objections

United States President Donald Trump has authorised the deployment of 300 National Guard troops to Chicago, issuing the order after weeks of threatening to do so over the objections of local leaders.

“President Trump has authorised 300 national guardsmen to protect federal officers and assets,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said on Saturday.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities.”

Illinois Democratic Governor JB Pritzker announced Trump’s plan earlier Saturday after US Border Patrol personnel shot an armed woman in Chicago.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said in a statement Saturday that no law enforcement officers were seriously injured in the incident in which a group, including the shot woman, rammed cars into vehicles used by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.

The woman, a US citizen who was not identified, drove herself to the hospital, according to the statement. No additional information was immediately available about the woman’s condition. ICE agents fired pepper spray and loaded rubber bullets as part of heated clashes with protesters on Saturday.

US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said in a post on X that she was sending additional “special operations” to control the scene in Chicago’s Brighton Park neighbourhood.

Pritzker said the guard received word from the Pentagon in the morning that the troops would be called up. He did not specify when or where they would be deployed, but Trump has long threatened to send troops to Chicago.

“This morning, the Trump Administration’s Department of War gave me an ultimatum: call up your troops, or we will,” Pritzker said in a statement. “It is absolutely outrageous and un-American to demand a Governor send military troops within our own borders and against our will.” ​

A spokesperson for the governor’s office said she could not provide additional details. The White House and the Pentagon did not respond to questions about Pritzker’s statement.

People in the Chicago area have staged repeated protests condemning the stepped-up federal presence. On Friday, police scuffled with hundreds of protesters outside an ICE facility in the Chicago suburb of Broadview.

On multiple occasions, demonstrators sitting on the ground attempting to block ICE vehicles from carrying detainees into the facility have been repelled by heavily armed ICE agents using physical force, chemical munitions and rubber bullets, evoking combat scenes.

Protesters have decried what they call similar heavy-handed policing in other Democratic-run cities, including New York, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, and Portland.

Trump deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles over the summer and as part of his law enforcement takeover in Washington, DC. Meanwhile, Tennessee National Guard troops are expected to help Memphis police.

California Governor Gavin Newsom sued to stop the deployment in Los Angeles and won a temporary block in federal court. The Trump administration has appealed the ruling that the use of the guard was illegal, and a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has indicated that it believes the government is likely to prevail.

Pritzker called Trump’s move in Illinois a “manufactured performance” that would pull the state’s National Guard troops away from their families and regular jobs.

“For Donald Trump, this has never been about safety. This is about control,” said the governor, who also noted that state, county and local law enforcement have been coordinating to ensure the safety of ICE’s Broadview facility on the outskirts of Chicago.

Federal officials reported the arrests of 13 people protesting on Friday near the facility, which has been frequently targeted during the administration’s surge in immigration enforcement this fall.

Judge blocks Portland deployment

A federal judge in Oregon has temporarily blocked Trump’s administration from deploying the National Guard in Portland.

Trump said last month that he was sending federal troops to Portland, Oregon, calling the city “war-ravaged”. But local officials have suggested that many of his claims and social media posts appear to rely on images from 2020, when demonstrations and unrest gripped the city following the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police.

US District Judge Karin Immergut issued the order Saturday in a lawsuit brought by the state and city.

The US Department of Defense had said it was placing 200 members of Oregon’s National Guard under federal control for 60 days to protect federal property at locations where protests are occurring or likely to occur after Trump called the city “war-ravaged.”

Oregon officials said that description was ludicrous. The US ICE building in the city has recently been the site of nightly protests, which typically drew a couple dozen people in recent weeks before the deployment was announced.

SACRAMENTO — One accusation hurled at Gov. Gavin Newsom for his retaliatory redistricting move against President Trump and Texas Republicans is that he’s overriding the will of California voters. Rubbish.

The flawed argument goes like this:

Californians — once upon a time — voted overwhelmingly to ban partisan gerrymandering and strip the task of drawing congressional seats from self-interested legislators. In a historic political reform, redistricting was turned over to an independent citizens’ commission. Now, Newsom is trying to subvert the voters’ edict.

“It is really a calculated power grab that dismantles the very safeguards voters put in place,” California Republican Party Chairwoman Corrin Rankin said in a statement last week, echoing other party members. “This is Gavin the Gaslighter overturning the will of the voters and telling you it’s for your own good.”

Again, baloney.

Power grab? Sure. Overturning the voters’ will? Hardly.

Newsom is asking voters to express a new will–seeking permission to fight back against Trump’s underhanded attempt to redraw congressional districts in Texas and other red states so Republicans can retain control of the U.S. House of Representatives after next year’s midterm elections.

First of all, that anti-gerrymandering vote creating the citizens’ commission was 15 years ago. It was a wise decision and badly needed, and still a wonderful concept in the abstract. But that was then, this is now.

Just because a ballot measure was passed one or two decades ago doesn’t mean it has been cast in stone. Would Californians still vote to ban same-sex marriage or deny public schooling to undocumented children? Doubtful. Circumstances and views change.

Second, that 2010 electorate no longer exists. Today’s electorate is substantially different. And it shouldn’t necessarily be tied to the past.

Consider:

• Of the 23.6 million adult California citizens in 2010 — the eligible voters — an estimated 3.6 million have died, or more than 15%, according to population experts at the state Finance Department.
• In all, “at least half of the voter registration file is totally new compared to 2010. And that might even be an understatement,” says Eric McGhee, a demographer at the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. “There’s been a lot of turnover. It’s a different electorate.”
  People have left the state and others have moved in. Millions of kids have become voting adults.
• There are roughly 6 million more Californians registered to vote today than 15 years ago — 23 million compared to 17 million. “That’s a pretty huge change,” says Paul Mitchell, vice president of Political Data Inc., who has drawn the proposed new Democratic-friendly California congressional maps for Newsom.
• And the partisan makeup of registered voters has become more favorable toward Democrats, who enjoy a nearly 2-to-1 advantage. In last year’s presidential election, Democrats accounted for 46% of registered voters and Republicans 25%. In 2010, it still seemed somewhat competitive. Democrats were at 44% and Republicans 31%.

PPIC researchers recently reported that “partisanship now shapes the state’s migration — with those moving out of the state more likely to be Republican and those moving in more likely to be Democrat. … This process makes California more Democratic than it would otherwise be.”

So, Newsom and Democratic legislators are not thumbing their noses at the voters’ will. They’re asking today’s voters to suspend the ban on gerrymandering and adopt a partisan redistricting plan at a Nov. 4 special election. The good government process of map drawing by the citizen’s commission would return after the 2030 decennial census.

The heavily Democratic Legislature will pass a state constitutional amendment containing Newsom’s plan and put it on the ballot, probably this week.

It would take effect only if Texas or other red states bow to Trump’s demand to gerrymander their congressional districts to rig them for Republicans. Trump is seeking five more GOP seats from Texas and Gov. Greg Abbott is trying to oblige. Republicans already hold 25 of the 38 seats.

Newsom’s plan, released Friday, counters Texas’ scheme with a blatant gerrymander of his own. It would gain five Democratic seats. Democrats already outnumber Republicans on the California House delegation 43 to 9.

Neither the governor nor any Democrats are defending gerrymandering. They agree it’s evil politics. They support redistricting by the citizens’ commission and believe this high-road process should be required in every state. But that’s not about to happen. And to stand by meekly without matching the red states’ election rigging would amount to unilateral disarmament, they contend correctly.

“It’s not good enough to just hold hands, have a candlelight vigil and talk about the way the world should be,” Newsom declared at a campaign kickoff last week. “We have got to recognize the cards that have been dealt. And we have got to meet fire with fire.”

But polling indicates it could be a tough sell to voters. A large majority believe the bipartisan citizens commission should draw congressional districts, not the politicians who they don’t particularly trust.

“It’ll be complicated to explain to voters why two wrongs make a right,” says Republican strategist Rob Stutzman, a GOP never-Trumper.

Former GOP redistricting consultant Tony Quinn says: “There is no way to ‘educate’ voters on district line drawing. And Californians vote ‘no’ on ballot measures they do not understand. … It’s sort of like trying to explain the basketball playoffs to me.”

But veteran Democratic strategist Garry South doesn’t see a problem.

“The messaging here is clear: ‘Screw Trump’,” South says. “If the object is to stick it to Trump, [voter] turnout won’t be a problem.”

Gerrymandering may not be the voters’ will in California. But they may well jump at the chance to thwart Trump.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Newsom’s decision to fight fire with fire could have profound political consequences
The TK: Trial in National Guard lawsuit tests whether Trump will let courts limit authority
The L.A. Times Special: Hundreds of Californians have been paid $10,000 to relocate to Oklahoma. Did they find paradise?

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

1 of 3 | US President Donald Trump, left, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., US secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), who announced the department will pull back from research on mRNA technology, which was used to develop the COVID-19 vaccine. Photo by Eric Lee/UPI | License Photo

Aug. 5 (UPI) — The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will begin pulling contracts to develop vaccines for respiratory viruses using mRNA technology, which was used for the COVID-19 shot.

Department Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced the move in a video posted to X on Tuesday saying that it will terminate 22 contracts worth $500 million after officials determined the “technology poses more risks than benefits for these respiratory viruses.”

“Let me be absolutely clear,” said Kennedy. “HHS supports safe, effective vaccines for every American who wants them, that’s why we’re moving beyond the limitations of mRNA for respiratory viruses and investing in better solutions.”

The announcement follows other actions by Kennedy, a vocal vaccine critic, to reshape the federal government’s approach to public health in ways that have rankled mainstream health experts. Kennedy has replaced members of a vaccine advisory panel with skeptics and stopped recommending COVID-19 inoculations for healthy children, contradicting the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendations.

The use of mRNA technology is credited with hastening the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. But its rapid development and the novelty of the technology have left lingering worries over its safety and effectiveness despite reassurances from experts. Like previous moves, Kennedy’s decision to end the contracts has drawn criticism from medical and public health experts.

“I’ve tried to be objective & non-alarmist in response to current HHS actions — but quite frankly this move is going to cost lives,” Dr. Jerome Adams, who served as Surgeon General in the first Trump administration, said in a post on X. “mRNA technology has uses that go far beyond vaccines… and the vaccine they helped develop in record time is credited with saving millions.”

Most vaccines have worked by using a weakened or dead virus to trigger a response in a patient’s immune system. Vaccines that use messenger RNA, or mRNA, instead use a molecule that causes cells to replicate a part of the virus, triggering an immune response. A new flu vaccine developed by Moderna using the technology has shown promise.

Kennedy said in his announcement that mRNA is ineffective and that vaccines using it encourage new mutations of the virus they are intended to target. He suggested the COVID-19 vaccine prolonged the pandemic and that the department would focus on research on “whole virus vaccines and novel platforms.”

Dr. Jake Scott, a clinical associate professor at Stanford University School of Medicine, said in a post on X that “the claim that mRNA vaccine technology poses more risk than benefits is simply false.”

“What poses risk is abandoning the most adaptable, scalable vaccine platform we’ve ever had,” he wrote. “Halting future development undermines pandemic preparedness at a time when we can least afford it.”