Local Leaders Align with Trump’s Rhetoric, Distort the Facts on Immigration and DEI

Three Fresno Republican officials—Supervisors Nathan Magsig and Garry Bredefeld, and Sheriff John Zanoni—are aligning with Trump’s rhetoric while avoiding the full weight of his controversial policies. Trump’s hardline stances on immigration and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) may not play well in the diverse Central Valley, but these officials are adopting his divisive language and tactics to stir up political theater without fully committing to his positions. Local officials cannot come right out and parrot Trump on these issues. (Though Clovis councilmember Diane Pearce is sure trying.)

Magsig and Zanoni recently criticized California’s sanctuary law, SB 54, claiming it prevents local law enforcement from cooperating with ICE regarding undocumented individuals. They suggested the law hinders public safety by not allowing them to contact ICE about dangerous criminals. However, SB 54 allows local authorities to work with ICE in cases involving individuals convicted of serious crimes, such as felonies and certain misdemeanors. Their misleading portrayal of the law spreads confusion and fear, distorting the facts to further their own agendas. If they truly want more collaboration with ICE, they should have an open discussion, but instead, they rely on exaggerated claims.

Bredefeld, on the other hand, made headlines by directing the county’s Department of Human Resources to remove all DEI language from job postings, arguing that such programs inject bias into hiring practices. However, Bredefeld provided no evidence to back up this claim or show that DEI initiatives had led to less qualified individuals being hired. His stance overlooks the historical context that made DEI necessary in the first place—correcting the systemic advantages long afforded to white men in hiring. While debates about the relevance of DEI are valid, Bredefeld’s decision feels more like an attempt to grab attention than a thoughtful critique. His actions suggest he’s more interested in stirring controversy than addressing the underlying issues.

Instead of engaging in honest, fact-based discussions, these officials are aligning themselves with Trump’s agenda of distortion and division. Their rhetoric, devoid of evidence, distracts from meaningful dialogue and undermines the checks and balances that should guide their decision-making. Rather than fostering a conversation about important issues, they are riding the wave of Trump’s shock tactics, further deepening the divide in their community.