GOP Lawmaker OBLITERATED After Defending Trump in Explosive Showdown!

and he'll start going off on these weird tangents that have nothing to do with what the American people want. >> Well, first of all, it's hard to unify the country when many Democrats refuse to come tomorrow and uh stage protests uh in the middle of the speech. Second of all, with respect to with >> I I'm not going because this president this president because this president because this president is divisive. You don't go into US cities and terrorize people. You don't tell lies and you do not become an antilack president who has come after African-Ameans. That's divisive. That's why I'm not going. >> In today's video, Marilyn Strickland fact checked Mike Lawler live on CNN's News Night as a heated prime time clash unfolded over immigration, sanctuary cities, and claims about the GOP's record with black voters. Strickland pushed back with precise facts and policy outcomes, funding priorities, and civil rights concerns, putting lawless squarely on the defensive. The exchange quickly moved beyond sound bites and into a deeper debate about data, accountability, and real world consequences. Let's take a closer look at how Marilyn Strickland's directly challenged Mike Lawler and shifted the tone of the conversation on CNN's News Night. >> A State of the Union address is supposed to be an address to the entire country saying, "Here's who we are as Americans. Here's what matters to all of us." It's supposed to be a pep rally for the entire country. And Trump will get up there like he always does during his speech. He will try to relitigate the 2020 election because he can't help himself and he'll start going off on these weird tangents that have nothing to do with what the American people want. >> Well, first of all, it's hard to unify the country when many Democrats refuse to come tomorrow and uh stage protests uh in the middle of the speech. Second of all, with respect to with >> I I'm not going because this president this president because this president because this president is divisive. You don't go into US cities and terrorize people. You don't tell lies and you do not become an antilack president who has come after African-Ameans. That's divisive. That's why I'm not going. >> Cities uh like Minneapolis, like New York, like uh Portland, Oregon that refuse to honor detainer uh agreements that refuse to say uh we will turn over a criminal to federal authorities. What happens is in a city like New York, they release them back on the street to commit more crimes. And so you get ICE agents coming in to actually take them off the street. A controlled handoff of a criminal alien at a county or city or municipal jail is far safer than having ICE agents have to go into the community to get them. That should have been happening. These blue states refuse to cooperate. That's why you have you agree we need some reforms. >> Of course I But this is what I've been arguing for years. You have to secure the border. We have done that. You have to deport the criminal aliens. We are doing it. >> You need immigration reform. It's why I've been a co-lead on the dignity act, last Congress and this Congress, so that people who have been in this country for more than 5 years, who are not committing crimes, who are participating in the workforce, who pay their taxes, who pay a fine, can have a legal status, not a pathway to citizenship, but a legal status to stay in this country. and many of them. >> But if you bust but if you bust into someone's house, an American's house, you need a warrant, right? And we should have better train. >> Of course, if you for for an American's house, no question. But here's the fundamental problem. Democrats will say, "We need a federal judicial warrant in order to cooperate." But when you have these detainers being issued for somebody who committed a state crime and most crimes committed are in state under state law, why won't democratic cities and mayors cooperate with ICE on that even the bigger issue here is not political theatrics. It is consistency. A unifying speech only carries weight if the policy record reflects the same message. In recent years, civil rights organizations have documented increases in reported hate crimes and growing fear in communities linked to aggressive rhetoric about immigration and urban crime. Messaging cannot be separated from its impact. Public trust erodess when entire communities feel labeled as threats instead of treated as equal participants in a shared democracy. On sanctuary cities, the debate often ignores important legal details. ICE detainers are request not mandatory judicial warrants. Several federal courts, including decisions in California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, have ruled that holding someone solely on an ICE detainer without a judge's warrant may violate the Fourth Amendment. That is why many cities require judicial authorization before cooperating. It is not blanket defiance. It is a legal safeguard to prevent unlawful detention lawsuits that taxpayers ultimately pay for, sometimes costing millions in settlements, legal fees. There is also the data to consider. Research from the Kato Institute and the American Immigration Council has found that immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens. Claims that cities are routinely releasing violent offenders into chaos do not align with broader statistical trends. At the same time, local law enforcement leaders have repeatedly testified that building trust within immigrant communities improves crime reporting, increases witness cooperation, and strengthens neighborhood safety overall. Strickland's broader argument resonates because patterns matter. When federal agencies reduce civil rights staffing, roll back consent decrees, or shift enforcement priorities, communities take notice. Immigration reform proposals like the dignity act may be part of the discussion, but lasting reform requires constitutional safeguards, transparent oversight, and measurable fairness. Supporting Strickland in this moment is not about party allegiance. It is about grounding the immigration debate in law, evidence, long-term public safety outcomes, equal protection under the law, constitutional accountability, and consistent democratic standards across the country. >> So, so we I was on the show with Casey. We were talking to the mayor of Minneapolis during the Obama administration. They had ICE agents in the prison, >> right? We in the jail. In the jail in the county jail, right? Not allowed in the Trump administration. Jeez, I wonder why. I wonder why they cooperated during the Obama administration, not cooperating now. And so there's got to be an end to sanctuary cities, sanctuary states. You can't, if you're a municipality, you can't just say, "We like these laws. We don't like these laws." How about if you're in in the next Democratic administration, we're going to say, "We don't like the EPA. We're not going to follow any of the laws EPA promulgates." We're just not going to do it. We're not going to do CL. We're just Well, no, it doesn't actually happen. We're not We're going to pick and choose your village. I don't like to pay tax. Let's Let's pull the lens out a little bit. take all the points, all the weeds on the immigration, but but tomorrow night the president is going to give a speech. Historically, the State of the Union is for everybody. >> Some Democrats are going, some are not. Are you going? >> I'll be there. >> Okay. So, you you two are on different pages. You are not going. Why are you Why do you think it's the right thing to go? >> Because I want to hear what the president is about the country and I want to hear what the president has to say and what is he going to do to actually make life more affordable for folks. Hoping he's actually going to bring the gateway train tunnel back and fund it between New York and Jersey. Um uh you know, but I want I want to hear what the president's going to do to get people make their health insurance more affordable. What they're going to do about food? What are they going to do about the tariffs? Cuz by the way, those tariffs are a big tax on a lot of my families. And so we got to we got >> And what do you say to those in your party who are not going? >> That's of course Maryland's choice and like I respect that. But then that's everyone's by the way people there were Republicans under Biden who didn't show up for Biden if you remember. Right. And I listen that's everyone's individual choice. >> Congresswoman, I want to play for you Stephen A. Smith, who has been actually talked about as a potential presidential contender, but he had a message. Stephen A. Smith, >> okay, >> the host. Um, he had a message for >> kind of a popular guy. >> Exactly. >> For Democrats for not attending. I want to ask you to respond to it. Watch. >> Some are talking about walking out in the middle of his speech. Others are talking about boycotting it all together and essentially finding something else to do. I'm here to tell you that neither's acceptable. At some point in time, ladies and gentlemen, there's got to be an adult in the room. If you're going to act as juvenile, as petulant, as petty as you accuse the president of the United States to be, how are you ever going to hold a high moral ground, at least high enough TO JUDGE HIM ACCORDINGLY? THIS IS THE KIND OF stuff that ticks me off. >> Why is he wrong? >> On sanctuary cities, the debate frequently overlooks legal complexity. ICE detainers are requests, not binding judicial warrants. Multiple federal courts, including rulings in California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, have determined that holding someone solely on an ICE detainer without a judge's warrant can violate the Fourth Amendment. That is why many municipalities require judicial approval before cooperating. It is not open to fiance. It is legal risk management designed to avoid costly, unlawful detention lawsuits that taxpayers ultimately fund, sometimes amounting to millions in settlements and fees. There is also a practical public safety consideration. Numerous law enforcement officials have warned that when immigrant communities believe local police are acting as immigration agents, crime reporting declines. Studies in major cities have shown reduced cooperation from victims and witnesses when fears of deportation increase. Public safety depends on trust and blurring the line between federal immigration enforcement and local policing can quickly damage that trust. This is not ideology. It is a strategy question supported by data regarding attendance at a state of the union address. Showing up is not the same as endorsing a president. Lawmakers from both parties have historically skipped such events for political or personal reasons. Civic responsibility is not measured by optics alone. What matters more is whether elected officials are advancing concrete policies that affect affordability, infrastructure, and healthcare. The issues voters consistently rank as top priorities in national polls. When tariffs enter the discussion, economic realities must also be considered. Independent analyses during previous tariff cycles found that American consumers and businesses absorbed much of the cost through higher prices function like a regressive tax that disproportionately affects working families. Framing every federal policy debate as a loyalty test misses the broader picture. The real question is whether policies reduce costs, strengthen infrastructure, and respect constitutional limits, not whether cities or lawmakers align perfectly with a single political narrative. Steven A. Smith is entitled to his opinion, and as Josh said earlier, I respect any decision that any of my colleagues make on either side of the aisle to attend or to not attend a State of the Union address. But for him to go off about petulence and disrespect, it's kind of rich coming from him. And here's the deal. I'm not going to Trump's State of the Union address because he is antilack. He has taken so many actions during this administration that show he does not care about black people. Firing public employees, many of whom are African-Amean, wanting to rename military bases after Confederate traders, trying to take down displays that show African-American history, trying to do an executive order about the African-American Museum. Pete Hegsithth as his secretary of defense who stood in a meeting and said DEI is dead when 40% of the people who are enlisted in the military are people of color, 20% are African-American. So this overt antilack agenda of this president does not work for me. So Steven Smith can have an opinion, but Steven Smith doesn't vote for me. >> I I I would just push back on that a tad saying who saved H.B.CU in the first administration. >> So let's talk about Donald Trump. Listen, Obama cut the funding. >> So, Donald Trump funded it. >> So, I'm going to accept a lecture from you about HB. >> I'm not lecturing. I'm just asking. >> And I'm a graduate I'm a graduate of Clark Atlanta. Here's the deal. HB.CU have been grossly underfunded for decades, for as long as I can remember. But when you are doing things like taking health care away from the families of the answer, >> you're not they're not listening to me. When you take away food assistance, when you do things like that that hurt the families, you're hurting the kids who are going to H.B.CU. Most of the kids who go to H.B.CU CUS are first generation college people and they come from families that are underserved. >> So will you will you just submit that Donald I mean say agreed to Donald Trump save HBC. >> I'm not going to say he saved them because that's not true. He a lot of funding who signed the first step act putting more African-American men out of jail than any other president in the history of this republic. >> You know here's the deal. Donald Trump in this term is antilack. All the action that he has taken the things he has done to hurt the African-Amean community. That's what he's doing. That's what he's doing and that's why I'm not. >> No credit for the other stuff. >> This clash is about far more than attending a State of the Union address. It is about policy impact versus political symbolism. Lawmakers make decisions based on how federal actions affect the people they represent. In recent years, proposed cuts to food assistance programs like SNAP and attempts to roll back provisions of the Affordable Care Act have disproportionately affected black households who statistically face higher rates of food insecurity and lack of health insurance. That context is essential when evaluating whether an administration's agenda truly addresses the needs of underserved communities nationwide. On historically black colleges and universities, the claim the one president alone rescued them simplifies decades of complex funding battles. These institutions have long faced underfunding compared to predominantly white institutions largely because of systemic inequities at the state level. While funding packages have been signed and the multiple administrations, sustained investment in Pell grants, research funding, and infrastructure support has depended on bipartisan congressional appropriations. Long-term stability for H.B.CU relies less on a single headline moment and more on consistent policy commitments that close structural funding gaps and advance educational equity. In criminal justice reform, measures such as the First Step Act passed with bipartisan support, yet significant disparities remain. Department of Justice data still shows that African-Americans are incarcerated at disproportionately high rates compared to white Americans. Meaningful reform requires ongoing sentencing reform, accountability in policing, and robust re-entry support, not just one legislative milestone. Communities evaluate results over time, not isolated achievements highlighted in interviews. Ultimately, this debate reflects a deeper question about priorities and measurable outcomes. Symbolic gestures or selective policy victories do not outweigh broader policies that communities experience as harmful. Assessing leadership means examining the full record, including healthcare access, economic opportunity, educational equity, criminal justice outcomes, and civil rights protections. For many voters, those everyday realities carry far greater weight than partisan talking points exchanged on cable news panels.

A tense political debate turns explosive as a GOP lawmaker faces fierce pushback while defending Trump’s recent actions. The heated exchange quickly goes viral, drawing strong reactions from both supporters and critics across social media. Disclaimer: This content is shared for commentary, criticism, and news reporting purposes. It is intended for informational and entertainment use only and does not endorse any political position.