Scott Jennings Slams Gavin Newsom for Focusing on Presidential Ambitions Amid LA Crisis

In a searing critique on CNN, conservative pundit Scott Jennings took aim at California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) for what he described as a politically motivated response to the ongoing civil unrest in Los Angeles.

Jennings, who is known for his staunch support of President Donald Trump, accused Newsom of using the chaos in LA to further his own presidential aspirations while neglecting the immediate needs of his state.

“It’s amazing to me. First of all, this guy is the governor of a state, and it is—got one of its most important cities burning on his watch, and he’s out here launching a presidential campaign,” Jennings said during his appearance on CNN.

His comments underscored the growing frustration among conservatives with the leadership coming from the Democratic Party, particularly in states like California, where left-wing policies have been blamed for escalating tensions and social unrest.

According to Jennings, Newsom’s response to the violent protests in Los Angeles has been marked by political posturing rather than decisive leadership.

Jennings went further, calling California “a failed state,” citing the ongoing unrest and what he described as an ineffective handling of critical issues such as immigration, law enforcement, and public safety. “

And he sits, I guess, at the leadership right now of a political party that’s wanting to coddle the illegal invasion of our country that’s causing what’s happening,” Jennings added.

His criticism comes as protests in Los Angeles have intensified following a series of mass immigration raids, which many Democrats and immigration activists claim are indiscriminate and unfairly target innocent people.

For many on the right, President Trump’s stance on immigration has been one of his most consistent and popular policy positions, and Jennings made it clear that he believed Trump’s enforcement of federal law was not only necessary but a vital step toward securing the country’s borders.

“It’s not particularly controversial for Donald Trump to enforce federal law, our immigration laws,” Jennings remarked. He went on to contrast Trump’s tough stance on immigration with Newsom’s response, arguing that the governor’s criticism of the president’s actions was politically driven.

“And yet to Democrats and to Gavin Newsom, it’s an affront to them for the president of the United States to enforce federal law,” Jennings pointed out, highlighting the partisan divide that has characterized much of the discourse surrounding immigration enforcement.

The current wave of protests in Los Angeles, which were sparked by the recent immigration raids conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), has led to significant unrest in the city.

Demonstrators have taken to the streets, decrying what they view as the unjust treatment of individuals who are being detained or deported under Trump’s administration.

Many of these protests have turned violent, with clashes between demonstrators and law enforcement officers. The situation has escalated to the point where the federal government, under Trump’s direction, has been forced to intervene.

This includes the deployment of thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines to the city—actions that have been met with strong resistance from local leaders, including Newsom.

Newsom, in a televised address on Tuesday night, condemned President Trump’s decision to send federal troops to Los Angeles, calling it a “brazen abuse of power” and warning that it was only the beginning of what he claimed would be a nationwide crackdown.

“This is about all of us. This is about you. California may be first, but it clearly will not end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault before our eyes. This moment we have feared has arrived,” Newsom warned in his address.

His fiery rhetoric painted Trump’s actions as a threat to democracy itself, positioning the president’s decision to send in troops as the start of an authoritarian shift that could spread beyond California.

While Newsom’s rhetoric may resonate with his political base, many on the right, including Jennings, have expressed concern that the governor is using the situation to score political points rather than focusing on addressing the crisis at hand.

For conservatives, the deployment of federal troops is seen as a necessary response to the lawlessness and violence that has erupted in various cities across the country.

The Trump administration has made it clear that it will not tolerate violent protests that endanger the safety of citizens or law enforcement officers, and Jennings argues that Newsom’s refusal to take similar action only highlights the contrast between the two leaders’ approaches to governance.

President Trump’s decision to deploy National Guard troops to Los Angeles marked a historic moment. It was the first time in more than 50 years that a president had sent troops to a state without the consent of the state’s governor.

This move is even more significant considering that the deployment of active-duty forces domestically is a rare and controversial step. The fact that hundreds of Marines have been mobilized to deploy to Los Angeles underscores the gravity of the situation and the administration’s commitment to restoring order in a city that has seen increasing levels of unrest.

For many conservatives, Trump’s actions are a clear demonstration of his leadership in the face of growing chaos, and they applaud his decision to take bold, decisive action where state and local governments have failed to do so.

In contrast, Newsom’s rejection of the federal intervention reflects his ideological opposition to Trump’s policies, particularly regarding immigration and law enforcement.

The governor’s decision to challenge the deployment of federal troops through legal means was an attempt to regain control over the situation and assert the authority of California’s state government.

However, a judge on Tuesday rejected Newsom’s emergency request to limit Trump’s troop deployment, further emphasizing the federal government’s prerogative in ensuring the safety and security of U.S. citizens.

From a conservative perspective, the events unfolding in Los Angeles are emblematic of a larger problem with Democratic leadership in cities and states across the country.

According to Jennings, Newsom’s refusal to allow federal intervention to restore order is an example of the failure of local leadership to address the needs of the people.

“It’s very clear for the president what he supports and what he does not,” Jennings said, noting that Trump’s actions were driven by a desire to protect American citizens and uphold the rule of law.

He went on to accuse Democrats of enabling unrest by refusing to act decisively, creating an environment where federal intervention was necessary.

Jennings’ comments were not only a critique of Newsom’s leadership but also an attack on the broader approach to law enforcement that has been embraced by many in the Democratic Party.

The right-wing view of the current protests is that they have become a pretext for violent action, with demonstrators using the issue of immigration as a cover for lawlessness.

The Trump administration, on the other hand, has made it clear that while peaceful protests are a constitutionally protected right, violence and destruction will not be tolerated.

In conclusion, the clash between President Trump’s decisive response to the unrest in Los Angeles and Governor Gavin Newsom’s opposition to federal intervention underscores the stark ideological divide between the two leaders.

While Newsom’s rhetoric condemns Trump’s actions as an abuse of power, many conservatives view the president’s decision to deploy federal troops as a necessary step to restore order and protect citizens from the violence that has gripped the city.

The events in Los Angeles serve as a microcosm of the larger debate over federal versus state authority, law enforcement, and the proper response to civil unrest.

For Trump’s supporters, the president’s firm stance on immigration enforcement and law and order is a key pillar of his leadership, and they argue that his actions in Los Angeles are a clear demonstration of his commitment to protecting American citizens, regardless of political opposition.