Democratic leaders and a lone Republican senator, Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, quickly decried the treatment of U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California and called for an investigation after he was removed from a press conference with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on June 12, 2025, in Los Angeles, handcuffed and forced to the ground.

“Sir! Sir! Hands off!” Padilla, 52, shouted as several federal agents surrounded and moved him out of the room where Noem was speaking about the Los Angeles protests against immigration enforcement. “I am Senator Alex Padilla. I have a question for the secretary.”

Padilla, who unexpectedly appeared at the press conference and interrupted Noem as she was speaking during her prepared remarks, was released soon after and met with Noem. Tricia McLaughlin, the assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, shared a video of the incident with Padilla on X, and wrote, “Incredibly aggressive behavior from a sitting US Senator. No one knew who he was.”

Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation, spoke with Boise State University political scientist Charlie Hunt, an expert on Congress, to understand how political polarization and a shift in American political decorum may have contributed to the shocking moment of an American senator being forcibly removed from a press conference.

What is striking to you about what happened to Sen. Padilla?

What stood out to me was the aggressiveness with which Noem’s security officers detained Sen. Padilla and took him out of the room. We do not ever see something like this happen to members of Congress and particularly members of the Senate. Sen. Padilla represents 39 million people – he is not some back-bencher member of the House of Representatives. I think it’s safe to say that no other modern presidential administration has come close to treating an individual member of Congress in this way.

This is also a real turn in terms of the completely autocratic way in which Department of Homeland Security staff responded to the incident. They claimed in a social media post that Padilla didn’t identify himself at the briefing, even though, “I’m Senator Alex Padilla” were the first words out of his mouth in the video that they themselves shared.

What safeguards, if any, do members of Congress have that might protect their ability to speak freely, and publicly oppose the executive branch?

Members of Congress enjoy the same basic free speech rights that all Americans do, but they do also have an additional set of protections that are relevant to this incident.

Members of Congress have significant oversight power, which involves doing due diligence on what actions the executive branch is taking and making sure they’re complying with laws that Congress has passed.

As a Senate member from California, it’s perfectly legitimate for Padilla to want clarity on immigration enforcement actions that are taking place in Los Angeles. Padilla even clarified after the incident that he was at the press conference to get answers from the Department of Homeland Security that he and other Senate members have been seeking for weeks about deportations.

This is completely in line with Congress’ oversight power. Senators often question officials in committee hearings like we typically see, but they also conduct fact-finding missions to learn how executive actions are affecting their constituents.

Congress members also have protections stemming from the Constitution’s speech and debate clause. Essentially, they cannot be arrested or indicted for things they say in their official capacity, which – because of Congress’ oversight responsibility – Padilla was clearly within the bounds of here.

Yes, of course, Padilla was also trying to draw attention to himself and the issues he’s focused on. But it’s not against the law to be a little bit disruptive or to engage in political theater, especially thanks to these additional protections members of Congress typically enjoy.

What other factors led to this moment?

Something I’ve written about previously is a phenomenon called negative partisanship. This means that voters and Congress members alike are driven not so much by loyalty to their own party but instead a sort of seething hatred for the other political party. What gets the most clicks and views, and what drives voters more and more, is the idea that “we don’t just want to see voting along the party line – we want to see our team beating the other side into submission.” This incident with Sen. Padilla was a very literal embodiment of this principle.

More broadly, this helps explain why political violence is becoming a more accepted form of political speech, particularly on the far right.

We have seen violence during Trump’s campaigns, where hecklers would be roughed up by participants at rallies, at Trump’s encouragement. Certainly, we saw it at the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, and Trump’s subsequent pardons of those rioters.

Does Padilla’s removal have anything to do with Donald Trump specifically?

We can’t ignore the singular role Trump has played here. This is a uniquely authoritarian presidency, even much more so than the first Trump administration. By authoritarian, I mean a leader who tries to rule on his own and suppress all dissent. Trump didn’t create partisanship, political violence or negative partisanship. But there’s no getting around the fact that his past behavior and openness to violence have lowered the bar for decorum in American politics.

For example, if you have convinced your supporters that the people on the other side of the political aisle are “sick” or “nasty,” that they are going to ruin the country, then those supporters will become more willing to accept some of the actions Trump has taken, such as calling in the Marines on protesters in Los Angeles, or pardoning the Capitol attackers – even if they wouldn’t have been willing to accept that kind of response 20 years ago.

All of these things combined – negative partisanship, plus having a leader on one side that is willing to lower the decorum bar beyond where we thought was possible – is a recipe for things unfolding like we saw with Padilla.

What will you be watching for as this situation plays out?

My concern is the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. We expect competition between the branches, for “ambition to counteract ambition,” as James Madison put it, to ensure one branch doesn’t get too powerful. This incident was a huge step in the wrong direction.

As Congress has been steadily torn apart by partisanship, it’s given up lots of its power over the past half-century and no longer seems to see itself as a coequal branch of government with the executive.

As a result, authoritarian presidents and administrations see an opening to treat them this way without consequences. What Congress does in the next several days about this episode will speak volumes – or not – about whether it intends to ever reassert itself as an equal branch of government.

Democrats held the floor in the Senate all afternoon to demand answers about Padilla’s treatment. It will be revealing how Senate Majority Leader John Thune and others respond. Lisa Murkowski has said she’s pretty appalled by what happened. Meanwhile, Lindsey Graham seemed to imply that Padilla deserved what he got. Which route will Republicans, who control Congress, take?