deploy

The Justice Department sent a last-minute surge of election monitors into Los Angeles Tuesday morning, hours after losing the latest legal tug-of-war over California’s 20,000 contested ballots.

In a pair of decisions late Monday night, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals published and then quickly rescinded a decision that would have allowed the Trump administration to prosecute election workers who processed contested ballots, even after their demands to segregate them were struck down by the Supreme Court.

Then, as dawn broke on Election Day, the Justice Department announced it was sending out “1,000 election monitors and observers” across the U.S. in what it called “the largest monitoring effort in DOJ history.”

Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and Detroit were among the dozens of jurisdictions where monitors were sent under the auspices of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — legislation the President Trump has worked tirelessly to gut across both his administrations.

A Justice Department spokesperson said the federal monitors “will be at polling locations,” but that the department is not “giving out precinct details.”

The move was widely seen as an intimidation tactic.

“They’re not doing this to make sure that there are free and fair elections,” said Eric J. Segall, a law professor at Georgia State University and an expert on the Supreme Court. “They’re doing this for nakedly partisan reasons, and the federal government shouldn’t be allowed do that.”

California officials were quick to hit back.

“We’ll have our observers on site keeping an eye on your monitors to ensure the integrity of California’s free, fair, safe, secure, accurate, and reliable elections,” Bonta vowed on social media as the spat escalated early Tuesday morning.

The Justice Department said it would also send monitors to San Diego, Sacramento and Alameda County in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The sudden influx of election monitors and the dramatic about-face in appellate court are the latest wild swings in the Golden State’s protracted midterm brawl with the federal government — a fight that has captured national attention amid growing concerns of election interference by the Trump administration.

“On the eve of Election Day, Defendants insist they must be free to use their prosecutorial powers to do what they could not through their applications for injunctions in this court and the Supreme Court,” 9th Circuit Chief Judge Mary Helen Murguia wrote in her dissent to the initial 2-1 ruling, which appeared just after 8 p.m. Monday night.

“The district court properly attempted to put a stop to Defendants’ efforts to intimidate election workers into abandoning lawful state election procedures through spurious threats of prosecution,” Murguia wrote.

By 11 p.m. the decision had been reversed, with the court setting aside its previous ruling while it reviewed the case with a larger en banc panel.

It was the latest legal blow for the administration in what had been a months long effort to claw back ballots it claims may have been issued to noncitizens, while publicly threatening to prosecute election workers who process them when its efforts were rebuffed in court.

Last week, the Justice Department sent criminal grand jury subpoenas to election workers in Los Angeles seeking reams of data related to efforts to comply with its demands.

Unions and voting rights groups sued in federal court, saying the efforts amounted to “a coordinated campaign to intimidate, threaten, and coerce” civil servants into holding back legitimate ballots.

On Friday, after the 9th Circuit had ruled for California in the ballot claw-back case, U.S. District Court Judge Trina Thompson in San Francisco issued a blistering order blocking the Justice Department from dangling criminal liability over elections workers or demanding voters be stripped from the rolls.

“In the lead-up to the election, high-ranking DOJ and DHS officials have engaged in a campaign to intimidate, threaten, and coerce state and local officials and employees who are engaged in administering the ongoing midterm 2026 election,” Thompson wrote.

“Although Defendants claim that their actions are designed to halt unlawful voting by noncitizens, their actions are likely to have the effect of interfering with election administration and disenfranchising lawful voters,” the judge wrote.

Then, on Monday afternoon, mere minutes after it was asked to consider the question, the Supreme Court returned an unsigned decision in California’s favor, appearing, at least briefly, to foreclose further efforts to stop those ballots being counted.

“This latest decision should put an end to the Administration’s attempt to disrupt California’s elections through emergency court orders,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in response to the Supreme Court decision Monday.

But it didn’t.

Instead, the late-breaking 9th Circuit decision spurred a flurry of confusion and conjecture just hours before polls were set to open in the country’s most populous state.

In the wake of the court rulings, Segall and others said the Trump administration’s move to deploy election monitors was part of a troubling pattern. The law professor worried the Supreme Court could weaponize what remains of the Voting Rights Act to benefit the president and his party.

“So far they’ve said we’re going to cut the legs off [the Act] so as not to help Democrats, but the next iteration of this will be to use the Voting Rights Act to help the Republican Party,” he said.

PARIS — Some 70,000 law enforcement officers will be deployed across France on Saturday while the Louvre and several other major Paris museums will be closed as authorities seek to prevent renewed violence during planned protests.

Protests last week devolved into mayhem, with people setting fires, storming public buildings, smashing shop windows, looting and clashing with police. It was France’s most violent unrest in years.

Demonstrators plan to take to the streets again Saturday to denounce the high cost of living. Students, members of the CGT labor union and activists from the “yellow vest” movement, whose demonstrations against social injustice shook France in 2018 and 2019, are all set to join.

While some protests have been banned for security reasons in several cities, including Lyon, Nice and Montpellier, marches are expected in many other places including in Paris and Marseille.

French Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez said some 70,000 police officers and gendarmes would be deployed, along with helicopters, armored vehicles and water cannons. In addition, elite police units will help secure public buildings like city halls in a “highly mobile” security operation, he said.

“There have been numerous calls from radical far-left groups on social media to commit acts of violence and vandalism. There have also been renewed calls for looting, with those messages clearly being spread by rioters,” Nuñez said at a news conference.

“We will be absolutely uncompromising” with those involved in violence, he added, warning that police will have a “very firm approach to making arrests, and there will be legal consequences.”

Paris museums to be closed

In a statement to the Associated Press, the Culture Ministry said the Louvre, the Orsay and Picasso museums as well as the Grand Palais would be closed. The ministry called on all institutions under its authority to adopt any necessary measures to ensure “visitor safety, staff protection and the preservation of artworks,” according to the statement.

After two days when admission was by invitation only, Art Basel Paris opened to the public Friday — but only for the day, with the threat of unrest prompting organizers to cancel the weekend program. One of the world’s most prestigious contemporary art fairs, Art Basel includes exhibitions by 211 international galleries at Paris’ Grand Palais.

“This decision has not been taken lightly, and the safety of everyone involved in the fair remains our utmost priority,” organizers said in a statement Thursday.

Saloni Doshi, an art collector who traveled to Paris from India for the fair, grew worried Saturday as she saw the fires and panicked people, and she received phone calls from friends asking whether Paris was safe. She agreed with the organizers’ rationale to close.

Antoine Donzeaud and Elisa Rigoulet, the owners of the gallery exo exo, felt the same.

“We understand this decision, which we consider reasonable and consistent with the urgency of the social demands currently unfolding in France,” they said in a text message.

But some visitors were disappointed.

“It’s very sad, because we just came here to the fair, and we could not get in because they canceled it for the weekend,” said Fabián Hernández, 32, from Mexico City. “So it’s very busy today, and it’s disappointing to me because I love the art fair, you know? But it is what it is.”

An anti far-right protest is planned

A demonstration Saturday in the city of Orléans, about 70 miles south of Paris, will also be closely watched.

About 50 organizations have called for a protest against the far right on the sidelines of the two-day congress of Marine Le Pen’s nationalist, anti-immigration party ahead of next spring’s presidential election. Organizers include labor unions, left-wing political parties, student organizations and anti-racism groups.

Hugues Moutouh, the prefect of the Loiret region, said that 20,000 to 30,000 demonstrators from across the country were expected.

Le Pen, whom opinion polls place as the front-runner in next year’s election, accused left-wing organizations and political parties of trying to “disrupt a political party’s democratic congress” on news broadcaster Franceinfo.

Still, she said she had “no concerns” about security because the government had “recognized the need for measures allowing the congress to proceed safely.”

Gadeva and Corbet write for the Associated Press. AP writers David Biller and Samuel Petrequin in Paris contributed to this report.

President Trump illegally usurped Gov. Gavin Newsom’s command of the California National Guard by ordering a surge troops deployed into Los Angeles and across the state amid protests against the White House’s mass deportation program last year, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

The two-one decision split the president’s own appointees to the court, with Judge Eric D. Miller of Seattle siding with Judge Jennifer Sung of Portland, a Biden pick, and Judge Mark J.Bennett of Honolulu dissenting.

“The order exceeded the President’s statutory authority and encroached on Congress’s calling forth power, in violation of the constitutional separation of powers,” Sung wrote for the majority, calling Trump’s order “unconstitutional.”

The decision also appeared to foreclose what California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta called “the Trump Administration’s transparent attempt” to preserve its right to call up California troops again under the same obscure statute — a novel legal maneuver administration lawyers said let the president seize command without invoking the far stronger Insurrection Act.

The 9th Circuit trio was among the first to weigh the law last June, after Trump federalized 4,000 National Guard soldiers in response to unrest over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

California sued. US District Judge Charles R. Breyer quickly ruled to block the deployment. But Sung, Bennett and Miller stayed his order, finding that the California deployment could go forward under an obscure and virtually untested subsection of the law.

That decision set a “great level of deference” as the standard of review for deployments, meaning courts had very little power to test the president’s rationale for sending troops into American streets.

At the time, the decision represented one of the president’s most sweeping second-term victories: a plug-and-play legal mechanism to deploy soldiers against civilians in cities across the country.

In Portland that fall, another 9th Circuit panel stayed U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut’s order to stand down troops, using the first trio’s precedent.

The Portland decision — based in part on data the Department of Justice later admitted was false — prompted an extraordinary filing by Judge Jay Bybee, who all but pleaded with the court to rehear the case and interpret the law differently.

“There is no greater threat to the sovereignty of the states than an assertion of federal control over their domestic affairs,” Bybee wrote.

The issue quickly found its way to the Supreme Court, after a 7th Circuit panel found the president had provided “insufficient evidence” for deployment even under the 9th Circuit’s deference standard.

On Dec. 23, the Justices adopted a celebrated Georgetown scholar’s academic reading of the statute, saying it only allowed the president to commandeer national guard troops if the situation had already outmatched the standing army.

Federalized troops were ordered to leave Los Angeles in December.

On Friday, the 9th Circuit held that Trump’s claim that Los Angeles was in the grips of a rebellion last June “did not reflect a colorable assessment within a range of honest judgment.”

Using “the plain text of the statute,” and “dictionary definitions of the disputed term,” the majority found the president had not furnished evidence of a “a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole” — nor anything close to it.

Instead, Justice Department lawyers had relied on subsidiary definitions of “rebellion” that the 9th Circuit warned would allow the president to call up troops to quell almost any resistance, including peaceful protests.

“Resistance that is not violent, armed, organized, and against the government as a whole generally does not require a military response,” Sung wrote.

“Because Defendants have failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to legally execute the laws in California, they have not carried their burden to show that the President had the authority to federalize California’s National Guard,” Sung wrote.

Ministry of Defence says warplanes will operate in ‘defensive role’ and not be used to attack Yemeni group.

The United Kingdom has said it will deploy fighter jets to help protect Saudi Arabia from attacks by Yemen’s Houthis.

In a statement on Tuesday, the British Ministry of Defence said the Typhoon warplanes would operate in a “defensive role” and not carry out attacks against the Iranian-backed armed group.

“The UK will fly defensive counter air missions to support the protection of Saudi cities and critical national infrastructure against aerial attack, using RAF Typhoon fighter jets,” it added.

The support includes an extension of air-to-air refuelling support for Saudi air operations, the ministry added.

The announcement comes amid heavy fighting between the Houthis – also known as Ansar Allah, Arabic for Supporters of God – and Yemen’s internationally recognised government, which is backed by Saudi Arabia.

In recent weeks, the Houthis have carried out missile and drone strikes against the kingdom, including Riyadh’s main airport, while the Saudi-led coalition supporting the Yemeni government has launched air attacks on Houthi positions in Yemen.

“The continuing attacks from the Houthis on our ally Saudi Arabia are absolutely despicable. The targeting of the airport in Riyadh in particular shows the lengths the Houthis are going to escalate the situation in the region,” UK Defence Secretary Wes Streeting said.

“That’s why today I have approved further UK military support. RAF Typhoons will fly defensive air missions to help protect Saudi airspace from drones and missiles. This builds on the UK equipment and personnel we already have in the country to defend against Houthi air attacks,” he added.