national

Authorities board vessel off Swedish coast after it suffered an engine failure.

Sweden’s customs service has said that authorities boarded a Russian freighter that anchored in Swedish waters on Friday after developing engine problems, and were conducting an inspection of the cargo.

The owners of the vessel, the Adler, are on the European Union’s sanctions list, Martin Hoglund, spokesman at the customs authority, said on Sunday.

“Shortly after 0100 (00:00 GMT) last night we boarded the ship with support from the Swedish Coast Guard and the police service in order to make a customs inspection,” Hoglund said. “The inspection is still ongoing.”

Hoglund declined to say what the customs service had found on board the ship.

According to ship-tracking service Marine Traffic, the Adler is a 126-metre-long, roll-on, roll-off container carrier. It is anchored off Hoganas in southwest Sweden.

EU and US sanctions

In addition to the Adler being on an EU sanctions list, the vessel and its owners, M Leasing LLC, are also both subject to US sanctions, suspected of involvement in weapons transport, according to OpenSanctions, a database of sanctioned companies and individuals, persons of interest and government watchlists.

Hoglund said the ship had left the Russian port of St Petersburg on December 15, but he said customs did not have any information about its destination.

The night-time operation was led by the Swedish Customs Administration along with the coastguard, National Task Force, Swedish Security Service and prosecutors.

In a previous incident, the Adler was boarded by Greek forces in the Mediterranean in January 2021. The operation was carried out under the auspices of the EU’s Operation Irini, which monitors the United Nations arms embargo on Libya.

In a national address, US President Donald Trump claimed the Gaza truce he helped broker brought peace to the Middle East “for the first time in 3,000 years.” Trump’s statement comes despite ongoing Israeli ceasefire violations and near-daily attacks on Gaza.

DOVER AIR FORCE BASE, Del. — President Trump on Wednesday paid his respects to two Iowa National Guard members and a U.S. civilian interpreter who were killed in an attack in the Syrian desert, joining their grieving families as their remains were brought back to the country they served.

Trump met privately with the families at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware before the dignified transfer, a solemn ritual conducted in honor of U.S. service members killed in action. The civilian was also included in the transfer.

Trump, who traveled to Dover several times in his first term, once described it as “the toughest thing I have to do” as president.

The two Iowa troops killed in Syria on Saturday were Sgt. Edgar Brian Torres-Tovar, 25, of Des Moines, and Sgt. William Nathaniel Howard, 29, of Marshalltown, according to the U.S. Army. Both were members of the 1st Squadron, 113th Cavalry Regiment, and have been hailed as heroes by the Iowa National Guard.

Torres-Tovar’s and Howard’s families were at Dover for the return of their remains, alongside Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, members of Iowa’s congressional delegation and leaders of the Iowa National Guard. Their remains will be taken to Iowa after the transfer.

A U.S. civilian working as an interpreter, identified Tuesday as Ayad Mansoor Sakat, of Macomb, Mich., was also killed. Three other members of the Iowa National Guard were injured in the attack. The Pentagon has not identified them.

They were among hundreds of U.S. troops deployed in eastern Syria as part of a coalition fighting the Islamic State group.

The process of returning service member remains

There is no formal role for a president at a dignified transfer other than to watch in silence, with all thoughts about what happened in the past and what is happening at Dover kept to himself for the moment. There is no speaking by any of the dignitaries who attend, with the only words coming from the military officials who direct the highly choreographed transfers.

Trump arrived without First Lady Melania Trump, who had been scheduled to accompany him, according to the president’s public schedule. Her office declined to elaborate, with spokesperson Nick Clemens saying the first lady “was not able to attend today.”

During the process at Dover, transfer cases draped with the American flag that hold the soldiers’ remains are carried from the belly of a hulking C-17 military aircraft to a waiting vehicle under the watchful eyes of grieving family members. The vehicle then transports the remains to the mortuary facility at the base, where the fallen are prepared for burial.

Iowa National Guard members hailed as heroes

Howard’s stepfather, Jeffrey Bunn, has said Howard “loved what he was doing and would be the first in and last out.” He said Howard had wanted to be a soldier since he was a boy.

In a social media post, Bunn, who is chief of the Tama, Iowa, police department, said Howard was a loving husband and an “amazing man of faith.” He said Howard’s brother, a staff sergeant in the Iowa National Guard, would escort “Nate” back to Iowa.

Torres-Tovar was remembered as a “very positive” family-oriented person who always put others first, according to fellow Guard members who were deployed with him and issued a statement to the local TV broadcast station WOI.

Dina Qiryaqoz, the daughter of the civilian interpreter who was killed, said Wednesday in a statement that her father worked for the U.S. Army during the invasion of Iraq from 2003 to 2007. Sakat is survived by his wife and four adult children.

The interpreter was from Bakhdida, Iraq, a small Catholic village southeast of Mosul, and the family immigrated to the U.S. in 2007 on a special visa, Qiryaqoz said. At the time of his death, Sakat was employed as an independent contractor for Virginia-based Valiant Integrated Services.

Sakat’s family was still struggling to believe that he is gone. “He was a devoted father and husband, a courageous interpreter and a man who believed deeply in the mission he served,” Qiryaqoz said.

Trump’s reaction to the attack in Syria

Trump told reporters over the weekend that he was mourning the deaths. He vowed retaliation. The most recent instance of U.S. service members killed in action was in January 2024, when three American troops died in a drone attack in Jordan.

Saturday’s deadly attack followed a rapprochement between the U.S. and Syria, bringing the former pariah state into a U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State group.

Trump has forged a relationship with interim Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, the onetime leader of an Islamic insurgent group who led the ouster of former President Bashar Assad.

Trump, who met with al-Sharaa last month at the White House, said Monday that the attack had nothing to do with the Syrian leader, who Trump said was “devastated by what happened.”

During his first term, Trump visited Dover in 2017 to honor a U.S. Navy SEAL killed during a raid in Yemen, in 2019 for two Army officers whose helicopter crashed in Afghanistan, and in 2020 for two Army soldiers killed in Afghanistan when a person dressed in an Afghan army uniform opened fire.

Price writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Konstantin Toropin and Darlene Superville in Washington, Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Mich., and Hannah Fingerhut in Des Moines, Iowa, contributed to this report.

Dec. 17 (UPI) — There are no legal or national security justifications for the Trump administration’s attacks on ships in the eastern Pacific and Caribbean Sea, Sen. Chris Murphy said following a bipartisan classified briefing on the strikes.

At least 95 people have been killed in 25 military strikes on ships the Trump administration accuses of being used by drug cartels and gangs designated as terrorist organizations since Sept. 2.

The strikes have drawn mounting domestic and international condemnation and questions over their legality by both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.

The administration defends the strikes as legal under both U.S. and international law, arguing the United States is at war with the drug cartels who are flooding the country with deadly substances.

State Secretary Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth held a classified briefing on the strikes with members of Congress on Tuesday, with many Democrats, including Murphy, D-Conn., calling foul.

“While I obviously can’t tell you any classified information I learned, I can tell you this: that the administration had no legal justification for these strikes, and no national justification for these strikes,” Murphy said in a video posted to his X account.

On the national security front, the administration admitted to the lawmakers that there is no fentanyl coming to the United States from Venezuela and the cocaine that is coming from Venezuela is mostly going to Europe, he said.

“And so we are spending billions of your taxpayer dollars to wage a war in the Caribbean to stop cocaine from going from Venezuela to Europe,” he said. “That is a massive waste of national security resources and of your taxpayer dollars.”

On the legal front, the administration is justifying the strikes by stating they are targeting gangs and cartels that the Trump administration has designated as terrorist organizations.

Since February, President Donald Trump has designated 10 cartels and gangs as terrorist organizations, with Clan de Golfo blacklisted on Tuesday.

Murphy said that while the president has the power to designate groups as terrorist organizations, it does not give him the ability to carry out military strikes targeting them.

“A designated ‘terrorist organization’ allows the president to impose sanctions on those organizations and individuals,” he said. “Only Congress, only the American public, can authorize war. And there’s just no question that these are acts of war.”

Dozens of California National Guard troops under President Trump’s command apparently slipped out of Los Angeles under cover of darkness early Sunday morning, ahead of an appellate court’s order to be gone by noon Monday.

Administration officials would not immediately confirm whether the troops had decamped. But video taken outside the Roybal Federal Building downtown just after midnight on Sunday and reviewed by The Times shows a large tactical truck and four white passenger vans leaving the facility, which has been patrolled by armed soldiers since June.

About 300 California troops remain under federal control, some 100 of whom were still active in Los Angeles as of last week, court records show.

“There were more than usual, and all of them left — there was not a single one that stayed,” said protester Rosa Martinez, who has demonstrated outside the federal building for months and was there Sunday.

Troops were spotted briefly later that day, but had not been seen again as of Monday afternoon, Martinez said.

The development that forced the troops to leave was part of a sprawling legal fight for control of federalized soldiers nationwide that remains ongoing.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the order late Friday but softened an even more stringent edict from a lower court judge last week that would have forced the president to relinquish command of the state’s forces. Trump federalized thousands of California National Guard troops in June troops to quell unrest over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

“For the first time in six months, there will be no military deployed on the streets of Los Angeles,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “While this decision is not final, it is a gratifying and hard-fought step in the right direction.”

The ruling Friday came from the same three-judge panel that handed the president one of his most sweeping second-term victories this summer, after it found that the California deployment could go forward under an obscure and virtually untested subsection of the law.

That precedent set a “great level of deference” as the standard of review for deployments that have since mushroomed across the country, circumscribing debate even in courts where it is not legally binding.

But the so-called Newsom standard — California Gov. Gavin Newsom was the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit — has drawn intense scrutiny and increasingly public rebuke in recent weeks, even as the Trump administration argues it affords the administration new and greater powers.

In October, the 7th Circuit — the appellate court that covers Illinois — found the president’s claims had “insufficient evidence,” upholding a block on a troop deployment in and around Chicago.

“Even applying great deference to the administration’s view of the facts … there is insufficient evidence that protest activity in Illinois has significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute federal immigration laws,” the panel wrote.

That ruling is now under review at the Supreme Court.

In November, the 9th Circuit vacated its earlier decision allowing Trump’s Oregon federalization to go forward amid claims the Justice Department misrepresented important facts in its filings. That case is under review by a larger panel of the appellate division, with a decision expected early next year.

Despite mounting pressure, Justice Department lawyers have doubled down on their claims of near-total power, arguing that federalized troops remain under the president’s command in perpetuity, and that courts have no role in reviewing their deployment.

When Judge Mark J. Bennett asked the Department of Justice whether federalized troops could “stay called up forever” under the government’s reading of the statute at a hearing in October, the answer was an unequivocal yes.

“There’s not a word in the statute that talks about how long they can remain in federal service,” Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Eric McArthur said.

For now, the fate of 300 federalized California soldiers remains in limbo, though troops are currently barred by court orders from deployment in California and Oregon.

Times staff writers David Zahniser and Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

Dec. 14 (UPI) — A Hong Kong court is scheduled to deliver its verdict Monday in the national security case against media founder and former publisher Jimmy Lai, one of the city’s most prominent pro-democracy figures and the founder of the now-defunct newspaper Apple Daily.

Lai, 78, whose Chinese name is Lai Chee-ying, is charged alongside several companies linked to Apple Daily, including Apple Daily Limited, Apple Daily Printing Limited and AD Internet Limited, according to the court’s docket.

Prosecutors allege that Lai conspired to collude with foreign forces, an offense punishable by as much as a life sentence in prison under Hong Kong’s national security law.

Court records show the case is listed for verdict at 10 a.m. local time in the Court of First Instance at the West Kowloon Law Courts Building.

The Hong Kong Judiciary issued special public seating and ticketing arrangements for the hearing, citing high demand. According to court notices, admission tickets will be distributed on a first-come, first-served basis beginning 45 minutes before the hearing, with overflow seating and live broadcasts provided in multiple courtrooms.

The case has also drawn international attention, with governments and press freedom groups warning that the prosecution reflects a broader erosion of civil liberties and press freedom in Hong Kong since the national security law was imposed in 2020.

Lai has pleaded not guilty to two counts of “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” and a separate count of conspiracy to publish seditious material in Apple Daily, The New York Times reported. He has been jailed since his arrest five years ago.

The first National Security Strategy of the United States of America was released in 1950 under President Truman. It set firm strategic goals based on the containment doctrine to limit the influence of communist ideology in the global order. This first national security strategy marked the beginning of limited global policing in US geopolitics, but it was less pragmatic and more principled realism.  American interests became specific to liberal internationalism and focused only on areas facing the spread of the communist threat.

The Core Security Thinking of the US

The core security thinking of Americans was to preserve their sphere of influence from any adversarial influence or intervention, echoing the Monroe Doctrine. The initial period had this core, and the first national security strategy laid the groundwork for this security thinking. In 1988, the scope of core security thinking expanded, and elements of realism advanced further, with the US beginning to engage in deterrence calculations and global outreach to build collective military alliances against the Soviets. Most importantly, the strategy also focused on strengthening the economy. The core security thinking in the US’s national security strategy by the late 1980s began to realize that, while the Monroe Doctrine is important, US strategic interests must also require adopting flexibility in its confrontational approach, guided by liberal internationalism and the containment of communism.

Pragmatism and Realism

After the Soviet disintegration, US National Security Strategy focused on navigating a multipolar world by reinforcing the idea of collective security under the H.W. Bush Administration. The 1991 and 1993 US National Security strategies expanded on the concepts that started to emerge in the late 1980s—deterrence and engagement. In the 1990s, this strategy was continued through Powell’s four pillars: strong defense, forward presence, alliances, and coalition-building. The national security strategy designs suggest that elements of pragmatism and distinctions of pure realism gradually began to take center stage in the US national security approach.

Strategy in Crises

The National Security Strategy changed after 9/11, possibly in response to shifted security priorities. The previous approach of principled realism, which involved pragmatic and defensive tactics, now showed a slight shift, with the US’s national security strategy emphasizing more openly offensive realism and dogmatism. By the mid-2000s, the US had reactionary national security strategies, moving away from the approach that began to develop in the late 1980s. Key shifts in security strategies after 2001 included the doctrine of preemption and unilateral actions, but another significant change was a major shift in the collective engagement perspective, differing from earlier ideas of shared strategic responsibilities among allies.

After 9/11, the US called on allies, particularly in NATO, to bear a greater share of the burden for collective defense efforts, shifting away from reliance solely on the US. The core security thinking, rooted in peace through engagement, shifted during the 1990s toward peace through strength. Another aspect, after the Monroe Doctrine, peace through strength, gained a label of permanence in the US National Security Strategy, though its effectiveness and emphasis varied over time.

Trump’s National Security Strategy: Rebooting and Readjustments

Trump’s 2025 national security strategy resembles his 2017 National Security Strategy. The nationalist ideals of America First and the focus on economic engagement—which is the main security approach this time—are a mix of realizations and reactions. The first reaction to the current global situation is reasserting the Monroe Doctrine, dubbed “Trump Corollary,” and the second is showing the will for peace through strength by deterrence. Even if conflicts occur, the strategy emphasizes engaging in conflict with strategic skill to quickly win wars with little to no casualties. The realization part of the strategy is the US increasing its understanding of collective efforts and economic strength. The strategy highlights stronger partnerships with countries like India for the Indo-Pacific.

Reaction and Challenge

The realistic approach in this strategy is flexible realism, aiming not at domination but at maintaining a balance of power, while not fully adopting defensive realism. The United States has embraced both offensive and defensive realism. Over the past ten years, the US National Security Strategy under Obama, Trump 1.0, and Biden has incorporated elements of defensive realism along with principled realism, with the US gradually increasing its efforts to balance power through the promotion of liberal and pro-democratic values—examples include its Middle East policy and the revival of QUAD in 2017. However, a notable development in the 2025 strategy is the US’s willingness to undertake offensive actions to maximize security, such as Operation Midnight Hammer against Iran and expanding operations in Latin America against Venezuela. Another prominent aspect of this strategy is the US’s focus on Europe’s burden-sharing, attempting to lighten its responsibilities and emphasizing that Europe should stand on its own, while the US remains a facilitator in Europe’s development. However, it is no longer willing to assume a broader role—similar to sentiments after 9/11. This strategy likely reflects the challenges posed by a rising China, Russia’s multipolar approach, and increasing strategic competition in multilateral arenas. The Trump approach—as mentioned in the strategy—is not just a reboot of the US National Security strategy after the 2000s but with some realizations.

Realization

There is a growing realization, as highlighted earlier, that the US can no longer sustain a confrontational approach and aggressive, offensive realism. The Trump strategy for 2025 recognizes the need to incorporate elements from both the late Cold War and post-Cold War periods. The latter was characterized by defensive realism and principal realism features—approaches that the US emphasized during the Clinton years, when embracing multilateralism, economic diplomacy, and regional collective engagements became central to US national security strategy, paving the way for more pragmatic interventions. A similar recognition of Clinton’s policy of enlargement through engagement is reflected in Trump 2.0 National Security Strategy—Shifting from Aid to Trade with Africa, which exemplifies this focus on promoting economic diplomacy and broadening engagement.

The US National Security Strategy 2025 reflects the nation’s understanding of how to adapt its engagement with the global order while maintaining realism. This time, US security thinking appears to find a balance between engagement and deterrence, which in previous years often seemed to conflict.

As if Simi Valley coach Jim Benkert doesn’t have enough things to do, he’s taken on the task of putting on the National Football Foundation and College Hall of Fame high school all-star games Dec. 20 at Simi Valley High.

At 4 p.m. there will be a flag football game featuring players from the San Gabriel Chapter against the Coastal Valley Chapter. At 7, players from Ventura County will take on Los Angeles County in an 11-man game.

Agoura’s Dustin Croick is coaching the West team that includes his outstanding quarterback, Gavin Gray. Taft’s Thomas Randolph is coaching the East team that has a strong group of quarterbacks, including Michael Wynn Jr. of St. Genevieve.

Simi Valley High will be the site for all-star football games on Dec. 20.

(Eric Sondheimer / Los Angeles Times)

Tickets are $10 and will help pay for the growing costs of all-star games, from uniforms to insurance.

Benkert, one of the winningest coaches in state history with more than 300 victories, said he’s determined to make it work.

“We’re trying to keep all-star games alive,” he said. “If we don’t do it, there’s nothing.”

This is a daily look at the positive happenings in high school sports. To submit any news, please email eric.sondheimer@latimes.com.

Dec. 12 (UPI) — The National Trust for Historic Preservation has filed a lawsuit against the President Donald Trump administration to block construction of a ballroom on White House grounds.

The suit claims the ballroom construction is unlawful and asks the court to stop further construction until the plans go through a review process, as required by law.

Former White House attorney under presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Greg Craig, is representing the Trust. Defendants in the suit include the president, the National Park Service, the Department of the Interior, the General Services Administration and their leaders. The lawsuit was filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

“No president is legally allowed to tear down portions of the White House without any review whatsoever — not President Trump, not President Biden, not anyone else,” the filing said. “And no president is legally allowed to construct a ballroom on public property without giving the public the opportunity to weigh in. President Trump’s efforts to do so should be immediately halted, and work on the ballroom project should be paused until the defendants complete the required reviews — reviews that should have taken place before the defendants demolished the East Wing, and before they began construction of the ballroom — and secure the necessary approvals.”

Trump initially said the project wouldn’t interfere with the building and would be “near it but not touching it.” But then the East Wing was demolished to make way for the ballroom project. The now-$300 million project is being funded by donors, Trump has said.

The National Trust said it sent a letter to the Park Service, the National Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts in October asking them to stop the demolition and begin review procedures. But it didn’t get a response.

“Yet it appears the site preparation and preliminary construction of the proposed new ballroom is proceeding without any review by either commission or by Congress, and without the necessary approvals,” the suit said. “By evading this required review, the defendants are depriving the public of its right to be informed and its opportunity to comment on the defendants’ proposed plans for the ballroom project.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in October that the president doesn’t need approval for demolition but only needs it for “vertical construction.”

White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement Friday: “President Trump has full legal authority to modernize, renovate, and beautify the White House — just like all of his predecessors did.”

WASHINGTON — Members of Congress clashed Thursday over President Trump’s use of the National Guard in American cities, with Republicans saying the deployments were needed to fight lawlessness while Democrats called his move an extraordinary abuse of military power that violated states’ rights.

Top military officials faced questioning over the deployments for the first time at the hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. They were pressed by Democrats over the legality of sending in troops, which in some places were done over the objections of mayors and governors, while Trump’s Republican allies offered a robust defense of the policy.

It was the highest level of scrutiny, outside a courtroom, of Trump’s use of the National Guard in U.S. cities since the deployments began and came a day after the president faced another legal setback over efforts to send troops to support federal law enforcement, protect federal facilities and combat crime.

“In recent years, violent crime, rioting, drug trafficking and heinous gang activity have steadily escalated,” said Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker, the committee chairman. The deployments, he said, are “not only appropriate, but essential.”

Democrats argued they are illegal and contrary to historic prohibitions about the use of military force on U.S. soil.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., had pushed for the hearing, saying domestic deployments traditionally have involved responding to major floods and tornadoes, not assisting immigration agents who are detaining people in aggressive raids.

“Trump is forcing our military men and women to make a horrible choice: uphold their loyalty to the Constitution and protect peaceful protesters, or execute questionable orders from the president,” said Duckworth, a combat veteran who served in the Illinois National Guard.

Military leaders point to training

During questioning, military leaders highlighted the duties that National Guard units have carried out. Troops are trained in community policing, they said, and are prohibited from using force unless in self-defense.

Since the deployments began, only one civilian — in California — has been detained by National Guard personnel, according to Air Force Gen. Gregory M. Guillot, commander of U.S. troops in North America. Guillot said the troops are trained to de-escalate tense interactions with people, but do not receive any specific training on mental health episodes.

“They can very quickly be trained to conduct any mission that we task of them,” Guillot said.

Republicans and Democrats see the deployments much differently

In one exchange, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, noted how former Defense Secretary Mark Esper alleged that Trump inquired about shooting protesters during the George Floyd demonstrations. She asked whether a presidential order to shoot protesters would be lawful.

Charles L. Young III, principal deputy general counsel at the Defense Department, said he was unaware of Trump’s previous comments and that “orders to that effect would depend on the circumstances.”

“We have a president who doesn’t think the rule of law applies to him,” Hirono said in response.

Republicans countered that Trump was within his rights — and his duty — to send in the troops.

Republican Sen. Tim Sheehy of Montana, a former Navy SEAL officer, argued during the hearing that transnational crimes present enough of a risk to national security to justify military action, including on U.S. soil.

Sheehy claimed there are foreign powers “actively attacking this country, using illegal immigration, using transnational crime, using drugs to do so.”

Senators also offered their sympathies after two West Virginia National Guard members deployed to Washington were shot just blocks from the White House in what the city’s mayor described as a targeted attack. Spc. Sarah Beckstrom died a day after the Nov. 26 shooting, and her funeral took place Tuesday. Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe is hospitalized in Washington.

Hearing follows court setback for Trump

A federal judge in California on Wednesday ruled that the administration must stop deploying the California National Guard in Los Angeles and return control of the troops to the state.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer granted a preliminary injunction sought by California officials, but also put the decision on hold until Monday. The White House said it plans to appeal.

Trump called up more than 4,000 California National Guard troops in June without Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s approval to further the administration’s immigration enforcement efforts.

The move was the first time in decades that a state’s National Guard was activated without a request from its governor and marked a significant escalation in the administration’s efforts to carry out its mass deportation policy. The troops were stationed outside a federal detention center in downtown Los Angeles where protesters gathered and were later sent on the streets to protect immigration officers as they made arrests.

Trump also had announced National Guard members would be sent to Illinois, Oregon, Louisiana and Tennessee. Other judges have blocked or limited the deployment of troops to Portland, Oregon, and Chicago, while Guard members have not yet been sent to New Orleans.

Klepper, Finley and Groves write for the Associated Press. AP writer Konstantin Toropin contributed to this report.

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration must immediately end the deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles, the latest legal blow to the president’s embattled efforts to police American streets with armed soldiers.

Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer said in his ruling that command of the remaining 300 federalized National Guard troops must return to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who sued the administration in June after it commandeered thousands of troops to quell protests over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

On June 12, Breyer ruled that deployment illegal — a decision that was challenged and ultimately reversed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The court said the esoteric statute Trump invoked to wrest command of the Guard from the governor afforded him “a great level of deference” to determine whether a rebellion was underway in Los Angeles, as the Justice Department claimed at the time.

The same sequence repeated this autumn in Oregon, where 200 California Guard troops were sent to help quash demonstrations outside an ICE facility.

Unlike in California, the Oregon decision was vacated amid claims the Justice Department inflated the number of federal protective personnel it said were detailed to Portland and misrepresented other facts to the court.

The decision is now under review by a larger panel of the 9th Circuit, while the Supreme Court weighs an almost identical challenge to the deployment in Illinois.

In both cases, conservative judicial appointees have signaled skepticism about the president’s authority to order boots on the ground, and to keep troops federalized indefinitely.

“States are not only owed protection by the federal government, they are owed protection from it,” Judge Jay Bybee wrote in a lengthy filing Tuesday in support of the 9th Circuit review. “There is no greater threat to the sovereignty of the states than an assertion of federal control over their domestic affairs.”

The “domestic violence” clause of the Constitution was part of a careful compromise between its framers allowing the president to deploy armed soldiers against citizens “only as a last resort,” the judge argued. The president should be compelled to provide some proof of his claims and the states should be empowered to test it — “particularly in the face of contrary evidence.”

That position earned him a sharp rebuke from the court’s newest member, Trump appointee Judge Eric Tung, who echoed the administration’s claim that its deployments were “unreviewable” by the courts.

A demonstrator interacts with U.S. Marines and National Guard troops standing in line at the entrance of the Metropolitan Detention Center following federal immigration operations in July.

(Etienne Laurent / AFP via Getty Images)

Their exchange reflects a deepening rift on the 9th Circuit, once the most liberal appellate division in the United States.

Trump remade the 9th Circuit in his first term, naming 10 judges to the bench. Those picks were largely curated by Leonard Leo of the libertarian-leaning Federalist Society.

But Leo has since lost favor to Tung’s longtime friend Mike Davis of the Article III Project, whose recommendations tack well to the right of his predecessor, experts said.

Still, infighting on the appellate bench is far from the only hurdle facing Trump’s domestic deployments.

In October, the Supreme Court ordered both the administration and the state of Illinois to address a theory by Georgetown University law professor Martin S. Lederman, who argued the statute only allows presidents to federalize the National Guard after they send in the army.

“If the court wants to rule against Trump on this, that’s the least offensive way,” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State College of Law. “It’s a way to avoid all factual determinations for the moment.”

But such a ruling could open the door to even more aggressive military action in the future, he and others warn.

“If the Supreme Court comes in and says, ‘you have to use the active duty military before you can use the National Guard,’ it has the effect of saying everything that happened until now [was illegal],” said David Janovsky from the Project on Government Oversight. “But then you have the prospect of more active duty troops getting deployed.”

Congress, too, is taking a fine-toothed comb to Trump’s troop cases. The Senate Armed Services Committee is set to hear testimony Thursday from military top brass about repeated domestic deployments.

“Across the United States, Donald Trump has illegally deployed our nation’s servicemembers into American cities under unclear and false pretexts and despite the costs to our military and civil rights,” Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) said in a statement announcing the hearing. “The American people and our troops deserve answers.”

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has continued to broaden its claims of executive power in court.

In recent weeks, Department of Justice lawyers have argued that, once federalized, state Guard troops would remain under the president’s command in perpetuity. Breyer called that position “contrary to law” in his ruling Wednesday.

“Defendants’ argument for a president to hold unchecked power to control state troops would wholly upend the federalism that is at the heart of our system of government,” Breyer wrote.

California leaders cheered Wednesday’s ruling as a turning point in what until now has been an uphill legal battle to constrain the president’s use of state troops. The order was set to take effect on Monday, though it was all but certain to be appealed to the 9th Circuit.

“The President deployed these brave men and women against their own communities, removing them from essential public safety operations,” Newsom said in a statement Wednesday morning. “We look forward to all National Guard servicemembers being returned to state service.”

Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta called it “a good day for our democracy and the strength of the rule of law.”

Still, some legal scholars and civil liberties experts warn repeated deployments — and the slogging court battles that attend them — could inure the public to further politicization of the military around the midterms.

“The sense of normalization is probably part of the plan here,” Janovsky said. “Having troops trained for war on the streets of American cities puts everyone at more risk. The more we normalize the blurring of those lines, the higher the risk that troops will be used for inappropriate purposes against the American people.”

Times staff writers Kevin Rector and Jenny Jarvie contributed to this report.

Congressional Democrats are sounding alarms over the deep involvement of Saudi Arabian and other Middle Eastern royal families in Paramount’s proposed bid for Warner Bros. Discovery.

Warner Bros. Discovery owns CNN, HBO and the historic Warner Bros. film and television studios in Burbank, behind such beloved American classics as “Casablanca,” “Citizen Kane,” and Bugs Bunny, and blockbuster hits including “Harry Potter,” “Dirty Harry,” “The Matrix,” and “Friends.”

Late last week, the Larry Ellison controlled Paramount came up short in the bidding for Warner Bros., in part, over the Warner board’s concerns about Paramount’s deal financing. On Monday, Paramount launched a hostile takeover of Warner Bros., appealing directly to Warner shareholders — asking them to sell their Warner stock to Paramount for $30 a share.

Paramount’s gambit has thrown the auction, and Warner board’s selection of Netflix’s $72-billion deal, into doubt.

Paramount has long insisted that it represents the best partner for Warner Bros., in part, because of the Ellison family’s cozy relations with President Trump. The company has trumpeted its ability to gain the blessing of the Trump administration.

Paramount’s bid is heavily backed by Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Qatar’s sovereign wealth funds. The three royal families have agreed to contribute $24 billion — twice the amount the Larry Ellison family has agreed to provide in financing for Paramount’s proposed $78-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, according to regulatory filings.

Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner’s private equity firm, Affinity Partners, would also have an ownership stake.

On Wednesday, U.S. Reps. Sam T. Liccardo (D-San Jose) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Boston) called on Warner Bros. board to recognize the consequences of selling the legendary company, which includes news organization CNN, to foreign governments.

“This transaction raises national security concerns because it could transfer substantial influence over one of the largest American media companies to foreign-backed financiers,” Liccardo and Pressley wrote.

“Warner’s platforms reach tens of millions of American households through HBO, Max, CNN, Warner Bros. Pictures, Discovery, and numerous digital and cable properties,” the lawmakers wrote. “They also shape the news, entertainment, and cultural content consumed by the American public.”

Transactions “foreign investors with governance rights, access to non-public data, or indirect influence over content distribution creates vulnerabilities that foreign governments could exploit,” the lawmakers wrote.

Paramount Chairman and Chief Executive David Ellison on the Paramount lot in August.

(Paramount)

Paramount, in its regulatory filings, said the three Middle Eastern families had agreed to give up voting rights and a role in the company’s decision-making — despite contributing more than half the equity needed for the deal.

Representatives of Warner Bros. and Paramount declined to comment.

The Ellison family acquired Paramount in August. David Ellison, the chief executive, attended a White House dinner last month to celebrate Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

The involvement of bin Salman was concerning to the lawmakers.

“The fund is controlled by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, whom (according to the declassified 2021 report of the U.S. Director of National Intelligence) ordered the murder of U.S. resident and Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi,” the lawmakers wrote.

Over the weekend, Trump said the Netflix deal, which would give the streaming an even more commanding presence in the industry, “could be a problem.”

Dec. 9 (UPI) — Australian youth under age 16 are losing access to their social media accounts amid a national law that takes effect on Wednesday and is the world’s first such ban.

The nation’s lawmakers in 2024 enacted the social media ban that blocks access to 10 internationally popular social media sites — Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, Reddit, YouTube, Twitch, Kick, Snapchat and Threads.

Others could be added if they add significantly more users or otherwise are deemed social media instead of gaming or peer-to-peer communication sites, such as Bluesky, Steam, YouTube Kids, WhatsApp and Steam.

The law punishes the respective social media companies with up to $32 million in fines instead of children who might access the sites or their parents, according to the BBC.

The social media companies are required to ensure users are of legal age before accessing the respective sites by subjecting them to facial age assurance tests.

Officials at Elon Musk-owned X discussed with Australian officials the measures they would take to abide by Australia’s new law but have not shared that information with X users, Australian eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant told The Guardian.

The owners and operators of the nine other affected social media sites likewise confirmed they will abide by the new Australian law.

Officials for at least one other, Bluesky, have said they proactively will block access for Australians under age 16 despite it being deemed a “low risk” for children by the country’s eSafety commission due to its total user base of about 50,000 in Australia.

Australia-based k-ID service co-founder Kieran Donovan told The Guardian that the company has conducted hundreds of thousands of age verifications in recent weeks for Snapchat users and others.

The parent of one child suggested the age verification system is flawed and told The Guardian that her 15-year-old daughter is upset because “all of her 14- to 15-year-old friends have been ageverified as 18 by Snapchat,” but she wasn’t.

Another parent said his child will use a virtual private network and other tactics to bypass the age restrictions on social media.

Many free speech advocates say they support the effort to protect children but warned that the law could cause unintended harm.

Such harm might include making it harder to restrict harmful content or behaviors, creating security risks and inhibiting free speech and restricting minors’ access to information while restricting their speech.

Many also accuse the Australian government of saying it is better equipped to determine what is best for children than their parents by making it impossible for parents to choose whether or not to allow their children to access the banned social media sites.

Some Australian teens have filed a legal challenge to the new law.

While the Australian law takes effect on Wednesday, Malaysian officials have enacted a similar ban there that is scheduled to take effect in 2026.

WASHINGTON — Sophia Nyazi’s husband, Milad, shook her awake at 8 a.m. “ICE is here,” he told her.

Three uniformed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were downstairs at the family’s home on Long Island, N.Y., on Tuesday, according to a video reviewed by The Times that she captured from atop the staircase.

Nyazi said the agents asked whether her husband was applying for a green card. They told her they would have to detain him because of the shooting of two National Guard members a week earlier in Washington, D.C.

“He has nothing to do with that shooting,” Nyazi, 27, recalled answering. “We don’t even know that person.”

Her protests didn’t matter. The Trump administration has put into motion a broad and unprecedented set of policy changes aimed at substantially limiting legal immigration avenues, including for immigrants long considered the most vulnerable.

Milad Nyazi, 28, was detained because, like the man charged in the shooting which left one National Guard member dead, he is from Afghanistan.

The administration has paused decisions on all applications filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, by people seeking asylum. The visa and immigration applications of Afghans, whom the U.S. had welcomed in 2021 as it pulled all troops from the country, have been halted.

Officials also froze the processing of immigration cases of people from 19 countries the administration considers “high-risk” and will conduct case-by-case reviews of green cards and other immigration benefits given to people from those countries since former President Biden took office in 2021.

Immigration lawyers say they learned that dozens of naturalization ceremonies and interviews for green cards are being canceled for immigrants from Haiti, Iran, Guinea and other countries on the list.

In a couple of cases, immigration officers told immigrants that they had been prepared to grant a green card, but were unable to do so because of the new guidance, said Gregory Chen, government relations director at American Immigration Lawyers Assn.

Although it is unclear exactly how many people could be affected by the new rules, 1.5 million immigrants have asylum cases pending with USCIS.

“These are sweeping changes that exact collective punishment on a wide swath of people who are trying to do things the right way,” said Amanda Baran, former chief of policy and strategy at USCIS under the Biden administration. “I worry about all the people who have dutifully filed applications and whose lives are now on hold.”

Administration officials called the Nov. 26 shooting a “terrorist attack” and defended the changes as necessary to protect the country. Rahmanullah Lakanwal, 29, faces charges stemming from the shooting that killed Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, and critically wounded Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24.

“The protection of this country and of the American people remains paramount, and the American people will not bear the cost of the prior administration’s reckless resettlement policies,” Joseph Edlow, director of USCIS, said in a message posted Nov. 27 on X. “American safety is non-negotiable.”

Lakanwal pleaded not guilty last week and his motive remains under investigation. In Afghanistan, he served in a counterterrorism unit operated by the CIA.

Lakanwal entered the U.S. in 2021 through a Biden administration program that resettled nearly 200,000 Afghans in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal, officials said. He applied for asylum in December 2024 and it was approved under the Trump administration in April, according to a statement by the nonprofit #AfghanEvac.

Afghans who worked with U.S. troops were believed to face danger if left behind under the Taliban-run government. Along with undergoing routine security screening, they submitted to additional “rigorous” vetting, which included biometric and biographic checks by counterterrorism and intelligence professionals, the Department of Homeland Security said at the time.

Two federal reports from 2024 and this year pointed to some failings of the screening, including data inaccuracies and the presence of 55 evacuees who were later identified on terrorism watch lists, though the latter report noted that the FBI had then followed all required processes to mitigate any potential threat.

It’s unclear exactly how the administration will carry out reviews of thousands of people who already live legally in the U.S. The federal government can’t easily strip people of permanent legal status. The threat of reopening cases, however, has sparked alarm in immigrant communities across the country.

About 58,600 Afghan immigrants call California home as of 2023, far more than any other state, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Interviews with a dozen local community advocates, immigration attorneys and family members of those detained paint an aggressive effort by the federal government to round up recent Afghan immigrants in the wake of the D.C. shooting.

“Unfortunately, I think the administration took this one very tragic incident and politicized it as a way to shut down even legal immigration. And it’s definitely gone much broader than the Afghan community,” said Sharvari Dalal-Dheini, the director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Assn.

Trump administration officials cited the shooting in a spate of policy changes last week.

On Friday, USCIS announced it had established a new center to strengthen screening with supplemental reviews of immigration applications, in part using artificial intelligence. The USCIS Vetting Center, based in Atlanta, will “centralize enhanced vetting of aliens and allow the agency to respond more nimbly to changes in a shifting threat landscape,” the agency said.

On Thursday, USCIS said work permits granted to immigrants would expire after 18 months, not five years. The change includes work permits for those admitted as refugees, with pending green card applications and with pending asylum applications.

In a memorandum Tuesday outlining the pause on asylum applications and the immigration cases of people from the 19 countries also subject to a travel ban, USCIS acknowledged that the changes could result in processing delays but had determined it was “necessary and appropriate” when weighed “against the agency’s obligation to protect and preserve national security.”

Immigrants already had been on high alert as the Trump administration canceled temporary humanitarian programs, cut back refugee admissions — except for a limited number of white South African Afrikaners — and increased attempts to send those with deportation orders to countries where they have no personal connection.

Before the Washington shooting, a Nov. 21 memo showed that the administration planned to review the cases of more than 200,000 refugees admitted under the Biden administration. Although asylum seekers apply after arriving in the U.S., refugees apply for admission from outside the country.

Nyazi questioned why Afghans are being singled out, noting that a white person allegedly assassinated Charlie Kirk, but “I don’t see any ICE agents going into white people’s houses.”

Asked why Milad Nyazi was detained, Tricia McLaughlin, assistant public affairs secretary for Homeland Security, called him a criminal, citing two arrests on suspicion of domestic violence.

“Under Secretary [Kristi] Noem, DHS has been going full throttle on identifying and arresting known or suspected terrorists and criminal illegal aliens that came in through Biden’s fraudulent parole programs and working to get the criminals and public safety threats OUT of our country,” McLaughlin said in a statement.

Nyazi said the charges, which did not stem from incidents of physical violence, were dropped and his record was later expunged.

She and her husband got engaged in 2019 in Afghanistan and applied for a fiance visa, because Nyazi is a U.S. citizen. Their application was approved in 2021. Soon after, with the Taliban takeover in full force, the U.S. government allowed Milad Nyazi to fly to the U.S. He has a pending green card application, Nyazi said.

On Tuesday, the couple’s 3-year-old daughter screamed and cried as her father was handcuffed and taken away. He has a court hearing this week.

Zahra Billoo, executive director of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and others say Afghans in various stages of their legal immigration process — not only those with deportation orders — have been targeted. She said at least 17 Afghans in the Bay Area have been detained since Monday.

Lawyers said many of the Afghans detained last week had arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border, where they had sought asylum.

Paris Etemadi Scott, legal director of the Pars Equality Center in San José, said three of her clients, an Afghan mother and her two sons who are both in their early 20s, were detained Dec. 1 during a routine check-in with ICE. All have pending asylum applications, she said.

Rebecca Olszewski, managing attorney at the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, said her Afghan client, who also has a pending asylum case, reported for his monthly virtual check-in Friday and was told to show up in person the next day, where he was detained.

Since the shooting, administration officials and the president have used dehumanizing language to describe immigrants. In announcing the 19-country travel ban Dec. 1, Noem posted on X that she was recommending a “a full travel ban on every damn country that’s been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies.”

In a Cabinet meeting the next day, Trump referred to Somali immigrants as “garbage” who “contribute nothing.” (A few days later, Noem said the administration would expand the travel ban to more than 30 countries.)

On Thanksgiving Day, Trump had said on his social media platform that he intends to “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries” and deport those who are “non-compatible with Western Civilization.”

In recent days, a ghostly quiet has overtaken Shafiullah Hotak’s regular haunts in North Sacramento, where the Afghan population in the city is especially dense. Hotak, 38, is an Afghan immigrant who served as a program manager at refugee resettlement organization Lao Family Community Development until layoffs due to federal cuts forced him out of work in May.

On Thursday, immigration agents banged on doors at an apartment complex on Marconi Avenue, where hundreds of Afghans have resettled. Just one employee sat in an Afghan-owned tax and bookkeeping business that was typically buzzing with clients. A nearby park, where teenagers kick around soccer balls and giggling packs of children roam after school, was empty. And the lines at a halal market known for its sesame-topped Afghan bread had disappeared.

“The situation we have in our community reminds me of when we used to go to work in Afghanistan,” Hotak said. “We had to take different routes every day because people who were against the U.S. mission in Afghanistan were targeting people. There were bombings and shootings.”

Hotak said “Kill the eyes,” is what the enemies of the U.S. in Afghanistan used to advise as to how to deal with local Afghans aiding the military, in order to blind their operations.

“But nowadays those ‘eyes’ are here in the U.S. and the U.S. government is looking to pick them up and put them in jail,” Hotak said.

Times staff writers Castillo reported from Washington and Hussain and Uranga from Los Angeles.