politics

First troops touch down nearly a month after President Ramaphosa said organised crime threatened country’s democracy.

Soldiers have been deployed on the streets of South Africa’s biggest city nearly a month after the president announced the army would work alongside the police to tackle high levels of crime.

President Cyril Ramaphosa said in his annual State of the Nation address on February 12 that organised crime was the “most immediate threat” to South Africa’s democracy and economic development.

On Wednesday, troops touched down on the streets of Eldorado Park, a working class suburb in the country’s economic capital, Johannesburg, that has high levels of crime and gang violence.

Local media published pictures of armoured vehicles rolling into the area, and the Independent Online reported that local councillor Juwairiya Kaldine welcomed their arrival.

Soldiers were also seen in the Johannesburg suburb of Riverlea. Media reports said the soldiers were searching door-to-door.

South Africa’s national police service and the Department of Defence, which oversees the military, did not immediately provide details on the deployment. But the president said last month that the army will help the police service fight gang violence and illegal mining.

Ramaphosa said in a notice to the speaker of parliament that 550 soldiers would be involved in an initial deployment in Gauteng province, which includes Johannesburg, to help combat crime and preserve law and order.

That deployment would last until the end of April, he said.

The government plans a wider deployment in five of its nine provinces, according to details submitted by police to parliament.

The deployment will focus on illegal mining in the Gauteng, North West and Free State provinces, and gang violence in the Western Cape and Eastern Cape provinces.

Parts of the national deployment could last more than a year, police officials said.

South Africa has high rates of violent crime. Police reported 6,351 homicides from October to December 2025, an average of nearly 70 a day in a country of about 63 million people.

However, not all residents of crime-affected communities are pleased about the plan to deploy the army.

In the Cape Flats, an impoverished area of the Western Cape with high levels of gang violence, where troops will also likely deploy, people told Al Jazeera last month that the military will not help fix the root causes of the violence or the social ills that make it easy to recruit people into gangs.

“It’s a very dangerous thing to bring the army because there’s an impatience with the fact that the police are not doing their job,” Irvin Kinnes, an associate professor with the University of Cape Town’s Centre for Criminology, told Al Jazeera at the time, calling the move “political”.

“It’s to show that the political leaders have kind of heard the public. But the call for the army hasn’t come from the community. It’s come from politicians,” he said.

WASHINGTON — Attorneys for a Sacramento DACA recipient who was deported to Mexico last month have filed a lawsuit against the federal government seeking her immediate return to the U.S.

Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez, 42, was detained Feb. 18 during a scheduled interview for her green card application. She was deported to Mexico the next day, despite having active deportation protection through the Obama-era program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

According to the lawsuit, Estrada Juarez, who worked as a regional manager for Motel 6, was deported without being provided notice of a lawful removal order and without the opportunity to fight her case before an immigration judge.

“Maria’s deportation was unlawful and violated basic principles of due process,” said her attorney Stacy Tolchin. “She had a valid DACA status, she appeared for her immigration appointment as instructed, and she should never have been removed from the country.”

Estrada Juarez’s case garnered public attention and outrage from members of Congress, including Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), after being published in the Sacramento Bee.

According to her lawsuit, which was filed Tuesday,it’s unclear whether an order for her removal was ever issued. And even if one was issued, the complaint says, “Petitioner could not legally be removed from the United States while in DACA status.”

The complaint states that the one document Estrada Juarez received was a verification of her physical removal from the U.S. — not a removal order. The document states that she is barred from returning to the U.S. for 10 years because she had been ordered removed by an immigration judge.

The lawsuit calls that contention untrue — Estrada Juarez has never been in removal proceedings and has never seen an immigration judge. Her arrest at her immigration interview was the first time she learned she had been ordered removed in 1998.

The Department of Homeland Security told The Times that a judge had ordered Estrada Juarez’s deportation in 1998 “and she was removed from the United States shortly after.”

“She illegally re-entered the U.S. — a felony,” Homeland Security said. “She was arrested and her final order re-instated. ICE removed her from the U.S. on February 19, 2026.”

In 2014, Estrada Juarez went to Mexico using a travel permission for DACA recipients known as advance parole. She reentered the U.S. legally on Dec. 28, 2014.

According to the lawsuit, “reinstatement of removal requires an illegal reentry, and Petitioner’s last entry was on advance parole so would not fall under that ground.”

The lawsuit includes an emergency request for the federal government to facilitate Estrada Juarez’s return while the case is pending.

Estrada Juarez applied for legal permanent residency, or a green card, through her daughter, Damaris Bello, 22, a U.S. citizen. Her DACA status is valid until April 23, according to the lawsuit, and she has a pending renewal application.

Estrada Juarez said the U.S., where she lived for 27 years since her arrival at age 15, is the only home she has ever known.

“I followed the rules and showed up to my immigration appointment believing I was taking the next step toward stability,” she said. “Instead, I was taken away from my daughter and forced out of the country overnight.”

Jacob Ulibarri spent about six hours on New Year’s Day last year squashing hot spots where the Lachman fire had burned.

The rookie Los Angeles firefighter arrived sometime after 7 a.m., when the smoky areas were all over and easy to see. By the time the next crew swapped with his that afternoon, they were scarcer: “One every 30 minutes, roughly,” Ulibarri recalled.

At that point, Battalion Chief Martin Mullen, who was running the mop-up operation, had walked three laps around the perimeter of the fire. He recalled one hot spot he saw at about 10 a.m., which crews hit with water. Later in the afternoon, Mullen did his fourth and last loop and left the area for good.

He decided to leave the hoses out overnight, just in case.

Over the next two days, a series of communication failures and questionable decisions led crews to leave the area prematurely, with embers from the small Jan. 1 fire later reigniting into the devastating Palisades fire. A firefighter picking up hoses on Jan. 2 found crackling, red-hot coals in the dirt and warned colleagues that a more thorough mop-up was needed. Also that morning, a captain cautioned his chief that it was too soon to pick up the hoses. In yet another missed opportunity, crews apparently did not walk the entire perimeter of the burn scar after a caller reported smoke in the area on Jan. 3.

Because of the holiday, some were filling in for others outside of their normal assignments. Firefighters said they adhered to the LAFD’s strict chain of command and did not question higher-ups, while those in charge had fuzzy memories or shifted responsibility to others.

The revelations, contained in the sworn testimony of a dozen firefighters earlier this year as part of a lawsuit filed by Palisades fire victims, corroborate previous reporting by The Times and call into question the LAFD’s repeated claims that commanders left the fire “dead out.” More than a year later, with much of the Palisades still in ruins, LAFD leaders have refused to explain how or why the breakdowns occurred.

The LAFD employees mentioned in this story either could not be reached or declined to comment.

In a statement Monday, LAFD spokesperson Stephanie Bishop pointed to the alleged arsonist charged by federal prosecutors with deliberately setting the earlier fire. “The Lachman and Palisades Fire incidents would not be matters of discussion had this individual not allegedly initiated the original fire,” she said.

“It is important to allow the legal process to proceed without external influence or speculation. Offering running commentary on depositions outside of the courtroom risks compromising witness testimony, affecting the integrity of evidence review, and impacting ongoing judicial proceedings. We stand by the investigation conducted by the ATF,” Bishop added, referring to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Around 6 a.m. on Jan. 2, 2025

At the end of his 24-hour overtime shift, Mullen handed the reins to Battalion Chief Mario Garcia, recommending that the incoming chief scope out the fire perimeter.

“I told him I left him hose lines in place overnight. You need to walk that and make sure there’s nothing going up on there,” said Mullen, whose regular job is managing the LAFD’s 106 fire stations and 30 or so other buildings.

Before Garcia set foot on the burn scar, he put word out to station captains about the plan for the morning: Pick up hoses.

At Fire Station 19 in Brentwood, Capt. Alexander Gonzalez got a text from the chief’s aide, directing him to bring a “plug buggy” — a pickup truck used to carry equipment — “to help pick up hose.”

The plan reached Capt. David Sander at Fire Station 23 in the Palisades and Capt. Michael McIndoe at Fire Station 69.

McIndoe had reservations.

He told the chief’s aide that he thought the hoses should stay out longer. He had seen the forecast that day — a National Weather Service alert had warned of weather conducive to wildfires — and handling any lingering hot spots would be easier with hoses in place. The aide told him to take it up with the chief.

So McIndoe shared his concerns with Garcia over the phone.

Garcia “said something along the lines of, ‘OK. Let me go check it out, and then I’ll get back to you,’” McIndoe testified.

But the orders for the morning never changed.

8:30 a.m. on Jan. 2, 2025

After a briefing at Fire Station 23, Scott Pike and his partner took their ambulance to a cul-de-sac near the burn area. They spotted some hose dangling over a retaining wall covered in ivy.

An engine crew threw a 20-foot ladder to get over the wall. Soon, Pike said, they got another call and left.

“We were kind of making jokes, like, ‘It’s on us,’’’ recalled Pike, a firefighter normally assigned to a station in Sunland.

He grabbed his brush jacket, helmet and gloves and climbed over. He decided to hike to the end of the hose line — he was feeling good and thought he’d get a workout in.

Pike followed the main line — called the trunk line — which had hoses branching off in other directions. About 100 feet in, he saw where grass had burned. He navigated through culverts and climbed a steep hill of about 300 feet before hitting a hiking trail.

When he got to the end of the line, at about 8:45 a.m., he noticed a handful of smoky areas in heavier brush, and a hand line that wasn’t cut properly.

One ash pit was so hot he didn’t want to touch it, even with gloves. So he kicked it with his boot, exposing red-hot coals. He heard crackling and smelled smoke. He looked around, and there were no other firefighters.

We shouldn’t be picking up hoses, he thought to himself. Instead, we should be filling the hoses with water to do a more thorough mop-up.

He pinched the hose, directing any residual water to the ash pit. It steamed and crackled. He felt defeated when he only got a couple of gallons out, which wasn’t enough.

He slowed down, in case the pickup plan were to change because of his observations, and was relieved when more crews began hiking over.

“Hey, guys, are you seeing what I’m seeing?” Pike told a couple of firefighters. He was working an overtime shift away from his usual fire station, so he didn’t know them. “Like, maybe we should be charging these lines instead of picking them up.”

Since they were already there, he figured, some extra mop-up could save them work down the line if the fire were to reignite.

The firefighters shrugged him off and seemed eager to finish the assignment.

“They were like, ‘Yeah, I see what you’re saying,’ And then it was like, ‘We’ll tell one of the skippers. We’ll tell one of the captains.’ But, like, in the meantime, people were just very much like, just get the hose picked up,” Pike testified.

Shortly after, he saw a captain and raised the same concerns.

“That’s how I approached him, is like, ‘Hey, Cap … We have hot spots in general. We have some ash pits,’” Pike said. “That’s an alert to double-check the whole area and maybe we need to switch our tactics.”

Pike testified that it was not his job “to overstep and tell him what to do. He earned that rank.”

The captain suggested possibly bringing hand tools or a backpack filled with water up the hill to extinguish any hot spots.

Pike went back to picking up the hose while awaiting new orders, which never came.

The LAFD has declined to say whether the captain has been identified. Pike believed the captain was from Engine 69, which would have been McIndoe. But McIndoe told The Times he did not speak with Pike that day.

McIndoe said he also came across a smoldering ash pit during the couple of hours he was on the hill.

He retrieved a backpack with water from his engine, sprayed into the ground with a couple of gallons of water and dug up the dirt with his hand tool until he was satisfied it was cool.

At one point, he saw Garcia, the battalion chief, and brought up their earlier conversation.

“I just went up to him, and I said, ‘Hey, I hope you don’t think I’m just trying to get out of work,’” McIndoe said. “And he said, ‘No, that’s — that’s fine.’ Something along those lines, and that that’s all I can really recall.”

He said he was trying to tell Garcia that he believed “that the hose should stay up a little bit longer.”

By the time Gonzalez, who was backfilling that day at the Brentwood station, got to the scene, the operation was well underway, with half the hose already down the hillside.

“When I got there, it was just, it’s like a big daisy chain of hands pulling hose off and getting it down to the street. And rolling it, hosing it off and loading it into the plug buggy,” he testified.

He did not see smoldering that day. He testified that he went about 200 to 300 feet up, to where piles of hose were being dropped. “The next person brings it back down and that was it,” he said.

Some firefighters on hose pickup duty that day have not been deposed in the lawsuit. Aside from McIndoe and Pike, the four other firefighters who testified that they were at the burn scar on Jan. 2 said they did not see smoldering.

Garcia testified that at the burn scar, no one raised any concerns with him about the hose pickup. Nor did he see any need to leave the hoses at the site.

At 1:35 p.m. on Jan. 2, Garcia texted two higher-ups: “All hose and equipment has been picked up.”

Around 4:30 p.m., Garcia walked the area again with his aide to see if they had left any equipment behind. He saw no issues.

“We both walked the whole area,” Garcia said. “We went separate directions, but covered the whole area, and there was nothing that would bring any concern.”

11:51 a.m. on Jan. 3, 2025

Shortly before noon, someone called the LAFD about a grass fire in the burn area.

Engineer Edward Rincon, who had been on Engine 23 retrieving hoses the day before, pulled up to the same cul-de-sac. Once again, his crew threw the 20-foot ladder over the retaining wall. As on the previous day, he never entered the burn scar. He stayed with the engine while the captain and two firefighters went to scope out the area. He set the volume high on his radio to hear if they needed anything.

On the other side of the wall, Capt. Cesar Garcia walked for what he said was more than a couple of football fields, while the two firefighters went to different peaks to look around for smoke or fire.

“Everything is completely burned. I don’t smell anything. I don’t see any smoke. I don’t see any fire,” he testified.

He canceled another engine that was assigned to the call.

Firefighter Michael Contreras said he also didn’t see smoke. He said he could not see the entirety of the burn scar from his vantage point. He also said he did not suggest to his captain, Cesar Garcia, that they walk the whole perimeter.

“Is there a reason you did not?” a plaintiffs’ attorney asked.

“Again, would not be my lane to tell him that, you know,” he said.

Battalion Chief Mario Garcia was on duty again that day. Like Rincon, he stayed with his vehicle. Cesar Garcia said the chief pulled up a live feed on an iPad from two cameras on the mountain, which showed no smoke or fire.

An incident report shows they spent about 34 minutes on the call.

On the morning of Jan. 7, LAFD records show, a captain on duty in the Palisades called Fire Station 23 and told colleagues: The Lachman fire had started up again.

A group of Democrats in the United States Senate is demanding public hearings on the country’s war against Iran after receiving a series of classified briefings from officials in President Donald Trump’s administration.

Lawmakers say the White House has not clearly explained why the US entered the conflict, what its goals are, or how long it may last.

Republicans currently hold a narrow, 53-47 Senate majority, which gives them the power to control what legislation comes to the floor for debate.

Some Democrats have expressed frustration after the latest closed-door briefing. Trump has not ruled out sending US ground ⁠troops into Iran.

“I just came from a two-hour classified briefing on the war,” Senator Chris Murphy from the state of Connecticut said on Tuesday. “It confirmed to me that the strategy is totally incoherent.

“I think this is pretty simple: if the president did what the Constitution requires and came to Congress to seek authorisation for this war, he wouldn’t get it – because the American people would demand that their members of Congress vote no,” he added.

Here is what we know:

What has happened so far?

Since the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran on February 28, senior officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, have held several closed-door meetings to brief Congress members on the military campaign and its progress.

Because the meetings are classified, lawmakers are restricted in what they can publicly disclose about the information they received.

What are Democrats saying?

Several Democratic senators have said they left the briefings frustrated, arguing that the administration had not provided clear answers about the war’s objectives, timeline or the long-term strategy guiding their approach to the conflict.

Earlier this week, six Democratic senators also called for an investigation into a strike on a girls’ school in Minab, in southern Iran. Reports indicate the attack, which investigators say involved US forces, killed at least 170 people, most of them children.

“There seems to be no endgame,” Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal said. “The president, almost in a single breath, says it’s almost done, and at the same time, it’s just begun. So this is kind of contradictory.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts raised concerns about the cost of war.

“The one part that seems clear is that while there is no money for 15 million Americans who lost their health care, there’s a billion dollars a day to spend on bombing Iran,” Warren said on Tuesday.

“The one thing Congress has the power to do is to stop actions like this through the power of the purse,” she added.

Others seem worried that a ground deployment could take place.

“We seem to be on a path toward deploying American troops on the ground in Iran to accomplish any of the potential objectives here,” Blumenthal, of Connecticut, told reporters after Tuesday’s classified briefing.

“The American people deserve to know much more than this administration has told them about the cost of the war, the danger to our sons and daughters in uniform and the potential for ⁠further escalation and widening of this war,” he added.

What are Republicans saying?

Republicans, who have slim majorities in both houses of Congress, have almost unanimously backed Trump’s campaign against Iran, with only a handful expressing doubt about the war.

Some Republican leaders say the strikes are necessary to curb Iran’s military capabilities, missile programme and regional influence.

They have also argued that the operation is limited in scope and designed to weaken Iran’s ability to threaten US forces and allies in the region.

Republican Representative Brian Mast of Florida, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, last week publicly thanked Trump for taking action against Iran, saying the president is using his constitutional authority to defend the US against the “imminent threat” posed by Tehran.

But some Republican members of Congress have voiced concerns.

Representative Nancy Mace from South Carolina said she did “not want to send South Carolina’s sons and daughters into war with Iran”, in a post on X.

Rand Paul, a Republican senator from Kentucky, accused the Trump administration of changing its narrative and rationale for the war on a daily basis.

“We keep hearing new reasons for war with Iran—none convincing,” he wrote on X. “‘Free the oppressed’ sounds noble, but where does it end? We’ve been told for decades Iran is weeks from a nuke. War should be a last resort, not our first move. A war of choice is not my choice.”

Why does the debate matter?

The dispute has revived a long-running debate in Washington, DC, about the limits of presidential war powers.

Under the US Constitution, Congress has the authority to declare war, but modern presidents have frequently launched military operations without formal congressional approval, often citing national security or emergency threats.

The law allows the president to deploy US forces for up to 60 days without congressional authorisation, followed by a 30-day withdrawal period if Congress does not approve the action.

Some lawmakers and legal experts say the war on Iran highlights the need for stronger congressional oversight of military action.

“In the 1970s, we adopted something called the War Powers Resolution that gives the president limited ability to do this,” said David Schultz, a professor in the political science and legal departments at Hamline University.

“And so, either you could argue that what the president is doing violates the Constitution by… not [being] a formally declared war; or b, it exceeds his authority, either as commander-in-chief or under the War Powers Act,” he added.

“And therefore, you could argue that domestically, his actions are illegal and unconstitutional,” Schutlz said.

The Trump administration has argued that the February 28 strikes were justified as a response to an “imminent threat”, a rationale often used by presidents to justify military action without prior congressional approval.

However, US intelligence agencies had themselves said before the start of the war that they had no evidence of an imminent Iranian threat to the US or its facilities across the Middle East.