>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
He then doubled down with a crude insult aimed directly at federal agents.
“Good luck walking to work, assholes,” he added.
But Swalwell didn’t stop there. He went on to frame ICE agents as violent criminals, accusing them of serious felonies and promising to unleash law enforcement against them.
“Also, I will direct law enforcement to use every power to prosecute them for battery, false imprisonment, and murder,” Swalwell said.
In a longer statement circulated following the event, Swalwell made clear he views ICE not as a federal law enforcement agency, but as an enemy force.
“They’re going to lose their immunity. They’re not going to be able to drive. I will take your driver’s license. Good luck walking to work, assholes. Also, I will direct law enforcement to use every power to prosecute them for battery, false imprisonment, and murder. You know me. I’m not shy. Over the last 10 years, I worked on the Russia investigation with Adam Schiff. I helped lead the second impeachment as a manager.
“I’ve got the only lawsuit that has survived this new presidency. It’s me and the January 6 officers. I’m not naive about who he is. There’s only one side of the ball to be on on behalf of Californians when it comes to ICE, and its offense.”
The comments mark yet another instance of Swalwell portraying himself as a political warrior rather than a unifying executive—an approach that may excite radical activists but raises serious questions about legality, constitutionality, and public safety.
This is far from the first time Swalwell has attacked ICE in inflammatory terms. In recent remarks, he labeled agents “masked thugs” and accused them of abducting people in broad daylight, claiming they were “throwing people into vans and dragging them by their hair through the streets.”
In another interview, Swalwell described ICE as “terrorizing bandits that women are afraid of,” while promoting his so-called “reveal to wheel” policy—an idea that would require federal agents to identify themselves or lose the ability to legally drive in California.
Swalwell has repeatedly stated that, if elected governor, he would revoke driver’s licenses from ICE agents operating in the state—an action legal experts have warned would directly interfere with federal law enforcement operations and violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, Swalwell issued a similar threat earlier this month, stating, “If you’re going to wear a mask and not identify yourself, you’re not going to be eligible to drive a vehicle in California.”
Critics argue that such rhetoric not only undermines federal authority but actively endangers law enforcement officers who are already facing increasing hostility and physical attacks while carrying out deportations of illegal aliens. By portraying ICE agents as criminals and “murderers,” Swalwell is accused of pouring gasoline on an already volatile situation—one that has seen agents targeted by radical activists encouraged to riot and obstruct enforcement.
Despite openly advocating policies that appear to violate federal law, Swalwell has so far faced no consequences from the Department of Justice. Some observers argue that if federal authorities were serious about enforcing the law evenly, Swalwell’s proposals alone would trigger an investigation.
Adding to his growing list of controversies, Swalwell is also facing potential criminal exposure unrelated to immigration. He has been accused of mortgage fraud and may be ineligible to run for California governor after Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte submitted a criminal referral to the Department of Justice. The referral alleges Swalwell listed his Washington, D.C., address as his primary residence—raising questions about both legality and eligibility.
As Swalwell continues his gubernatorial push, voters are left with a stark choice: a candidate openly threatening federal agents, embracing radical activism, and skirting legal boundaries—or a rejection of what many see as reckless, lawless political theater dressed up as leadership.
