civil right

President Trump declared Tuesday that federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., should seek the death penalty for murders committed in the capital, claiming without explanation that “we have no choice.”

“That’s a very strong preventative,” he said of his decision. “I don’t know if we’re ready for it in this country, but we have it.”

Trump’s pronouncement is about much more than deterring killings, though. With speed and brazenness, Trump seems intent on creating a new, federal arrest and detention system outside of existing norms, aimed at everyday citizens and controlled by his whims. The death penalty is part of it, but stomping on civil rights is at the heart of it — ruthlessly exploiting anxiety about crime to aim repression at whatever displeases him, from immigration protesters to murderers.

This administration “is using the words of crime and criminals to get themselves a permission structure to erode civil rights and due processes across our criminal, legal and immigration systems in ways that I think should have everyone alarmed,” Rena Karefa-Johnson told me. She’s a former public defender who now works with Fwd.us, a bipartisan criminal justice advocacy group.

Authoritarians love the death penalty, and have long used it to repress not crime, but dissent. It is, after all, both the ultimate power and the ultimate fear, that the ruler of the state holds the lives of his people in his hands.

Though we are far from such atrocities, Spain’s purge of “communists” and other dissenters under Francisco Franco, Rodrigo Duterte’s extrajudicial killings of alleged drug dealers in the Philippines (though the death penalty remains illegal there) and the routine executions, even of journalists, under the repressive rulers in Saudi Arabia are chilling examples.

What each of those regimes shares in common with this moment in America is the rhetoric of making a better society — often by purging perceived threats to order — even if that requires force, or the loss of rights.

Suddenly, violent criminals become no different than petty criminals, and petty criminals become no different than immigrants or protesters. They are all a threat to a nostalgic lost glory of the homeland that must be restored at any cost, animals that only understand force.

“We have no choice.”

The result is that the people become, if not accustomed to masked agents and the military on our streets, too scared to protest it, fearful they will become the criminal target, the hunted animal.

Already, the National Guard in D.C. is carrying live weapons. With great respect to the women and men who serve in the Guard, and who no doubt individually serve with honor, they are not trained for domestic law enforcement. Forget the legalities, the Constitution and the Posse Comitatus Act, which should prevent troops from policing American citizens, and does prevent them from making arrests.

Who do we want these soldiers to shoot? Who have they been told to shoot? A kid with a can of spray paint? A pickpocket? A drug dealer? A flag burner? A sandwich thrower?

We don’t even know what their orders are. What choices they will have to make.

But we do know that police do not walk around openly holding their guns, and certainly do not stroll with rifles. For civilian law enforcement, their guns are defensive weapons, and they are trained to use them as such.

Few walking by these troops, even the most law abiding, can fail to feel the power of those weapons at the ready. It is a visceral knowledge that to provoke them could mean death. That is a powerful form of repression, meant to stop dissent through fear of repercussion.

It is a power that Trump is building on multiple fronts. After declaring his “crime emergency” in D.C., Trump mandated a serious change in the mission of the National Guard.

President Trump with members of law enforcement and National Guard troops in Washington on Aug. 21, 2025.

(Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press)

He ordered every state to train soldiers on “quelling civil disturbances,” and to have soldiers ready to rapidly mobilize in case of protests. That same executive order also creates a National Guard force ready to deploy nationwide at the president’s command — presumably taking away states’ rights to decide when to utilize their troops, as happened in California.

Trump has already announced his intention to send them to Chicago, called Baltimore a “hellhole” that also may be in need and falsely claimed that, “in California, you would’ve not had the Olympics had I not sent in the troops” because “there wouldn’t be anything left” without their intervention.

Retired Maj. Gen. Randy Manner, a former acting vice chief of the National Guard Bureau, told ABC that “the administration is trying to desensitize the American people to get used to American armed soldiers in combat vehicles patrolling the streets of America. “

Manner called the move “extremely disturbing.”

Add to that Trump’s desire to imprison opponents. In recent days, the FBI raided the home of former National Security Advisor John Bolton, a Republican who has criticized Trump, especially on his policy toward Ukraine. Then Trump attempted to fire Lisa D. Cook, a Biden appointee to the Federal Reserve board, after accusing her of mortgage fraud in another apparent attempt to bend that independent agency to his will on the economy.

On Wednesday, Trump wrote on social media that progressive billionaire George Soros and his son Alex should be charged under federal racketeering laws for “their support of Violent Protests.”

“We’re not going to allow these lunatics to rip apart America any more, never giving it so much as a chance to “BREATHE,” and be FREE,” Trump wrote. “Soros, and his group of psychopaths, have caused great damage to our Country! That includes his Crazy, West Coast friends. Be careful, we’re watching you!”

Consider yourselves threatened, West Coast friends.

But of course, we are already living under that thunder. Dozens of average citizens are facing serious charges in places including Los Angeles for their participation in immigration protests.

Whether they are found guilty or not, their lives are upended by the anxiety and expense of facing such prosecutions. And thousands are being rounded up and deported, at times seemingly grabbed solely for the color of their skin, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, arguably the most Trump-loyal law enforcement agency, sees its budget balloon to $45 billion, enough to keep 100,000 people detained at a time.

Despite Trump’s maelstrom of dread-inducing moves, resistance is alive, well and far from futile.

A new Quinnipiac University national poll found that 56% of voters disapprove of the National Guard being deployed in D.C.

This week, the U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. for a second time failed to convince a grand jury to indict a man who threw a submarine sandwich at federal officers — proof that average citizens not only are sane, but willing to stand up for what is right.

That comes after a grand jury three times rejected the same kind of charge against a woman who was arrested after being shoved against a wall by an immigration agent.

Californians will decide this in November whether to redraw their electoral maps to put more Democrats in Congress. Latino leaders in Chicago are protesting possible troops there. People are refusing to allow fear to define their actions.

Turns out, we do have a choice.

WASHINGTON — As Gov. Gavin Newsom and the University of California consider whether to sue the Trump administration to restore more than half a billion dollars in federal grants to ULCA, the White House on Tuesday had a terse response.

“Bring it on, Gavin,” said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt when asked about Newsom’s opposition to a Trump plan demanding more than $1 billion and sweeping campus changes at UCLA to resolve federal antisemitism findings against the university.

“This administration is well within its legal right to do this, and we want to ensure that our colleges and our universities are respecting the First Amendment rights and the religious liberties of students on their campuses and UCLA has failed to do that, and I have a whole list of examples that I will forward to Gavin Newsom’s press office, if he hasn’t seen them himself,” Leavitt said.

The statement was the first public comment from the White House about the high-stakes conflict between the nation’s premier public university system and the Trump administration, which has accused UCLA of violating the civil rights of Jewish students, illegally considering race in admissions and treating transgender people in sports, healthcare and campus life in ways that the government claims hinder women’s rights.

Leavitt spoke after a question from The Times about how Trump would response Newsom’s comments late last week that the settlement offer for UCLA was “extortion” and “ransom.”

“We’ll sue,” Newsom said Friday.

Responding to Leavitt’s comments, a Newsom spokesperson pointed The Times to a meme posted on X after the press conference.

“Glorious leader is entitled to all treasures of the realm, especially from universities,” said the post from Newsom’s press office account. The graphic features an image of what appears to a be a North Korean news anchor with a North Korea flag in the background.

In an earlier joint statement with California legislative leaders, Newsom said that the action against UCLA “isn’t about protecting Jewish students — it’s a billion-dollar political shakedown from the pay-to-play president. Trump has weaponized the Department of Justice to punish California, crush free thinking, and kneecap the greatest public university system in the world.”

No lawsuit has been filed and the UC board of regents, who held an emergency meeting Monday afternoon over the grant cuts, has not announced how it will proceed aside from calling Trump’s current terms “unacceptable.”

Newsom sits as a voting member on the 24-person board, has appointed several of its members and can wield influence on the body, although the final decision on a lawsuit or settlement rests with the regents. Newsom did not attend Monday’s meeting.

In a statement after the meeting, a UC spokesperson said the $1 billion price tag would be “devastating.”

“UC’s leadership spent recent days evaluating the demand, updating the UC community, and engaging with stakeholders,” said Meredith Turner, UC senior vice president of external relations. “Our focus remains on protecting students’ access to a UC education and promoting the academic freedom, excellence, and innovation that have always been at the heart of UC’s work.”

Hundreds of grants — from the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health and Department of Energy — are on hold at UCLA. The money funds research into cancer, math, brain science and other areas, and helps pay for graduate student stipends and tuition as well as lab upkeep. If the freezes stay for the long-term, administrators are considering layoffs and other budget reductions.

Citing the reasons for the freezes, a July 30 NSF leter to UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk alleged UCLA “engages in racism, in the form of illegal affirmative action, UCLA fails to promote a research environment free of antisemitism and bias; UCLA discriminates against and endangers women by allowing men in women’s sports and private women-only spaces.”

Frenk, in a campuswide message the next day, disputed the funding halt.

“This far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination,” he wrote.

University of California leaders face a difficult choice after the U.S. Department of Justice said this week that UCLA had violated the civil rights of Jewish students during pro-Palestinian protests and federal agencies on Wednesday suspended more than $300 million in research grants to the school.

Do they agree to a costly settlement, potentially incurring the anger of taxpayers, politicians and campus communities in a deep-blue state that’s largely opposed to President Trump and his battle to remake higher education?

Or do they go to court, entering a protracted legal fight and possibly inviting further debilitating federal actions against the nation’s premier public university system, which has until now carefully avoided head-on conflicts with the White House?

Leaders of the University of California, including its systemwide president, James B. Milliken; UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk and UC’s 24-member Board of Regents — California Gov. Gavin Newsom is an ex-officio member — have just days to decide.

What led to the conflict

In findings issued Tuesday, U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and the Justice Department said UCLA would pay a “heavy price” for acting with “deliberate indifference” to the civil rights of Jewish and Israeli students who complained of antisemitic incidents since Oct. 7, 2023. That’s when Hamas attacked Israel, which led to Israel’s war in Gaza and the pro-Palestinian student encampment on Royce Quad.

The Justice Department gave UC — which oversees federal legal matters for UCLA and nine other campuses — a week to respond to the allegations of antisemitism. It wrote that “unless there is reasonable certainty that we can reach an agreement” to “ensure that the hostile environment is eliminated and reasonable steps are taken to prevent its recurrence,” the department would sue by Sept. 2.

A day after the Justice Department disclosed its findings, the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy and other federal agencies said they were suspending hundreds of grants to UCLA researchers. A letter from the NSF cited the university’s alleged “discrimination” in admissions and failure to “promote a research environment free of antisemitism.” A Department of Energy letter cutting off grants on clean energy and nuclear power plants made similar accusations, adding that “UCLA discriminates against and endangers women by allowing men in women’s sports and private women-only spaces.”

Initial data shared with The Times on Thursday night showed the cuts to be at least $200 million. On Friday, additional information shared by UC and federal officials pointed to the number being greater than $300 million — more than a quarter of UCLA’s $1.1 billion in annual federal funding and contracts. UCLA has not released a total number.

In a campuswide message Thursday, Frenk, the UCLA chancellor, called the government’s moves “deeply disappointing.”

“This far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination,” Frenk said.

In a statement to The Times Friday, an official from the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the NIH, said it would “not fund institutions that promote antisemitism. We will use every tool we have to ensure institutions follow the law.”

An NSF spokesperson also confirmed the UCLA cuts, saying Friday that the university is no longer in “alignment with current NSF priorities.” A Department of Energy spokesperson also verified the cuts but did not elaborate outside of pointing to the department’s letter to UCLA.

What comes next

The Times spoke to more than a dozen current and former senior UC leaders in addition to higher education experts about the rapid deliberations taking place this week, which for the first time have drawn a major public university system into the orbit of a White House that has largely focused its ire on Ivy League schools.

Trump has accused universities of being too liberal, illegally recruiting for diversity in ways that hurt white and Asian American students and faculty, and being overly tolerant of pro-Palestinian students who he labels as antisemites aligned with Hamas.

Universities, including UCLA, have largely denied the accusations, although school officials have admitted that they under-delivered in responding to Jewish student concerns. In the last two years, encampments took over small portions of campuses, and, as a result, were blamed for denying campus access to pro-Israel Jews.

In a major payout announced Tuesday — before the Justice Department’s findings — UCLA said it would dole out $6.45 million to settle a federal lawsuit brought by three Jewish students and a medical school professor who alleged the university violated their civil rights and enabled antisemitism during the pro-Palestinian encampment in 2024. About $2.3 million will be donated to eight groups that work with Jewish communities, including the Anti-Defamation League, Chabad and Hillel. Another $320,000 will be directed to a UCLA initiative to combat antisemitism, and the rest of the funds will go toward legal fees.

Through spokespersons, Frenk and Milliken declined interviews on what next steps UCLA might take. Friday was Milliken’s first day on the job after the long-planned departure of former UC President Michael V. Drake, who will return to teaching and research.

But in public remarks this week, Newsom said he was “reviewing” the Justice Department’s findings and that UC would be “responsive.”

The governor, who spoke during an event at the former McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento County on Thursday, said he had a meeting with Drake scheduled that day to discuss the Trump administration’s charges.

Newsom did not respond specifically to a question from The Times about whether UC would settle with Trump.

“We’re reviewing the details of the DOJ’s latest and then that deadline on Tuesday,” the governor said. “So we’ll be responsive.”

In a statement Friday, Newsom said, “Freezing critical research funding for UCLA — dollars that were going to study invasive diseases, cure cancer, and build new defense technologies — makes our country less safe. It is a cruel manipulation to use Jewish students’ real concerns about antisemitism on campus as an excuse to cut millions of dollars in grants that were being used to make all Americans safer and healthier.”

What insiders say

Senior UCLA and UC leaders, who spoke on background because they were not authorized to discuss legal decisions, said the university has been bracing for this moment for months. The university and individual campuses are under multiple federal investigations into alleged use of race in admissions, employment discrimination against Jews, and civil rights complaints from Jewish students. At the same time, leaders said, they were hoping the multimillion-dollar settlement with Jewish students would buy them time.

“It backfired,” said one senior administrator at UCLA, reflecting the sense of whiplash felt among many who were interviewed. “Within hours of announcing our settlement, the DOJ was on our back.”

Other senior UC officials said the system was considering suing Trump. It has already sued various federal agencies or filed briefs in support of lawsuits over widespread grant cuts affecting all major U.S. universities. UC itself, however, has not directly challenged the president’s platform of aggressively punishing elite schools for alleged discrimination.

It’s unclear if a suit or settlement could wipe out all remaining investigations.

Mark Yudof, a former UC president who led the system from 2008 to 2013, said he felt the Trump administration was targeting a public university as a way to “make a statement” about the president’s higher education aims going beyond Ivy League institutions.

“But this is not Columbia,” Yudof said, referring to the $221-million settlement the New York campus recently reached with the White House to resolve investigations over alleged antisemitism amid its response to pro-Palestinian protests.

On Wednesday, Brown University also came to a $50-million agreement with the White House. The Brown payment will go toward Rhode Island workforce development programs. Harvard is also negotiating a deal with the government over similar accusations regarding antisemitism.

“The University of California is much more complex,” said Yudof, who lives in Florida and also led the University of Texas and University of Minnesota. “For one, an issue that may affect UCLA is not going to affect UC Merced or UC Riverside. But do you come to an agreement on all campuses? If there is a settlement payment, does it affect all campuses, depending on the cost?”

George Blumenthal, a former chancellor of UC Santa Cruz, said he “just can’t see UC making the kind of deal that Columbia did or that Harvard contemplates. Committing public funds to Washington to the tune of tens or hundreds of million dollars strikes me as politically untenable in California.”

Pro-Palestinian UCLA groups said they don’t agree with the premise of negotiations. They point out that many protesters in last year’s encampment were Jewish and argue that the protest — the focus of federal complaints — was not antisemitic.

“We reject this cynical weaponization of antisemitism, and the misinformation campaign spinning calls for Palestinian freedom as antisemitic. We must name this for what it is: a thinly-veiled attempt to punish supporters of Palestinian freedom, and to advance the long-standing conservative goal of dismantling higher education,” said a statement from Graeme Blair, a UCLA associate professor of political science, on behalf of UCLA Faculty for Justice in Palestine.

The bigger picture

Higher education experts say UC’s decision would set a national precedent. The university’s finances include more than $50 billion in operating revenues, $180 billion in investments — including endowment, retirement, and working capital portfolios — and smaller campus-level endowments. The funds support facilities across the state, including multiple academic health centers, investment properties and campuses, as well as tens of thousands of former employees enrolled in retirement plans.

Dozens of public campuses across the U.S. are under investigation or pressure from the White House to atone for alleged wrongdoing to Jewish students or to change admissions, scholarship programs and protest rules and more. But UC has long been a standard-bearer, including in academic and protest freedoms.

“If you are Trump, your target of Harvard or Brown is much easier — a snooty elite — than a public, even a UCLA or Berkeley,” said Rick Hess, an education expert with the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

Kenneth Marcus, who served as assistant secretary for civil rights in the Education Department during Trump’s first term, said there would be benefits for UCLA and the UC system to enter into a “systemwide agreement that would enable everybody to put this behind themselves.”

The Justice Department’s Tuesday letter said it was investigating all campuses but only issuing findings of violations so far at UCLA.

Marcus, chairman of the Washington, D.C.-based Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, said a systemwide agreement would “provide the federal government with assurances that the regents are making changes across the board.”

Staff writer Taryn Luna in Sacramento contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — One of the nation’s oldest civil rights organizations on Thursday declared a “state of emergency” for antidiscrimination policies, personal freedoms and Black economic advancement in response to President Trump’s upending of civil rights precedents and the federal agencies traditionally tasked with enforcing them.

The National Urban League’s annual State of Black America report accuses the federal government of being “increasingly determined to sacrifice its founding principles” and “threatening to impose a uniform education system and a homogenous workforce that sidelines anyone who doesn’t fit a narrow, exclusionary mold,” according to a copy obtained by the Associated Press.

“If left unchecked,” the authors write, “they risk reversing decades of progress that have made America more dynamic, competitive, and just.”

Report critiques racism entering ‘mainstream’ of American politics

The report, to be released Thursday at the group’s conference in Cleveland, Ohio, criticizes the administration for downsizing federal agencies and programs that enforce civil rights policies. The authors aimed to highlight what they saw as a multiyear, coordinated effort by conservative legal activists, lawmakers and media personalities to undermine civil rights policy and create a political landscape that would enable a hard-right agenda on a range of social and economic policy.

“It is not random. It is a well-funded, well-organized, well-orchestrated movement of many, many years,” said Marc Morial, president of the Urban League. “For a long time, people saw white supremacist politics and white nationalism as on the fringe of American politics. It has now become the mainstream of the American right, whose central foundation is within the Republican Party.”

The report directly critiques Project 2025, a sweeping blueprint for conservative governance coordinated by the Heritage Foundation think tank. Project 2025 advised approaches to federal worker layoffs, immigration enforcement and the congressional and legislative branches similar to the Trump administration’s current strategy.

The Urban League report condemns major corporations, universities and top law firms for reversing diversity, equity and inclusion policies. It also criticizes social media companies like Meta and X for purported “censorship” of Black activists and creatives and content moderation policies that allegedly enabled “extremists” to spread “radicalizing” views.

Debates over civil rights enter the center of the political fray

The Trump administration has said many policies implemented by both Democratic and Republican administrations are discriminatory and unconstitutional, arguing that acknowledgments of race and federal and corporate policies that seek to address disparities between different demographics are themselves discriminatory. Trump has signed executive orders banning “illegal discrimination” and promoting “merit based opportunity.”

Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, said civil rights groups that oppose the administration “aren’t advancing anything but hate and division, while the president is focused on uniting our country.”

The report, meanwhile, calls for the creation of a “new resistance” to counter the administration’s agenda. Morial urged other organizations to rally to that cause.

The Urban League and other civil rights groups have repeatedly sued the Trump administration since January. Liberal legal groups and Democratic lawmakers similarly sued over parts of the administration’s agenda.

Veteran civil rights activists, Black civic leaders, former federal officials, Illinois Atty. Gen. Kwame Raoul and seven members of Congress, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, contributed to the text.

Raoul said that civil rights allies have felt “on the defense” in recent years but that now “it’s time to act affirmatively.” For instance, if rollbacks of DEI policies result in discrimination against women or people of color, legal action could follow, he warned.

“It all depends on how they do it. We’re going to be watching,” he said. “And just because the Trump administration doesn’t believe in disparate impact anymore doesn’t mean the rest of the universe must believe that.”

The report criticizes the Trump administration’s efforts to shutter the Education Department, and denounces changes to programs meant to support communities of color at the departments of Commerce, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development, among others. The transformation of the Justice Department’s civil rights division was singled out as “an existential threat to civil rights enforcement.”

The Justice Department pointed to its published civil rights policy and a social media post from its civil rights arm that reads the division “has returned to enforcing the law as written: fairly, equally, and without political agenda.”

Nevada Rep. Steven Horsford, a contributor to the report, said Trump “betrayed the American people” in enacting plans he said were similar to Project 2025.

Lawmakers reflect on the long fight for civil rights

Another contributor, Rep. Yvette Clarke, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, said civil rights advocates and their Democratic allies must do more to communicate with and educate people.

“When you have an administration that’s willing to take civil rights gains and call it reverse racism, then there’s a lot of work to be done to unpack that for folks,” the New York Democrat said. “I think once people understand their connection to civil rights gains, then we will be in a position to build that momentum.”

The Urban League originally planned to focus its report on the legacy of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for the law’s 60th anniversary but pivoted after Trump returned to office to focus on “unpacking the threats to our democracy” and steps civil rights advocates are taking to pull the country back from “the brink of a dangerous tilt towards authoritarianism.”

For many veteran civil rights activists, the administration’s changes are condemnable but not surprising. Some lawmakers see it as a duty to continue the long struggle for civil rights.

“I think it’s all part of the same struggle,” said Rep. Shomari Figures, an Alabama Democrat who contributed to the report and whose father was successfully brought a wrongful-death suit against a branch of the Ku Klux Klan. “At the end of the day, that struggle boils down to: Can I be treated like everybody else in this country?”

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

A tenuous ceasefire between Israel and Iran has slightly dampened the threat that the United States could be further dragged into an international conflict.

But many Americans are approaching the Fourth of July with a sense of trepidation if not outright fear — that such a war could still be on the horizon and that there is currently an increased risk of a terrorist attack in America because of it.

For so many reasons, we are a nation on edge. Which is why we have to be careful to not allow our fears to overtake our commitment to civil rights.

“Autocrats almost always use emergencies, sometimes real ones, sometimes exaggerated ones, and sometimes invented ones … to accumulate power,” said Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard University and author of “How Democracies Die.”

None of the political experts I spoke with in past days said they thought President Trump planned the Iran bombing for his domestic agenda — that would be really extreme. But most shared Levitsky’s concern that it is in moments of anxiety, when society is apprehensive of external threats, that authoritarians find the most fertile ground for increasing their domestic power — because too often, people willingly give up freedoms in exchange for perceived safety.

Hiroshi Motomura, a UCLA law professor who advised the Obama-Biden transition team on immigration policy, said that trade-off means “the situation with Iran and Trump’s immigration policy are very closely intertwined.”

No place is more likely to see that intersection of international and domestic policy more bluntly than California, and Los Angeles in particular.

Los Angeles is a “test case,” Brad Jones told me, where the Trump administration is already pushing to see how far it can go. He’s a political science professor at UC Davis.

“This is a very opportunistic presidency, and any opportunity that they can use to forward their immigration agenda, I think they’ll take full advantage of it,” Jones said.

We already have the Marines and National Guard on the streets, and under federal control, supposedly because Los Angeles is in the grip of violent chaos. Although Angelenos know this is ridiculous, the courts have, for now, sided with Trump that this deployment of troops on U.S. soil is within his power. And much of America, inundated with right-wing versions of current immigration protests, is seeing on a daily basis a narrative of lawlessness that seems to justify Trump’s crackdowns — including the arrest or detention of Democratic lawmakers.

Benjamin Radd is a professor at UCLA, an expert on Iran and a senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations. He was featured in the documentary “War Game” last year about how a military insurgency could play out in the United States.

Not long ago — before the National Guard was deployed in L.A. against the will of Gov. Gavin Newsom — Radd was hired by a veterans group, which he declined to identify, to game out what would happen if Trump federalized the National Guard against the will of governors and turned them on the American public.

“And lo and behold, here we are now,” Radd said.

In his simulation, the pretend Trump didn’t invoke the Insurrection Act, a law that could further a president’s ability to deploy the military within the United States.

But in the real world, it’s a concern that Trump would — either because of a genuine threat, or a Trumped-up one. Rudd said that would be a “big red line.”

“I’m waiting to see if this Donald Trump will actually do that, because invoking the act will be able to give him more of those emergency powers that right now are being stymied at the courts,” he said.

Los Angeles, Rudd points out, is home to a large community of Iranian Americans, of which he is a member.

It’s not a huge stretch of the imagination to dream up a scenario in which the government sees this community as a potential threat if the conflict in the Middle East continues, as Japanese Americans were once viewed as a threat during World War II. Rudd said he didn’t see the likelihood of a mass internment, but pointed out that the government has already detained and deported students speaking out on the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza.

“Who gets swept up in that when you’re dealing with ethically diverse metropolises like Los Angeles that have a complex background and mix of people?” he asks.

Already, the administration has announced the arrests of 11 undocumented Iranians across the U.S. in the last few days.

“We have been saying we are getting the worst of the worst out — and we are,” Homeland Security Department Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. “We don’t wait until a military operation to execute; we proactively deliver on President Trump’s mandate to secure the homeland.”

Trump’s “entire playbook on immigration has been to characterize immigration as invasion and immigrants as invaders,” Motomura said. “Having a military conflict with Iran allows Trump to link any actions by Iran or its proxies as further evidence of invasion … and as even further proof that he must take drastic emergency measures against foes both domestic and foreign.”

Levitsky said that the “Trump administration is clearly learning how useful it is” to portray immigration as a national security emergency. He points out that the deportations of Venezuelans to El Salvador this year was supposedly necessary because it was depicted as an attack on America by members of the Tren de Aragua gang, although there was little evidence of such a planned incursion.

But the narrative of immigration as a foreign offensive has stuck — remember when “shithole countries” were supposedly purposefully emptying prisons and mental hospitals to send murderers and rapists to the U.S.?

And so many people accepted whatever erosion of rights these deportations meant in exchange for the perception of living in safer communities — never mind that the reality is that most of those now trapped in that Salvadoran prison are not violent criminals.

Success with that tactic has left the administration increasingly eager to capitalize on fearmongering and “looking for ways to use language like insurgency or emergency that frees it from from legal constraints,” Levitsky said. “And war is a great way to do it.”

Jones warned that even just stoking concerns that “there’s cells or there’s people on the inside” wishing to do us harm could be justification enough for more disintegration of rights.

Although all of that sounds dire, it’s important to remember that it hasn’t happened yet, and it may never happen. And if it does, it does not mean there’s no recourse to protect our civil rights — the people still have power.

“There isn’t a single strategy, a single slogan, a single movement, a single group, a single leader, a single protest,” Levitsky said. “There are literally 1,000 different ways for people to express their opposition to what’s going on, and what’s important is that Americans engage.”

Part of that engagement is accepting that democracy is not a given, and that American democracy holds no special powers to survive, he said.

“Frankly, that’s why we’re losing our democracy,” Levitsky said. “Brazilians don’t have this problem. South Koreans do not have this problem. … Germans don’t have this problem. People in Spain don’t have this problem. Chileans, Argentinians do not have this problem.

“All those societies have a collective memory of authoritarianism. All those societies know what it means to lose a democracy,” he said. “Americans don’t have an idea.”

Our greatest threat right now isn’t Trump or what he may or may not do. It’s our inability to believe that authoritarianism really is creeping up on us, that it could happen here.

And that all it might take is denial with a chaser of fear to topple a democracy that once felt unbreakable.

The U.S. Justice Department has launched an investigation into whether California, its interscholastic sports federation and the Jurupa Unified School District are violating the civil rights of cisgender girls by allowing transgender students to compete in school sports, federal officials announced Wednesday.

The Justice Department is also throwing its support behind a pending lawsuit alleging similar violations of girls’ rights in the Riverside Unified School District, said U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, who oversees much of the Los Angeles region, and Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

Transgender track athletes have come under intense scrutiny in recent months in both Jurupa Valley and Riverside, with anti-LGBTQ+ activists attacking them on social media and screaming opposition to their competing at school meets.

Essayli and Dhillon, both Californians appointed under President Trump, have long fought against transgender rights in the state. Their announcements came one day after Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from California for allowing transgender youth to participate in sports.

The legal actions are just the latest attempts by the Trump administration to scale back transgender rights nationwide, including by bringing the fight to California — which has the nation’s largest queer population and some of its most robust LGBTQ+ legal protections — and targeting individual student athletes in the state.

Both Trump in his threats Tuesday and Essayli and Dhillon in their announcement of the investigation Wednesday appeared to reference the recent success of a 16-year-old transgender track athlete at Jurupa Valley High School named AB Hernandez. Trump wrongly suggested that Hernandez had won “everything” at a recent meet — which Hernandez didn’t do.

In a comment to The Times on Wednesday, Hernandez’s mother, Nereyda Hernandez, said it was heartbreaking to see her child being attacked “simply for being who they are,” and despite following all California laws and policies for competing.

“My child is a transgender student-athlete, a hardworking, disciplined, and passionate young person who just wants to play sports, continue to build friendships, and grow into their fullest potential like any other child,” her mother said.

The mother of another transgender high school track athlete in Riverside County who is the subject of the pending lawsuit the Justice Department is now backing declined to comment Wednesday.

The Justice Department said it had sent letters of legal notice to California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, the California Interscholastic Federation and Jurupa Unified.

The U.S. Department of Education had previously announced in February that it was investigating the CIF for allowing transgender athletes to compete. Dhillon said the two federal departments would coordinate their investigations.

Bonta has defended state laws protecting transgender youth, students and athletes, and advised school systems and other institutions in the state, such as hospitals, to adhere to state LGBTQ+ laws — even in the face of various Trump executive orders aimed at curtailing the rights of and healthcare for transgender youth. On Wednesday, his office said it remained “committed to defending and upholding California laws.”

Scott Roark, a spokesman for the California Department of Education, said his agency could not comment. Jacquie Paul, a spokesperson for Jurupa Unified, said the school system had yet to receive the letter Wednesday, and “without further information” could not comment. A spokesperson for the Riverside Unified School District also declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.

The CIF, in a statement, said it “values all of our student-athletes and we will continue to uphold our mission of providing students with the opportunity to belong, connect, and compete while complying with California law and Education Code.”

However, the sports federation also changed its rules for the upcoming 2025 CIF State Track and Field Championships, saying a cisgender girl who is bumped from qualifying for event finals by a transgender athlete would still be allowed to compete and would also be awarded the medal for whichever place they would have claimed were the transgender athlete not competing.

The changes brought renewed criticism from advocates on both sides of the political issue, including Chino Valley Unified school board President Sonja Shaw. Shaw is a Trump supporter running for state schools superintendent who has challenged pro-LGBTQ+ laws statewide and supports the latest investigation. She said that, in making the changes, CIF was “admitting” that girls “are being pushed out of their own sports.”

Dhillon said her office’s “pattern or practice” investigation will consider whether California’s laws and the CIF policies violate Title IX, a 1972 federal civil rights law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal funding.

Title IX has been used in the past to win rights for transgender people, but the Trump administration has taken a strikingly different view of the law — and cited it as a reason transgender rights must be rolled back.

Dhillon said the law “exists to protect women and girls in education,” that it is “perverse to allow males to compete against girls, invade their private spaces, and take their trophies,” and that her division would “aggressively defend women’s hard-fought rights to equal educational opportunities.”

Essayli said in a statement that his office would “work tirelessly to protect girls’ sports and stop anyone — public officials included — from violating women’s civil rights.”

LGBTQ+ advocates, civic institutions in California and many Democratic lawmakers in the state have denounced the framing of transgender inclusion in sports as diminishing the rights of women and girls and accused Trump and other Republicans of attacking transgender people — about 1% of the U.S. population — simply because they make for an easy and vulnerable political target.

Kristi Hirst, co-founder of the public education advocacy group Our Schools USA, said the Justice Department’s actions amounted to “bullying minors and using taxpayer resources to do so,” and that a “better use of public dollars would be for the Justice Department to affirm that all kids possess civil rights, and protect the very students being targeted today.”

The “pattern or practice” investigation is the second such investigation that Dhillon’s office has launched in the L.A. region in as many months. It’s also investigating Los Angeles County over its process for issuing gun permits.

Essayli’s separate decision to back the Riverside lawsuit adds another wrinkle to an already complicated case.

The group Save Girls’ Sports is suing over the inclusion of a transgender athlete in a girls’ track meet in October, a decision they allege unfairly bumped a cisgender girl from competition, and over a decision by high school officials to block students from wearing shirts that read, “IT’S COMMON SENSE. XX [does not equal] XY,” a reference to the different chromosome pairings of biological females and males.

Julianne Fleischer, an attorney with Advocates for Faith & Freedom who is representing Save Girls’ Sports, said Wednesday that Essayli’s decision to weigh in on behalf of the group was welcome.

“This case has always been about common sense, fairness, and the plain meaning of the law,” Fleischer said in a statement. “Girls’ sports were never meant to be a social experiment. They exist so that girls can win, lead and thrive on a level playing field.”

It was unclear how the case would be affected by Essayli’s interest.

The state and school district are asking for the lawsuit to be dismissed. A hearing is scheduled next month.

Essayli, formerly a state Assembly member from Riverside County, made his name in politics in part by attacking what he has called the “woke” policies of California’s liberal majority in Sacramento. Shortly before he was appointed as U.S. attorney last month, other California lawmakers blocked a bill he introduced that would have banned transgender athletes from female sports.

Hernandez, the mother of the targeted Jurupa Valley athlete, said Trump and other officials were bullying children by “weaponizing misinformation and fear instead of embracing truth, compassion and respect,” and asked Trump to reconsider.

“I respectfully request you to open your heart and mind to learn about the LGBTQ+ community,” she said, “not from the voices of fear or division, but from the people living these lives with courage, love and dignity.”

NEW YORK — The Trump administration is accusing Columbia University of violating the civil rights of Jewish students by “acting with deliberate indifference” toward what it describes as rampant antisemitism on campus.

The finding was announced late Thursday by the Health and Human Services Department, marking the latest blow for an Ivy League school already shaken by federal cutbacks and sustained government pressure to crack down on student speech.

It comes hours after the Department of Homeland Security said it would revoke Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students, a major escalation in the administration’s monthslong attack on higher education.

The civil rights division of HHS said it had found Columbia in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which blocks federal funding recipients from discrimination based on race, color or national origin. That final category, the press release notes, includes “discrimination against individuals that is based on their actual or perceived Israeli or Jewish identity or ancestry.”

The announcement did not include new sanctions against Columbia, which is already facing $400 million in federal cuts by the Trump administration over its response to pro-Palestinian campus protests.

A spokesperson for Columbia said the university is currently in negotiations with the government about resolving its claims of antisemitism.

“We understand this finding is part of our ongoing discussions with the government,” the spokesperson said in an email. “Columbia is deeply committed to combatting antisemitism and all forms of harassment and discrimination on our campus.”

The civil rights investigation into Columbia was based on witness interviews, media reports and other sources, according to HHS. The findings were not made public. A spokesperson did not response to a request for further information.

“The findings carefully document the hostile environment Jewish students at Columbia University have had to endure for over 19 months, disrupting their education, safety, and well-being,” Anthony Archeval, acting director of the HHS civil rights office, said in a statement.

Last spring, Columbia became the epicenter of protests against the war in Gaza, spurring a national movement of campus demonstrations that demanded universities cut ties with Israel.

At the time, some Jewish students and faculty complained about being harassed during the demonstrations or ostracized because of their faith or their support of Israel.

Those who participated in Columbia’s protests, including some Jewish students, have said they are protesting Israel’s actions against Palestinians and have forcefully denied allegations of antisemitism.

Many have also accused the university of capitulating to the Trump administration’s demands — including placing its Middle East studies department under new leadership — at the expense of academic freedom and protecting foreign students.

At a commencement ceremony earlier this week, a speech by Columbia’s acting president, Claire Shipman, was met with loud boos by graduates and chants of “free Palestine.”

Offenhartz writes for the Associated Press.