In June 2025, California Representative Maxine Waters made a striking claim about the anti-ICE riots that erupted in Los Angeles following Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. Speaking at a House Democrat press conference and in a CNN interview, Waters asserted, “No violence. I was on the street. Get it straight, don’t rely on what you’re being told or the incidents you saw.” This statement, urging the public to dismiss video evidence of looting, arson, and assaults, evokes George Orwell’s chilling warning in 1984: “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” Waters’ remarks, set against a backdrop of documented unrest, raise questions about the manipulation of truth, the role of public perception, and the parallels to Orwell’s dystopian vision of control through denial of reality.
The Context of the Los Angeles Riots
The Los Angeles riots of June 2025 were sparked by ICE raids targeting 44 individuals with alleged criminal backgrounds, leading to widespread protests. While many demonstrations were peaceful, reports from sources like Fox News and the Daily Caller documented violent acts, including looters targeting businesses, rioters throwing Molotov cocktails and fireworks, and attacks on ICE and CBP agents with rocks, one causing minor injury. Graffiti reading “REMOVE TRUMP’S HEAD” defaced the Los Angeles County Law Library, and a reporter was struck by a rubber bullet while covering the chaos. President Trump’s deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines underscored the severity of the unrest, prompting lawsuits from California Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, who called the military presence “unnecessary and counterproductive.”
Waters, an 18-term congresswoman representing South Los Angeles, was actively involved, attempting to enter a detention center to visit detained SEIU leader David Huerta. Denied entry by National Guardsmen, she taunted them, asking if they would “shoot straight” if targeting her, and later claimed the protests were peaceful, with “no violence” and “nobody shot, nobody killed.” Her assertion that the public should ignore video evidence directly contradicts firsthand accounts and visual documentation, raising concerns about her intent to reshape the narrative surrounding the riots.
Orwell’s 1984 and the Rejection of Evidence
Orwell’s 1984 describes a totalitarian regime where the Party controls truth by demanding citizens reject sensory evidence in favor of its narrative. The quote, “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command,” captures the ultimate tool of oppression: convincing people to doubt their own reality. Waters’ statement mirrors this tactic, urging the public to dismiss widely circulated videos of violence in favor of her claim that she saw “no violence” while on the streets. This denial, in the face of documented evidence, suggests an attempt to control perception, a strategy Orwell warned against as a means to consolidate power.
Waters’ remarks align with Orwell’s concept of “doublethink,” where contradictory beliefs are held simultaneously to serve the Party’s goals. By claiming the riots were peaceful while videos showed otherwise, she asks the public to embrace a narrative that contradicts observable reality. This is particularly significant given her history of controversial statements, such as her 1992 description of the Rodney King riots as a “rebellion” that was “somewhat understandable, if not acceptable,” and her 2018 call to confront Trump administration officials publicly. These instances suggest a pattern of framing unrest in ways that downplay violence or justify confrontation, raising questions about her credibility in assessing the 2025 riots.
Implications for Public Trust and Political Discourse
Waters’ denial of violence undermines public trust in institutions and media, as it dismisses verifiable evidence in favor of personal testimony. This tactic risks deepening polarization, as it fuels accusations of misinformation and “fake news.” Posts on X reflect this divide, with some users praising Waters for challenging Trump’s policies, while others, like @RickyDoggin, amplify her quote to criticize her denial of visible violence. The broader political context—Trump’s immigration crackdowns and Democratic opposition—intensifies the stakes, with Waters’ statement potentially serving to rally her base by framing the riots as peaceful resistance to oppressive policies.
However, her approach carries risks. By dismissing video evidence, Waters may alienate those who see the footage as undeniable proof of violence, reinforcing Republican claims that Democrats excuse lawlessness for political gain. The deployment of federal troops, condemned by Waters as Trump’s “cruel” escalation, was justified by the administration as necessary to restore order, highlighting the clash of narratives. Orwell’s warning about rejecting evidence resonates here: when leaders demand the public ignore what they see, it erodes the foundation of rational discourse and risks enabling unchecked power on either side.
Historical Parallels and Waters’ Legacy
Waters’ comments in 2025 echo her response to the 1992 Rodney King riots, where she similarly downplayed violence, calling it a “rebellion” driven by systemic issues rather than “crazy people” acting without reason. This history suggests a consistent approach to framing unrest as justified resistance, even when violent. Critics, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene in 2021, have accused Waters of inciting violence, citing her past remarks as violating House ethics rules. While Waters has dismissed such accusations as misinterpretations, her 2025 statements reinforce perceptions of her as a polarizing figure who prioritizes narrative over evidence.
Orwell’s 1984 warns that controlling truth is a tool for controlling people. Waters’ claim that “no violence” occurred, despite evidence to the contrary, risks aligning with this dystopian tactic, whether intentional or not. Her assertion may aim to protect her community or challenge Trump’s policies, but it undermines the credibility of public discourse by asking citizens to distrust their own observations. In a media-saturated age, where videos of burning cars and assaulted agents are widely accessible, such denial is less effective than in Orwell’s fictional world, yet it still sows confusion and division.
Conclusion
Maxine Waters’ claim that she saw “no violence” during the 2025 Los Angeles riots, coupled with her call to reject video evidence, is a stark reminder of Orwell’s warning in 1984 about the dangers of denying reality. The documented violence—looting, arson, and attacks on federal agents—contradicts her narrative, raising questions about her intent to shape public perception in a polarized political climate. While Waters may seek to highlight systemic issues or resist Trump’s policies, her dismissal of evidence risks eroding trust and echoing the Party’s command to reject what is seen and heard. As Orwell cautioned, such tactics threaten the foundation of truth, challenging society to prioritize evidence over rhetoric in navigating contentious issues like immigration and public safety.