Rep. Garcia draws scrutiny from Trump Justice official over his Musk comments
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) is under scrutiny after blasting Elon Musk and DOGE in colorful comments.
WASHINGTON â Rep. Robert Garcia, a Democratic darling from Long Beach, is facing scrutiny from President Trumpâs Department of Justice for his recent comments about Elon Musk.
Garcia has skewered Musk on several occasions since the billionaire began his mission to gut the federal government using his newly created Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. In several media interviews, Garcia has called for increasing oversight of DOGE, including issuing a subpoena to Musk.
But a recent comment about bringing âactual weaponsâ to a fight for American democracy caught the attention of a federal prosecutor, who sent Garcia a letter warning that his comments were overly inflammatory.
Garcia had escalated his rhetoric at a DOGE subcommittee meeting last week, when he brought in a poster-sized image of Musk and referred to it using a vulgarity.
Garcia said he was inspired to use the term by another member of the committee, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who showed photos at a House Oversight Committee meeting in 2023 of former President Bidenâs son engaging in sexual acts, alleging the photos were âevidence of Hunter Biden making pornography.â
Garcia used the vulgarity and motioned to the poster of Musk, saying, âNow this, of course, we know is President Elon Musk. Heâs also the worldâs richest man. He was the biggest political donor in the last election. He has billions of dollars in conflicts of interest, and we know that he is leading a power grab, also abided by and encouraged by Donald Trump and of course the chairwoman, Congresswoman Greene.â
Democrats have largely been divided over how to respond to the deluge of changes Trump and Musk have imposed upon the federal government in the month since Trumpâs inauguration. But Garcia, a former Long Beach mayor who has enjoyed strong support from party leaders such as Biden, while he was in office, and Gov. Gavin Newsom, has taken an aggressive approach.
His provocative rhetoric drew ire across Washington. When asked about it in a CNN interview, Garcia dug in his heels, once again using a vulgarity and saying: âAnd I think that heâs also harming the American public in an enormous way. And what I think is really important, and what the American public wants, is for us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight. This is an actual fight for democracy.â
On Monday, Edward Martin, the U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. and a Trump nominee, sent Garcia a letter, asking him to âclarify [his] commentsâ from the CNN interview.
âThis sounds to some like a threat to Mr. Musk ... and government staff who work for him,â Martin wrote in the letter. âTheir concerns have led to this inquiry.â
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) also called for the House to censure Garcia over his comments, calling them âdangerous and deranged.â
âHis words are the lowest form of political thuggery. But because itâs one of their own, the Left stays silent,â Mace said in a statement. âThis double standard is disgusting.â
Garcia scoffed at their reactions, saying in a statement: âNo reasonable person would view my comments as a threat. We are living in a dangerous time, and elected members of Congress must have the right to forcefully oppose the Trump Administration. We will not be silenced.â
Martinâs email to Garcia is part of a broader effort from his office, called âOperation Whirlwind,â to chase down threats against public officials, the Washington Post reported.
His office also sent multiple letters to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) for comments he made in 2020 about the Supreme Courtâs decision on abortion, when he warned conservative justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh: âYou have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You wonât know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.â
The next day, Schumer said in a speech on the Senate floor that he âdidnât intend to suggest anything other than political and public opinion consequences for the Supreme Court, and it is a gross distortion to imply otherwise.â