Trending