Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), known for his role on the January 6 Committee accusing Americans of insurrection, is now defending rioters attacking federal officials in Los Angeles. Schiff opposed President Donald Trump’s decision to federalize 2,000 California National Guard troops to restore order as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers were targeted by violent, masked agitators over the weekend.
The unrest erupted Friday and Saturday, as rioters vandalized federal buildings and clashed with ICE agents during a crackdown on illegal immigration. Despite escalating violence, California Governor Gavin Newsom declined to act, siding instead with the “immigrants” and resisting federal intervention. Trump acted unilaterally to deploy the Guard to restore order and protect federal property.
Schiff took to X (formerly Twitter) to criticize Trump’s actions, calling the move “unprecedented.” However, historians note that President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized the National Guard during the 1950s to enforce civil rights protections when local officials refused to uphold federal law. That precedent undermines Schiff’s claim and exposes a double standard in his approach to federal authority.
Ironically, Schiff warned against invoking the Insurrection Act, labeling violent rioters as mere “protesters,” despite their attacks on federal personnel. This stands in stark contrast to his posture on the Capitol unrest of January 6, 2021, which he and other Democrats labeled an insurrection. Schiff previously ignored key facts, such as Trump’s offer to deploy the National Guard in advance of January 6 — a proposal rejected by Democrat leadership and omitted from the final committee report.
Schiff’s shifting stance on the use of federal force raises questions about the consistency and credibility of his views on law enforcement and civil unrest, particularly when political alliances and immigration narratives are at stake.
Schiff’s defense of the rioters has sparked backlash from conservatives who see his comments as politically motivated and dangerously inconsistent. Critics argue that Schiff is willing to excuse violent unrest when it aligns with progressive immigration goals, while branding political opponents as insurrectionists for far less. The contrasting responses have fueled accusations of hypocrisy and eroded confidence in the impartiality of lawmakers tasked with overseeing national security.
