Critics Claim Governor Newsom Failed to Lead as Los Angeles Protests Escalate

Amid intense protests that erupted in Los Angeles, former sheriff’s deputy and current L.A. County GOP Vice Chair Patrick Gipson has voiced strong criticism of both state and local leadership. He accused officials, particularly Governor Gavin Newsom, of negligence and political opportunism in addressing the unrest.

Gipson expressed his concern to Fox News Digital, stating, “These riots are completely unnecessary. We didn’t have to face this level of chaos, with cars burning and businesses looted. It could have all been avoided.” His comments underscore the prevailing frustration among many regarding the response to civil unrest.

Accusations Against Governor Newsom

The former deputy pointed a finger at Governor Newsom, asserting that his delayed decision to deploy the National Guard exacerbated the situation. Gipson remarked, “Newsom is reactionary instead of proactive. If he had called in the National Guard earlier, we could have saved billions in insurance claims and protected small businesses across the state.” This criticism highlights a perceived lack of decisiveness in state leadership during critical moments.

Response to Escalating Protests

The protests, initially sparked by demonstrations against Immigration and Customs Enforcement, rapidly escalated into street violence and looting. Gipson emphasized the implications of these events, particularly noting how they reflect broader issues within California’s progressive criminal justice reform policies. He questioned, “If we can’t enforce federal law in this state, what does that say about us?” This sentiment resonates with concerns raised by conservatives regarding the effectiveness of these reforms.

Leadership from Local Officials

In his remarks, Gipson also pointed to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, suggesting that her responses were influenced by Newsom’s leadership. He stated, “I know Karen Bass went in and said, ‘this is not the way to protest.’ They wanted a peaceful demonstration, but that’s not what we experienced.” This observation raises questions about the autonomy of local leaders in the shadow of state decisions.

Blame Game and Accountability

As tensions continued to rise, Governor Newsom attempted to redirect blame onto President Donald Trump, asserting that the president’s involvement exacerbated the protests. Gipson countered this claim by stating, “Gavin Newsom does not have a handle on California. If he had engaged Trump for assistance, it could have made a difference.” This ongoing blame game suggests a lack of accountability among political leaders amidst crises.

Criticism of Soft-on-Crime Policies

The unrest, in Gipson’s view, is further fueled by what he describes as soft-on-crime policies. He cited California’s failure to adequately fund Proposition 36, which sought to address the radical policies implemented by Proposition 47. Gipson highlighted, “Gavin Newsom is not funding Prop 36. Store owners can’t go after criminals. Patrons are scared to shop. People won’t even travel toward L.A. now due to fear of violence.” This commentary raises significant public safety concerns in communities affected by increased crime.

Moral Dilemmas in Law Enforcement

Reflecting on his tenure as a sheriff’s deputy, Gipson painted a bleak picture of the current morale among law enforcement in Los Angeles. He expressed that officers feel unsupported and hesitant to fulfill their responsibilities due to fears of reprisal. He stated, “Law enforcement has not been able to do their job. Officers are literally afraid to act because they fear consequences for following their training.” This chilling sentiment speaks to the growing divide between law enforcement and government leaders.

Handcuffed Effectively

In his assessment, Gipson characterized law enforcement as being “handcuffed” by the decisions made by state leadership. He pointed out that the structure of law enforcement—where different agencies answer to various officials—complicates timely responses to public safety threats. He noted, “The sheriff answers to the Board of Supervisors. The LAPD chief answers to the mayor. When they can’t act quickly, violence continues unchecked.” This insight exposes potential bureaucratic inefficiencies that could hinder law enforcement effectiveness.

Seeking Solutions Amidst Chaos

Gipson argued that clear consequences are essential for restoring order. He posits that without accountability for actions taken during protests, the cycle of violence will continue. His perspective underscores a desire for decisive leadership to address public safety proactively.

Counterarguments from the Governor’s Office

In response to Gipson’s criticisms, Newsom’s office contended that state and local law enforcement were adequately responding to the protests without needing federal intervention. A spokesperson emphasized, “Calls for troops to manage protests reflect a misunderstanding of how public safety operates. For someone who previously wore a badge, this is rather shocking.” This rebuttal suggests a divergence in views on the need for increased law enforcement presence during times of unrest.

Path Forward

As the situation in Los Angeles continues to evolve, the dialogues surrounding leadership accountability and public safety solutions remain pertinent. Community leaders and citizens alike are calling for a reevaluation of existing policies and practices to ensure a safer environment for all residents in California.