Updated June 12, 2025 at 9:56 AM EDT
The Trump administration says it is investigating whether there is a "financial backer" for the anti-immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles — suggesting it could be a "foreign adversary."
During a Morning Edition interview taped on Tuesday morning, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin defended the Trump administration's memorandum deploying military troops to Los Angeles and said the FBI and IRS are investigating who is behind the unrest.
"There's some activity on the ground that it seems that is highly coordinated and that there might be a financial backer that could be even a foreign adversary," she said.
President Trump on Tuesday said – without evidence – that California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass had paid people protesting immigration enforcement operations. Hours later, he walked back the assertion.
"No, I don't say the governor and the mayor -- I said, somebody's paying them -- I think. And if they're not, they're just troublemakers. What can I tell you. But I believe somebody's paying them," Trump told reporters who had traveled with him to North Carolina.
In a conversation with NPR's Steve Inskeep, McLaughlin also criticized California leaders for failing to restore order, spoke about deportation numbers and discussed Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador, who the Trump administration brought back to the U.S. to face criminal charges in Tennessee.
The following exchange has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Steve Inskeep: How is the administration using the National Guard?
Tricia McLaughlin: A lot of different ways, Steve. Crowd control, also defense of these federal buildings. We've seen these federal buildings be defaced, threatening language on them: 'Kill ICE. Kill America. Death to America.' So we just really need more resources on the ground. We saw on Friday about 1,000 protesters were surrounding ice enforcement in a federal building, far outnumbering them. And then we saw that again on Sunday, about 6,000 protesters, again vastly outnumbering our ICE enforcement officers. So this is really just greater resources, and largely part for crowd control.
Inskeep: This is part of my question. Is there some specific capability that the Guard has, that the police do not or that ICE does not?
McLaughlin: I think it's more boots on the ground. It's more men and women in uniform making sure that law enforcement's safe, our federal property safe, and that those protesters are safe as well. Right now we've seen from the leadership of Governor Newsom and Karen Bass that things have not been peaceful, they have not been smooth, and so that's something – we wanted to return law and order.
Inskeep: Marines have been sent into Los Angeles. It's very early, but what skills did the Marines have that apply in this particular urban situation that even the national guard does not have?
McLaughlin: Well, it's the same as the National Guard. These are highly trained members of our military. They have means to control crowds, especially when things get out of control with rioters. We've seen our members of law enforcement being pummeled with rocks. We've seen fires, cars being lit on fire, and like I said before, buildings and public property being defaced and otherwise assaulting ICE enforcement officers. So these are highly trained members of the military and they have means of regaining control.
Inskeep: I've seen the video and the photos of the cars. That's certainly true, but I think about the role of the military and what Secretary Pete Hegseth wants the military to do. He's emphasized a focus on the mission, which he defines as lethality and readiness, meaning readiness for combat. How does sending Marines to protect buildings and cars in Los Angeles match up with that mission, if at all?
McLaughlin: I think at the end of the day, Steve, Americans want peace, and we want peace abroad, and we want peace on our own home soil. And unfortunately, if Governor Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass are not going to call down the rioters who are assaulting our law enforcement, then we do need to bring in the military to make sure we have the resources on the ground, this country is safe and that we can restore law and order.
Inskeep: The President's memorandum in sending National Guard troops to California said that the protests can be construed as a kind of rebellion. That's the word that's used. I want to see how we can understand this as a rebellion. I would think of a rebellion as a group of people where they have a leader and an objective. Are you able to identify who's in charge of this rebellion?
McLaughlin: I think that there's major questions right now about who is financially backing these protests. There's some activity on the ground that it seems that is highly coordinated, and that there might be a financial backer that could be even a foreign adversary, and we are having ICE, or, excuse me, the IRS and the FBI, look further into who might be backing these protests.
Inskeep: The IRS, that's interesting. Why are they involved?
McLaughlin: Financial backing?
Inskeep: Got it. So you think that there might be some tax record of this or something that the Treasury Department would investigate?
McLaughlin: Well, IRS does financial investigations as well.
Inskeep: Looking nationally, how many people did the United States deport last month?
McLaughlin: Last month? I don't have that number on my hand. I'd have to get back to you on that. I know deportations are around in the last 125 days, about 150,000.
Inskeep: 150,000 in 125 days. So I'm just trying to do quick math there. So that's 30 or 40,000 a month. Is what you believe you're doing?
McLaughlin: Roughly. I mean, I think we've definitely been able to ramp up efforts. I mean, we did inherit, you know, a very broken ICE, a very broken CBP, people who are not able to do their jobs for the last four years.
Inskeep: We're ballparking on the numbers here, because we don't know the exact number for this year, but it seems that the rate of deportations is higher than the average under President Biden, but still considerably lower than the average under President Trump or President Obama. Why do you think it has been difficult to get the numbers up?
McLaughlin: We have been facing a historic number of injunctions, Steve, as you know, at the hands of a lot of these judges. We knew that coming in though. I think it's a matter of, partially, of resources. We do need to pass this bill by Congress to make sure we give our ICE enforcement officers more resources, especially in the face of these kinds of protests. But further than that, these officers haven't been allowed to do their jobs for the last four years, so you're going from zero to 100 very quickly because they're once again empowered to do their jobs.
Inskeep: The Obama administration faced the same legal constraints that you do. The first Trump administration faced the same legal constraints.
McLaughlin: I would definitely counter that. This has been the most injunctions in American history under a single president. Absolutely, Steve. Look at the numbers.
Inskeep: I mean, it's the same court system. Could that have to do with what the administration has done, rather than the judges suddenly changing?
McLaughlin: No. I think. I mean, take the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Take the case of the eight heinous convicted individuals who had final deportation orders out of South Sudan. Those eight individuals and the Massachusetts judge ordering that they come back. This is unprecedented. Why on earth do we have district judges who so desperately want to bring child rapists and killers, who have been convicted and have final deportation orders, back to U.S. soil? It is pure activism, Steve, and it's quite disturbing, really.
Inskeep: I guess we should note that the Supreme Court, unanimously, among other courts, have insisted that people may well be terrorists, but that their cases should be heard in court. And that does lead to one more question. Since you brought up Kilmar Abrego Garcia – you brought him back to the United States to face criminal charges. I guess he'll get his day in court, and he's facing quite an indictment. But the administration said for months that he could not be brought back. Now that the United States has brought him back, would you agree that it was always possible to bring him back?
McLaughlin: I would leave that to the Department of Justice, but I think that what really matters here, Steve, is the egg on the face of a lot of Democrats and the media who have been hell bent on saying that this is an innocent Maryland man. They've been saying that for months. He was a full time human trafficker. Allegedly. I have to counter what you said, Steve, because I completely disagree. I think the environment that we're in, from a judicial standpoint, is far, far different than anything under Obama or even under the first administration of President Trump.
Inskeep: I just don't understand, because it's many of the same judges. Why do you think they suddenly changed?
McLaughlin: Well, I mean, I don't know if it is the same judges.
Inskeep: They're lifetime appointments – hundreds of them would be the same people.
McLaughlin: I think there's a lot of politically ambitious judges, Steve.
Inskeep: Just to clarify, you said you'd leave it to the Department of Justice. I understand. But given that it is now clear that it was possible to bring him back, why did the government not previously bring him back?
McLaughlin: I mean, there's, of course, you've heard the facilitate versus effectuate argument multiple times. He is now – Kilmar Abrego Garcia before was not facing a grand jury in Tennessee and now he is. So the facts on the ground have changed.
Destinee Adams produced this conversation for web. Treye Green and Obed Manuel edited it.
Copyright 2025 NPR
