troop

The District of Columbia sues over Trump’s deployment of the National Guard

The District of Columbia on Thursday sued to stop President Trump’s deployment of National Guard during his law enforcement intervention in Washington.

The city’s attorney general, Brian Schwalb, said the surge of troops essentially amounts to an “involuntary military occupation.” He argued in the federal lawsuit that the deployment, coinciding with an executive order Aug. 11, that now involves more than 1,000 troops is an illegal use of the military for domestic law enforcement.

A federal judge in California recently ruled that Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles after days of protests over immigration raids in June was illegal.

The Republican administration is appealing that decision and Trump has said he is ready to order federal intervention in Chicago and Baltimore, despite staunch opposition in those Democrat-led cities. That court ruling, however, does not directly apply to Washington, where the president has more control over the Guard than in states.

The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment to the new lawsuit.

Members of the D.C. National Guard have had their orders extended through December, according to a Guard official. While that does not necessarily mean all those troops will serve that long, it is a strong indication that their role will not wind down soon.

Several GOP-led states have added National Guard troops to the ranks of those patrolling the streets and neighborhoods of the nation’s capital.

Schwalb’s filing contends the deployment also violates the Home Rule Act, signed by President Richard Nixon in 1973, because Trump acted without the mayor’s consent and is wrongly asserting federal control over units from other states.

The city’s attorney general, an elected official, is its top legal officer and is separate from Washington’s federal U.S. attorney, who is appointed by the president.

The lawsuit is the second from Schwalb against the Trump administration since the president asserted control over the city’s police department and sent in the Guard, actions that have been with protests from some residents.

Trump has said the operation is necessary to combat crime in the district, and Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, has pointed to a steep drop in offenses such as carjackings since it began.

Violent crime has been an issue in the capital for years, though data showed it was on the decline at the start of Trump’s intervention.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Trump assures Poland of continued robust U.S. troop presence in nation

President Trump affirmed that the United States will keep a robust military presence in Poland as he had a warm meeting Wednesday with Karol Nawrocki, the new president of the American ally in Europe.

Trump had taken the unusual step of endorsing Nawrocki in the Polish elections this year, and as the leaders sat side by side in the White House, Trump said the U.S.-Polish relationship has always been strong but “now it’s better than ever.”

Asked by a reporter whether the U.S. planned to continue placing troops in Poland, Trump said that the U.S. would and that “we’ll put more there if they want.”

“We’ll be staying in Poland. We’re very much aligned with Poland,” Trump said.

The visit to Washington is Nawrocki’s first overseas trip since taking office last month. The former amateur boxer and historian, who was backed by the conservative Law and Justice party, was hoping to deepen his relationship with Trump at a fraught moment for Warsaw.

Nawrocki thanked Trump for his support and in a nod to the bonds between their countries, gave a particular hello to the millions of Polish Americans in the U.S.

“Those relations for me, for Poland, for Poles, are very important,” Nawrocki said.

He added that those bonds are based on shared values of independence and democracy.

Trump said he was proud to have endorsed Nawrocki and lauded him for winning his election.

“It was a pretty tough race, pretty nasty race, and he beat them all. And he beat them all very easily, and now he’s become even more popular as they got to know him and know him better,” Trump said.

Trump is increasingly frustrated by his inability to get Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky to sit down for direct talks aimed at ending their war. Both nations are Poland’s neighbors.

Trump last month met with Putin in Alaska and then with Zelensky and several European leaders at the White House. The Republican president emerged from those engagements confident that he would be able to quickly arrange direct talks between Putin and Zelensky and perhaps three-way talks in which he would participate.

But his optimism in hatching an agreement to end the war has dimmed as Putin has yet to signal an interest in sitting down with Zelensky.

“Maybe they have to fight a little longer,” Trump said in an interview with the conservative Daily Caller published over the weekend. “You know, just keep fighting — stupidly, keep fighting.”

There is also heightened anxiety in Poland, and across Europe, about Trump’s long-term commitment to a strong U.S. force posture on the continent — an essential deterrent to Russia.

Some key advisors in his administration have advocated for shifting U.S. troops and military from Europe to the Indo-Pacific to focus on China, the United States’ most significant strategic and economic competitor. About 8,200 American troops are stationed in Poland, but the force level regularly fluctuates, according to the Pentagon.

“The stakes are very high for President Nawrocki’s visit,” said Peter Doran, an analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “Trump will have an opportunity to size up Poland’s new president, and Nawrocki also will have the chance to do the same. Failure in this meeting would mean a pullback of American force posture in Poland, and success would mean a clear endorsement of Poland as one of America’s most important allies on the front line.”

When Nawrocki arrived at the White House, Trump gave him a hearty slap on the shoulder and stood with him as they watched U.S. military jets soaring over the South Lawn.

A group of F-16s flew in a missing man formation as a tribute to a Polish air force F-16 pilot, Maj. Maciej “Slab” Krakowian, who died in a crash in Poland on Aug. 28.

“Thank you for this gesture,” Nawrocki later told Trump.

Trump made clear before Poland’s election in the spring that he wanted Nawrocki to win, dangling the prospect of closer military ties if the Poles elected Nawrocki. Trump even hosted him at the White House before the vote.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem also traveled to Poland shortly before Poland’s May election to tell Poles if they elected Nawrocki and other conservatives they would have a strong ally in Trump who would “ensure that you will be able to fight off enemies that do not share your values.”

Ultimately, Polish voters chose Nawrocki over liberal Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski in a tight election.

Most of the power in Poland’s legislative system rests with an elected Parliament and a government chosen by the lawmakers. The president can veto legislation and represents the country abroad. Nawrocki has tense relations with the government of Prime Minister Donald Tusk, an ally of Trzaskowski.

Nawrocki has echoed some of Trump’s language on Ukraine.

He promises to continue Poland’s support for Ukraine but has been critical of Zelensky, accusing him of taking advantage of allies. Nawrocki has accused Ukrainian refugees of taking advantage of Polish generosity and vowed to prioritize Poles for social services such as healthcare and schooling.

At the same time, Nawrocki will be looking to emphasize to Trump that Russian aggression in Ukraine underscores that Putin can’t be trusted and that a strong U.S. presence in Poland remains an essential deterrent, said Heather Conley, a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where she focuses on transatlantic security and geopolitics.

Russia and ally Belarus are set to hold joint military exercises this month in Belarus, unnerving Poland as well as fellow North Atlantic Treaty Organization members Latvia and Lithuania.

“The message Nawrocki ultimately wants to give President Trump is how dangerous Putin’s revisionism is, and that it does not necessarily end with Ukraine,” Conley said.

Madhani and Price write for the Associated Press. AP writers Geir Moulson in Berlin and Konstantin Toropin contributed to this report.

Source link

Chicago mayor signs order to resist possible Trump troop deployment | Donald Trump News

The mayor of Chicago has signed an executive order seeking to protect residents against a possible decision by United States President Donald Trump’s administration to deploy federal troops to the city.

Mayor Brandon Johnson announced on Saturday that he was signing the so-called Protecting Chicago Initiative amid what he said were “credible reports” that Chicago could see militarised activity by the federal government within days.

“It is unclear at this time what that will look like exactly,” the mayor said at a news conference. “We may see militarised immigration enforcement. We may also see National Guard troops. We may even see active duty military and armed vehicles in our streets.”

Among other things, the order directs Chicago law enforcement officers not to collaborate with US military personnel on patrols or during immigration enforcement activities, Johnson told reporters.

He described the move as “the most sweeping campaign of any city in the country to protect ourselves from the threats and actions of this out-of-control administration”.

Johnson’s announcement comes after Trump earlier this month said that he was considering whether to expand his National Guard troop deployment from Washington, DC, to other major cities across the country.

Trump called up the National Guard in what he said was a push to address crime in the US capital. The Republican leader has since credited the deployment with cutting down rates of violence in the city.

But data from the Metropolitan Police Department showed violent crime in Washington, DC, was already at a 30-year low, and critics warned that the crackdown could end up being a test run for the broader militarisation of US cities.

Earlier this week, the top Democrat in the US House of Representatives, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, said in an interview with CNN that Trump had “no authority” to send federal troops to Chicago.

The US Constitution gives the power of policing to the states.

JB Pritzker, the Democratic governor of Illinois, where Chicago is located, also rejected the idea.

“Donald Trump is attempting to manufacture a crisis, politicize Americans who serve in uniform, and continue abusing his power to distract from the pain he is causing working families,” Pritzker said in a statement.

Citing unnamed sources familiar with the matter, CNN reported on Friday that the Trump administration has been preparing to carry out a “major immigration enforcement operation” in Chicago as early as next week.

According to CNN, White House officials said those plans are separate from Trump’s idea of sending National Guard troops to Chicago for a broader crackdown on crime.

The president, who took office in January for a second term, has pursued a hardline, anti-immigration agenda and pledged to carry out the “largest deportation operation” in US history.

The administration has justified its push by saying it is deporting “criminals” who are in the US illegally. It has reached deals with third countries to take in deported asylum seekers and migrants.

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson speaks during a press conference in Chicago, Illinois, on August 25, 2025.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson speaks during a news conference on August 25, 2025 [AFP]

But US media reports over the past months have shown that many people have been swept up in the immigration raids, including some American citizens and permanent residents with no criminal records.

In June, Trump sent 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles after an intensified wave of arrests by US immigration authorities prompted massive protests and confrontations between demonstrators and police.

On Saturday, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson slammed the Chicago mayor’s executive order, saying in a statement shared by US media outlets that “cracking down on crime should not be a partisan issue”.

“If these Democrats focused on fixing crime in their own cities instead of doing publicity stunts to criticize the President, their communities would be much safer,” Jackson said.

During his news conference, Johnson, the mayor, said it remained unclear whether Trump would go ahead with his plans in the city.

“He could change his mind, he could reverse course – in fact, I encourage him to do that,” Johnson said, stressing that Chicago – the country’s third largest city – does not want its residents rounded up off the streets.

“We do not want to see families ripped apart. We do not want grandmothers thrown into the backs of unmarked vans. We don’t want to see homeless Chicagoans harassed or disappeared by federal agents,” he added.

Source link

Why Newsom’s cops aren’t the same as Trump’s troops

Just how unsafe are American streets?

To hear President Trump tell it, killers lurk in every shadow not already filled by rapists and thieves.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom isn’t nearly as dire, pointing out that crime numbers are down.

But “numbers mean little to people,” Newsom lamented during a press gaggle in his office Thursday, where he ruthlessly trolled Trump with a flags-and-all setup that appeared to mock the president’s marathon Cabinet meeting earlier in the week.

Yes, folks, midterm elections are coming and crime is high — in our consciousness if not in reality. Although violent crime and some property crimes have declined in most California cities (and in many major cities across the country), the perils of city living remain stubbornly stuck in our collective psyches.

This angst has augured in another get-tough era of crime suppression, culminating with the fulfillment of Trump’s authoritarian fantasy of National Guard troops patrolling in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and potentially more cities to come.

Newsom is now offering up what many have framed as a counterpunch to Trump’s military intervention: A surge of California Highway Patrol officers in strategic locations across the state, basically Newsom-controlled cop boots on the ground to mirror Trump’s troops.

But looking at Newsom’s deployment of more CHP officers as no more than a reaction to Trump misses a larger debate on what really makes our communities safer. Understanding what makes cops different from soldiers — and Newsom’s move different from Trump’s — is ultimately understanding the difference between repression and public safety, force and finesse.

Newsom has been using the CHP to supplement local police departments for years. In 2023, when the Tenderloin area of San Francisco was plagued by open drug use, making it the favorite right-wing example of a failed Democratic-run city, Newsom sent this state force in to help clean it up (though that work continues). The next year, he sent it into Oakland and Bakersfield, both places where auto theft, retail crime and side shows were rampant.

Now, he’s expanding the CHP’s role in local policing to include Los Angeles, San Diego, the Inland Empire and some Central Valley cities including Fresno and Sacramento.

In each of those places, mobile teams of around a dozen officers, all of whom will volunteer for the job, will target specific crimes, criminals or problem areas. These officers won’t just be patrolling or responding to calls like the local force, but hitting targets identified by data or intelligence, or making their presence known in high-crime neighborhoods.

Here’s where Trump’s military approach has an overlap with Newsom’s — and where the two men might agree: It is true that a visible show of armed authority deters crime. Whether it’s the National Guard or the Highway Patrol, criminals, both petty and violent, tend to avoid them.

“We go in and saturate an area with high visibility and view patrol,” said Sean Duryee, commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, standing at Newsom’s side. “The people that have a problem with that are the criminal community.”

The approach seems to be working. I can throw the numbers at you — 400 firearms seized in San Bernardino, Bakersfield, Oakland; 4,000 stolen vehicles recovered in Oakland; more than 9,000 arrests statewide.

But numbers really don’t matter. It genuinely is how a community feels about its safety. Across California, many if not the majority of small and mid-sized law enforcement departments are understaffed. Even big departments such as Los Angeles struggle to hire and retain officers. There are simply not enough cops — or resources such as helicopters or K9 teams — to do the work in too many places, and citizens feel it.

Using these small strike teams of CHP officers fills the gap of both manpower and expertise. And by aiming that usage precisely at troubled spots, it can make underserved communities feel safer, and crime-ridden communities actually be safer.

Tinisch Hollins is the head of Californians for Safety and Justice, an advocacy group that works to end over-incarceration and promote public safety beyond just making arrests. She is “obviously not a huge proponent of sending law enforcement into communities like that,” she said.

But she lived in San Francisco when homicides topped 100 per year, and now lives in the Bay Area city of Vallejo, where the local police have been so understaffed and plagued by scandal that local leaders declared a state of emergency.

She has seen how the CHP has “made an impact” in the Bay Area.

“There are some very effective things happening,” Hollins said.

That buy-in from community, especially skeptical community, is a massive departure from the militarization of Trump, and also hints at the deeper difference between troops and cops.

California has been on the cutting-edge of law enforcement reform for years, though it is a conversation that has fallen from favor and headlines in the Trump era.

In the wake of the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police, California outlawed controversial carotid restraints that can cut off breathing. The state put in place a method for decertifying officers found guilty of serious misconduct. It increased age and education standards for becoming a peace officer, increased transparency requirements and put more oversight on the use of military equipment by civilian forces, just to name a few reforms.

Most significantly, Newsom is championing a new vision of incarceration and rehabilitation modeled after successful efforts in Norway and other places that centers on the simple truth that arresting people does not end crime.

Most people who are convicted and incarcerated will return to our streets after a few years at most, and if the state does not change their outlook and opportunities, they will also likely return to crime — making us no safer than the day they were first put into cuffs.

But for a time, it seemed to some as if these reforms with their focus away from enforcement and toward alternatives to incarceration had gone too far. Images of marauding groups of retail thieves invading stores filled the news, and reasonably caused anxiety — leading to Californians passing the still-unfunded, tough-on-crime Proposition 36 that sought to create stiffer penalties for some drug and property crimes, along with mandated treatment for addiction, but which could also take money from rehabilitation programs.

As much as Trump, Newsom’s use of the CHP is the response to that pushback on reform, an acknowledgment that enforcement remains a key piece of the crime-stopping dilemma.

But Hollins points out that the rehabilitation aspect, the most innovative and arguably important aspect of California’s approach to crime, is getting lost in the current political climate.

“It’s not just arresting people that brings crime down,” she said. “The [penal] system isn’t going to deal with the drivers of the crime.”

This is where Newsom needs to do better, both on the ground and in his explanations. It may not be popular to talk about rehabilitation, and certainly Trump will seize on it as weak, but it is what works, and what makes the California method different from the MAGA view of crime.

For Trump, the be-all and end-all is the arrest, and the subsequent cruel glee of punishment. He has called for harsher and longer penalties for even minor crimes, and recently demanded the blanket use of the death penalty in all murder cases charged in Washington, D.C. His is the authoritarian view that fear and repression will make us safer.

“We lost grip with reality, the idea that the military can be out there in every street corner the United States of America,” Newsom said Thursday.

Or should be.

Soldiers on our streets just make even law-abiding citizens less free, and ultimately does little to fix the problems of poverty and opportunity that often start the cycles of crime.

This is the showdown happening right now on American streets, and ultimately the showdown between the Democratic view of crime prevention and Trump’s — soldiers or cops, the easy spectacle of compliance induced by the barrel of a gun or a complicated and imperfect system of community and law enforcement working together.

Source link

Column: When the president has to say ‘I’m not a dictator,’ we’re in trouble

“I am not a crook,” President Nixon said in 1973.

“I’m not a dictator,” President Trump insisted on Monday.

And with that, another famously false presidential proclamation entered the annals of memorable statements no president should ever feel compelled to make.

It took months more for Nixon’s crimes to force him to resign in 1974 ahead of his all-but-certain removal by Congress. But a half-century later, Trump is unabashedly showing every day that he really does aspire to be a dictator. Unlike Nixon, he doesn’t have to fear a supposedly coequal Congress: It’s run by slavish fellow Republicans who’ve forfeited their constitutional powers over spending, tariffs, appointments and more. Lower courts have checked Trump’s lawlessness, but a too-deferential Supreme Court gets the last word and empowers him more than not.

Americans are indeed in proverbial uncharted waters. Four months ago, conservative columnist David Brooks of the New York Times wrote — uncharacteristically for a self-described “mild” guy — “It’s time for a comprehensive national civic uprising.” It’s now past time.

Perhaps more troubling than Trump’s “not a dictator” comment was a related one that he made on Monday and reiterated on Tuesday during a three-hour televised Cabinet praise meeting (don’t these folks have jobs?). “A lot of people are saying maybe we like a dictator,” he said. Alas, for once Trump isn’t wrong. MAGA Republicans are loyal to the man, not the party, and give Trump the sort of support no president in memory has enjoyed.

A poll from the independent Public Religion Research Institute earlier this year showed that a majority of Americans — 52% — agreed that Trump is a “dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys American democracy.” Those who disagreed were overwhelmingly Republicans, 81% of whom said Trump “should be given the power he needs.” Americans’ split on this fundamental question shows the extent to which Trump has cleaved a country founded and long-flourishing on checks and balances and the rule of law, not men.

That Trump would explicitly address the dictator issue this week reflects just how head-spinningly fast his dictatorial actions have been coming at us.

The militarization of the nation’s capital continues, reinforced with National Guard units from six red states, on trumped-up claims of a crime emergency. Trump served notice in recent days that the thousands of troops and federal agents will remain on Washington’s streets indefinitely despite a federal law setting a 30-day limit — “We’re not playing games,” he told troops on Friday — and that Chicago, Baltimore, New York and perhaps San Francisco are next.

In all cases, as with Los Angeles, Il Duce is acting over the objections of elected officials. But who cares about stinking elections? Trump warned on Friday from his gilded Oval Office that Washington’s thrice-elected Mayor Muriel Bowser “better get her act straight or she won’t be mayor very long, because we’ll take it over with the federal government.” And after Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, another Democrat, slammed Trump for his threats, El Presidente replied that he has “the right to do anything I want to do.”

This is scary stuff, and it’s being normalized by the sheer firehose nature of Trump’s outrages and by the capitulation of his Cabinet, Congress, corporations and rightwing media. That’s why the remaining citizenry must take a stand, literally.

Trump’s sycophants atop the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, the equally unfit Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard, continued their purge of senior military officials and intelligence experts whose loyalties to Trump are suspect. And on Friday, the FBI raided the home of former Trump advisor John Bolton, in a chilling signal to other critics.

In a first for a president, Trump on Tuesday tried to fire a member of the independent Federal Reserve board, Biden appointee Lisa D. Cook, in apparent violation of federal law aiming to protect the Fed against just such political interference. The Fed’s independence has been central to the United States’ role as the globe’s preeminent economic power; investors worldwide believe the central bank won’t act on a president’s whims. But Trump is determined to cement a majority that will deeply cut interest rates, inflation be damned. Cook is suing to keep her job, setting up a Fed-backed showdown likely headed to the Supreme Court. Despite its partiality to a president’s power over independent federal agencies, the court has repeatedly suggested that the Fed is an exception. Let’s hope.

Trump, who regularly assails Democrats as socialists and communists, now boasts of compelling private corporations to give the government a stake. Speaking on Monday about a new deal in which the beleaguered head of chipmaker Intel agreed to give the government a 10% stake, Trump declared, “I hope I have many more cases like it.” And yet we get more crickets from Republicans who profess to be the party of free enterprise and free markets.

The president’s campaign against federal judges who oppose him continues as well. On Tuesday it was one of his own appointees, U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen, who tossed Trump’s lawsuit against the entire federal judiciary in Maryland. To accept the president’s suit, Cullen wrote, would violate precedent, constitutional tradition and the rule of law.

Alas, such violations pretty much sum up Trump’s record so far.

He’s trying to rewrite history at the Smithsonian Institution, including whitewashing slavery, and dictating to law firms, universities and state legislatures. On Tuesday, Trump had Republican state legislators from Indiana to the White House to press them to join those in Texas and other red states who are, on his orders, redrawing House districts expressly so Democrats don’t win control of Congress in next year’s midterm elections.

Amid all this, the New Yorker was out with an exhaustive review of Trump’s finances that conservatively concluded that he’s already profited on the presidency by $3.4 billion. If he’s not careful, Trump won’t only be denying he’s a dictator; he’ll be echoing Nixon on the crook rap.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

Source link

Trump’s D.C. death penalty threat is a dangerous assault on civil rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We have no choice.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Trump with members of law enforcement and National Guard troops in Washington.

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

(Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press)

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

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

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

Manner called the move “extremely disturbing.”

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

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

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

Consider yourselves threatened, West Coast friends.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Turns out, we do have a choice.

Source link

Trump sets sights on Baltimore as he prepares to expand his federal crackdown

President Trump on Sunday threatened to expand his military deployments to more Democratic-led cities, responding to an offer by Maryland’s governor to join him in a tour of Baltimore by saying he might instead “send in the ‘troops.’”

Last week, Trump said he was considering Chicago and New York City for troop deployments similar to what he has unleashed on the nation’s capital, where thousands of National Guard and federal law enforcement officers are patrolling the streets.

Trump made the threat to Baltimore in a spat with Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat who has criticized Trump’s unprecedented flex of federal power, which the Republican president says is aimed at combating crime and homelessness in Washington. Moore last week invited Trump to visit his state to discuss public safety and walk the streets.

In a social media post Sunday, Trump said Moore asked “in a rather nasty and provocative tone,” and then raised the specter of repeating the National Guard deployment he made in Los Angeles over the objections of California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom.

“Wes Moore’s record on Crime is a very bad one, unless he fudges his figures on crime like many of the other ‘Blue States’ are doing,” Trump wrote. “But if Wes Moore needs help, like Gavin Newscum did in L.A., I will send in the ‘troops,’ which is being done in nearby DC, and quickly clean up the Crime.”

Moore said he invited Trump to Maryland “because he seems to enjoy living in this blissful ignorance” about improving crime rates in Baltimore.

“The president is spending all of his time talking about me,” Moore said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “I’m spending my time talking about the people I serve.”

After surging National Guard troops and federal law enforcement officers into Washington this month, Trump has said Chicago and New York City are most likely his next targets, eliciting strong pushback from Democratic leaders in both states. The Washington Post reported Saturday that the Pentagon has spent weeks preparing for an operation in Chicago that would include National Guard troops and, potentially, active-duty forces.

Asked about the Post report, the White House pointed to Trump’s earlier comments discussing his desire to expand his use of military forces to target local crime.

“I think Chicago will be our next,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday, adding, “And then we’ll help with New York.”

Trump has repeatedly described some of the nation’s largest cities — run by Democrats, with Black mayors and majority-minority populations — as dangerous and filthy. Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott is Black, as is Moore. The District of Columbia and New York City also have Black mayors.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, speaking during a religious event Sunday at Howard University in Washington, said the Guard’s presence in the nation’s capital was not about crime: “This is about profiling us.”

“This is laced with bigotry and racism,” he later elaborated to reporters. “Not one white mayor has been designated. And I think this is a civil rights issue, a race issue, and an issue of D.C. statehood.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, said there is no emergency warranting the deployment of National Guard troops in Chicago.

“Donald Trump is attempting to manufacture a crisis, politicize Americans who serve in uniform, and continue abusing his power to distract from the pain he’s causing families,” Pritzker wrote on X. “We’ll continue to follow the law, stand up for the sovereignty of our state, and protect Illinoisans.”

Cooper and Askarinam write for the Associated Press and reported from Phoenix and Washington, respectively.

Source link

National Guard members on D.C. streets for Trump’s crackdown will soon be armed, Pentagon says

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered that National Guard troops patrolling the streets of Washington for President Trump’s law enforcement crackdown be armed, the Pentagon said Friday.

The Defense Department didn’t offer any other details about the new development or why it was needed.

The step is a escalation in Trump’s intervention into policing in the nation’s capital and comes as nearly 2,000 National Guard members have been stationed in the city, with the arrival this week of hundreds of troops from several Republican-led states.

Trump initially called up 800 members of the District of Columbia National Guard to assist federal law enforcement in his bid to crack down on crime and homelessness in the capital. Since then, six states have sent troops to the city, growing the military presence.

It was unclear if the guard’s role in the federal intervention would be changing. The guard has so far not taken part in law enforcement but largely have been protecting landmarks like the National Mall and Union Station and helping with crowd control.

The Pentagon and the Army said last week that troops would not carry guns. The new guidance is that they will carry their service-issued weapons.

The city had been informed about the intent for the National Guard to be armed, a person familiar with the conversations said earlier this week. The person was not authorized to disclose the plans and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Spokespeople for the District of Columbia National Guard and a military task force overseeing all the guard troops in Washington did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

Toropin writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Anna Johnson contributed to this report.

Source link

JD Vance and Pete Hegseth visit National Guard troops amid D.C. protests over Trump’s crackdown

Bringing prominent White House support to the streets of Washington, Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday visited with National Guard troops at the city’s main train station as protesters chanted “free D.C.” — the latest tense interlude from President Trump’s crackdown in the nation’s capital. “We brought some law and order back,” the vice president asserted.

“We appreciate everything you’re doing,” Vance said as he presented burgers to the troops. Citing the protesters whose shouts echoed through the station, Vance said “they appear to hate the idea that Americans can enjoy their communities.”

The appearance, which also included White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, was a striking scene that illustrated the Republican administration’s intense focus on the situation in Washington and its willingness to promote an initiative that has polarized the Democrat-led city.

An estimated 1,900 troops are being deployed in D.C. More than half are coming from Republican-led states. Besides Union Station, they have mostly been spotted around downtown areas, including the National Mall and Metro stops.

An early morning accident involved an armored vehicle

The intersection of life in the city and a military presence produced another striking scene early Wednesday when an armored vehicle collided with a civilian car less than a mile from the U.S. Capitol. One person was trapped inside the car after the accident and had to be extricated by emergency responders, according to D.C. fire department spokesman Vito Maggiolo. The person was taken to a hospital because of minor injuries.

It was not immediately clear what caused the crash. A video posted online showed the aftermath of the collision, with a tan-colored armored vehicle twice the height of the civilian car with a crushed side.

“You come to our city and this is what you do? Seriously?” a woman yelled at the troops in the video.

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said more than 550 people have been arrested so far, and the U.S. Marshals are offering $500 rewards for information leading to additional arrests. “Together, we will make DC safe again!” Bondi wrote on social media.

City officials work to navigate the situation

Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser, trying to balance the constituency that elected her and the reality in front of her, acknowledged the changing situation in the city as she attended a back-to-school event with teachers and staff.

“This is not the same time, is it, that we experienced in opening school last year,” she said. Bowser said she would worry about the politics and told school employees that “your job is to love on the kids, teach them and make sure that they are prepared and to trust that I’m going to do the right thing for all of us.”

Despite the militarized backdrop, Bowser said it’s important that children “have joy when they approach this school year.” Public schools around Washington reconvene Monday.

The skewer-everyone cartoon TV show “ South Park,” which has leaned into near-real-time satire in recent years, this week made the federal crackdown fodder for a new episode. A 20-second promo released by Comedy Central depicts the character “Towelie” — a walking towel — riding in a bus past the U.S. Supreme Court building and White House, where armed troops are patrolling. A tank rolls by in front of the White House.

“This seems like a perfect place for a towel,” the character says upon disembarking the bus.

“South Park” creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone recently signed a reported $1.5-billion, five-year deal with Paramount for new episodes and streaming rights to their series, which began its 27th season this summer.

The season premiere mocked the president’s body in a raunchy manner and depicted him sharing a bed with Satan.

Whitehurst, Brown and Megerian write for the Associated Press. AP writers David Bauder and Michelle Price contributed to this report.

Source link

Trump’s unprecedented show of force in L.A., Washington are pushing norms, sparking fears

In downtown Los Angeles, Gov. Gavin Newsom was holding a news conference with Democratic leaders when the Border Patrol showed up nearby to conduct a showy immigration raid.

In Washington D.C., hundreds of National Guard troops patrolled the streets, some in armored vehicles, as city officials battled with the White House over whether the federal government can take control of the local police department.

President Trump has long demonized “blue” cities like Los Angeles, Washington and New York, frequently claiming — often contrary to the evidence — that their Democratic leaders have allowed crime and blight to worsen. Trump, for example, cited out-of-control crime as the reason for his Washington D.C. guard deployment, even though data shows crime in the city is down.

But over the last few months, Trump’s rhetoric has given way to searing images of federal power on urban streets that are generating both headlines and increasing alarm in some circles.

While past presidents have occasionally used the Insurrection Act to deploy the military in response to clear, acute crises, the way Trump has deployed troops in Democratic-run cities is unprecedented in American politics. Trump has claimed broader inherent powers and an authority to deploy troops to cities when and where he decides there is an emergency, said Matthew Beckmann, a political science professor at UC Irvine.

“President Trump is testing how far he can push his authority, in no small part to find out who or what can challenge him,” he said.

State and local officials reacted with shock when they learned Border Patrol agents had massed outside Newsom’s news conference Thursday. The governor was preparing to announce the launch of a campaign for a ballot measure, which if approved by voters, would redraw the state’s congressional maps to favor Democrats before the 2026 midterms.

Border Patrol Sector Chief Gregory Bovino told a Fox 11 reporter: “We’re here making Los Angeles a safer place since we won’t have politicians that’ll do that, we do that ourselves.” When the reporter noted that Newsom was nearby, Bovino responded, “I don’t know where he’s at.”

However, local law enforcement sources told The Times that the raid was not random and that they had received word from the federal authorities that Little Tokyo was targeted due to its proximity to the governor’s event. The raid, the sources told The Times, was less about making arrests and more of a show of force intended to disrupt Democrats.

Whatever the reason, the raid generated news coverage and at least in the conservative media, overshadowed the announcement of the redistricting plan.

Trump’s second term has been marked by increased use of troops in cities. He authorized the deployment of thousands of Marines and National Guard troops to L.A. in June after immigration raids sparked scattered protests. The troops saw little action, and local leaders said the deployment was unnecessary and only served to inflame tensions.

The operation reached a controversial zenith in July when scores of troops on horseback wearing tactical gear and driving armored vehicles, rolled through MacArthur Park. The incident generated much attention, but local police were surprised that the raid was brief and resulted in few arrests.

After the MacArthur Park raid, Mayor Karen Bass complained “there’s no plan other than fear, chaos and politics.”

Beckmann said the situation is a “particularly perilous historical moment because we have a president willing to flout constitutional limits while Congress and the court have been willing to accept pretext as principle.”

UC Berkeley Political Science Professor Eric Schickler, co-director of the university’s Institute of Governmental Studies, said the recent military displays are part of a larger mission to increase the power of the president and weaken other countervailing forces, such as the dismantling of federal agencies and the weakening of universities.

“It all adds up to a picture of really trying to turn the president into the one dominant force in American politics — he is the boss of everything, he controls everything,” Schickler said. “And that’s just not how the American political system has worked for 240 years.”

In some way, Trump’s tactics are an extension of long-held rhetoric. In the 1980s, he regularly railed against crime in New York City, including the rape of a woman in Central Park that captured national headlines. The suspects, known as the Central Park Five, were exonerated after spending years in prison and have filed a defamation suit against Trump.

Trump and his backers say he is simply keeping campaign promises to reduce crime and deport people in the country illegally.

“Our law enforcement operations are about enforcing the law — not about Gavin Newsom,” said Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin.

Federal agents “patrol all areas of Los Angeles every day with over 40 teams on the ground to make L.A. safe,” she said.

In Washington D.C., where the federal government has began assuming law enforcement responsibilities, the business of policing the streets of the nation’s capital had radically transformed by Friday. Federal agencies typically tasked with investigating drug kingpins, gunrunners and cybercriminals were conducting traffic stops and helping with other routine policing.

Twenty federal law enforcement teams fanned out across the city Thursday night with more than 1,750 people joining the operation, a White House official told the Associated Press. They made 33 arrests, including 15 people who did not have permanent legal status. Others were arrested on warrants for murder, rape and driving under the influence, the official said.

Thaddeus Johnson, a senior fellow with the Council on Criminal Justice, said the administration’s actions not only threaten democracy, but they also have real consequences for local leaders and residents. Citizens often can’t distinguish between federal or local officers and don’t know when the two groups are or aren’t working together.

“That breeds a lot of confusion and also breeds a lot of fear,” Johnson said.

Thomas Abt, founding director of University of Maryland’s Center for the Study and Practice of Violence Reduction, emphasized that pulling federal agents from their jobs can hurt overall public safety.

“There’s a real threat to politicizing federal law enforcement, and sending them wherever elected officials think there’s a photo opportunity instead of doing the hard work of federal law enforcement,” Abt said.

Already, D.C. residents and public officials have pushed back on federal law enforcement’s presence. When federal officers set up a vehicle checkpoint along the 14th Street Northwest corridor this week, hecklers shouted, “Go home, fascists” and “Get off our streets.”

On Friday, the District of Columbia filed an emergency motion seeking to block the Trump administration’s takeover of the city’s police department.

“This is the gravest threat to Home Rule DC has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it,” D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb said in a statement on Friday. “The Administration’s actions are brazenly unlawful. They go well beyond the bounds of the President’s limited authority and instead seek a hostile takeover of MPD.”

The show of force in L.A. has also left local officials outraged at what they see as deliberate efforts to sow fear and exert power. Hours before agents arrived in Little Tokyo, Bass and other officials held a news conference calling for an end to the continued immigration raids.

Bass said she believes the recent actions violated the temporary restraining order upheld this month by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals prohibiting agents from targeting people solely based on their race, vocation, language or location.

The number of arrests in Southern California declined in July after a judge issued the order. But in the past two weeks, some higher profile raids have begun to ramp up again.

In one instance, an 18-year-old Los Angeles high school senior was picked up by federal immigration officers while walking his dog in Van Nuys. On Thursday, a man apparently running from agents who showed up at a Home Depot parking lot in Monrovia was hit by a car and killed on the 210 Freeway.

Bass appeared to be seething as she spoke to reporters after Newsom’s press conference on Thursday, calling the raid in Little Tokyo a “provocative act” and “unbelievably disrespectful.”

“They’re talking about disorder in Los Angeles, and they are the source of the disorder in Los Angeles right now,” she said.

Source link

Police chief orders more cooperation with immigration agents as federal activity takes root in D.C.

The Washington, D.C., police chief stepped up cooperation between her officers and federal immigration officials as President Trump’s law enforcement takeover of the nation’s capital took root Thursday. National Guard troops watched over some of the world’s most renowned landmarks, and Humvees took up position in front of the busy main train station.

The police chief’s order establishes that Metropolitan Police Department officers may now share information with immigration agencies regarding people not in custody — such as someone involved in a traffic stop or checkpoint. MPD officers may also provide “transportation for federal immigration employees and detained subject,” the order states.

The changes, which raise collaboration between the two forces in notable ways, erodes the district’s long-standing policy against cooperating with civil immigration enforcement. They are effective immediately.

Mayor Muriel Bowser, walking a tightrope between the Republican White House and the constituency of her largely Democratic city, was out of town Thursday for a family commitment in Martha’s Vineyard but would be back Friday, her office said.

In a city tense from days of ramp-up toward federal law enforcement intervention, volunteers helped homeless people leave long-standing encampments — to where, exactly, was often unclear. Trump told reporters that he was pleased at how the operation — and, now, its direct link with his immigration-control efforts — was unfolding.

“That’s a very positive thing, I have heard that just happened,” Trump said of Police Chief Pamela Smith’s order. “That’s a great step. That’s a great step if they’re doing that.”

A boost in police activity, federal and otherwise

For an already wary Washington, Thursday marked a notable — and highly visible — uptick in presence from the previous two days. The visibility of federal forces around the city, including in many high-traffic areas, was striking to residents going about their lives. Trump has the power to take over federal law enforcement for 30 days before his actions must be reviewed by Congress, though he has said he’ll reevaluate as that deadline approaches.

The response before Thursday had been gradual and, by all appearances, low key. But on Wednesday night, officers set up a checkpoint in one of D.C.’s popular nightlife areas, drawing protests. The White House said 45 arrests were made Wednesday night, with 29 people arrested for living in the country illegally; other arrests included for distribution or possession of drugs, carrying a concealed weapon and assaulting a federal officer.

Troops were stationed outside the Union Station transportation hub as the 800 Guard members who have been activated by Trump start in on missions that include monument security, community safety patrols and beautification efforts, the Pentagon said.

“They will remain until law and order has been restored in the District as determined by the president, standing as the gatekeepers of our great nation’s capital,” Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson said. “The National Guard is uniquely qualified for this mission as a community-based force with strong local ties and disciplined training.”

Wilson said the troops won’t be armed and declined to give more details on what the safety patrols or beautification efforts would entail or how many Guard members have already been sent out on the streets.

National Guard Major Micah Maxwell said troops will assist law enforcement in a variety of roles, including traffic control posts and crowd control. The Guard members have been trained in de-escalation tactics and crowd control equipment, Maxwell said.

The White House said Thursday that Guard members aren’t making arrests but are “protecting federal assets, providing a safe environment for law enforcement officers to make arrests and deterring violent crime with a visible law enforcement presence.”

Although the current deployment is taking place under unprecedented circumstances, National Guard troops are a semi-regular presence in D.C., typically being used during mass public events like the annual Fourth of July celebration. They have regularly been used in the past for crowd control in and around Metro stations.

Trump on Thursday denied that the federal law enforcement officials he sent into Washington’s streets to fight crime have been diverted from priority assignments like counterterrorism. Asked if he was concerned about that, Trump said he’s using a “very small force” of soldiers and that city police are now allowed to do their job properly amidst his security lockdown.

For homeless residents, an uncertain time is at hand

Meanwhile, about a dozen homeless residents in Washington packed up their belongings with help from volunteers from charitable groups and staffers from some city agencies. Items largely were not forcibly thrown out by law enforcement, but a garbage truck idled nearby.

Several protesters held signs close by, some critical of the Trump administration. Once the residents had left, a construction vehicle from a city agency cleared through the remains of the tents.

The departures were voluntary, but they came in response to a clear threat from the Trump administration. Advocates expect law enforcement officers to fan out across D.C. in the coming days to forcibly take down any remaining homeless encampments. In Washington Circle, which still contains a few tents, city workers put up signs announcing “general cleanup of this public space” starting at 10 a.m. Monday.

For two days, small groups of federal officers have been visible in scattered parts of the city. But more were present in high-profile locations Wednesday night, and troops were expected to start doing more missions Thursday.

Agents from Homeland Security Investigations have patrolled the popular U Street corridor, while Drug Enforcement Administration officers were seen on the National Mall, with Guard members parked nearby. DEA agents also joined MPD officers on patrol in the Navy Yard neighborhood, while FBI agents stood along the heavily trafficked Massachusetts Avenue.

Khalil writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press journalists Jacquelyn Martin, Mike Pesoli, Darlene Superville and David Klepper contributed to this report.

Source link

Trump’s nod to Europe on a future peace force for Ukraine vastly improves its chances of success

The greenlight given by President Trump on U.S. backup for a European-led force to police any future peace agreement in Ukraine vastly improves the likelihood it might succeed.

European leaders said Trump offered his backing during a call they held ahead of his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday.

The effectiveness of the operation, drawn up by the so-called coalition of the willing of around 30 countries supporting Ukraine, hinges on U.S. backup with airpower or other military equipment that European armed forces do not have, or only in short supply.

EU leaders regularly have underlined how the United States is “crucial” to the success of the security operation dubbed Multinational Force Ukraine. But the Trump administration has long refused to commit, perhaps keeping its participation on hold as leverage in talks with Russia.

After a meeting Wednesday between Trump and European leaders, European Council President Antonio Costa welcomed “the readiness of the United States to share with Europe the efforts to reinforce security conditions once we obtain a durable and just peace for Ukraine.”

French President Emmanuel Macron said Trump had insisted NATO must not be part of these security guarantees, but the U.S. leader agreed “the United States and all the (other) parties involved should take part.”

“It’s a very important clarification,” Macron said.

Trump did not publicly confirm he would allow U.S. backup, and no details of possible U.S. support were made public, but U.S. Vice President JD Vance sat in on the coalition meeting for the first time.

The Multinational Force Ukraine

More than 200 military planners have worked for months on ways to ensure a future peace should the war, now in its fourth year, finally halt. Ukraine’s armed forces also have been involved, and British personnel have led reconnaissance work inside Ukraine.

The exact size of the force has not been made public, although Britain has said it could number 10,000 to 30,000 troops. It must be enough to deter Russian forces, but also of a realistic size for nations that shrank their militaries after the Cold War and are now rearming.

The “reassurance” force’s mission “will be to strengthen Ukraine’s defenses on the land, at sea, and in the air because the Ukrainian Armed Forces are the best deterrent against future Russian aggression,” U.K. Defence Secretary John Healey told lawmakers last month.

“It will secure Ukraine’s skies by using aircraft,” Healey said, “and it will support safer seas by bolstering the Black Sea Task Force with additional specialist teams.”

Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey launched that naval force a year ago to deal with mines in Black Sea waters.

The force initially will have its headquarters in Paris before moving to London next year. A coordination headquarters in Kyiv will be involved once hostilities cease and it deploys.

The impact of US participation

European efforts to set up the force have been seen as a first test of the continent’s willingness to defend itself and its interests, given Trump administration warnings that Europe must take care of its own security and that of Ukraine in future.

Still, U.S. forces clearly provide a deterrent that the Europeans cannot muster.

Details of what the U.S. might contribute were unknown, and Trump has changed his mind in the past, so it remains to be seen whether this signal will be enough to persuade more countries within the coalition to provide troops.

Greece has publicly rejected doing so. Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said last month that those discussions were “somewhat divisive” and distracted from the goal of ending the war as soon as possible.

Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has said Rome won’t contribute troops, but she previously has underlined the importance of working with the U.S. on ending the conflict and called for the participation of an American delegation in force coordination meetings.

Cook writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Emma Burrows in London contributed to this report.

Source link

Trial in National Guard lawsuit tests limits on Trump’s authority

Minutes after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth trumpeted plans to “flood” Washington with National Guard members, a senior U.S. military official took the stand in federal court in California to defend the controversial deployment of troops to Los Angeles.

The move during protests this summer has since become the model for President Trump’s increasing use of the military to police American streets.

But the trial, which opened Monday in San Francisco, turns on the argument by California that troops called up by Trump have been illegally engaged in civilian law enforcement.

“The military in Southern California are so tied in with ICE and other law enforcement agencies that they are practically indistinguishable,” California Deputy Atty. Gen. Meghan Strong told the court Tuesday.

“Los Angeles is just the beginning,” the deputy attorney general said. “President Trump has hinted at sending troops even farther, naming Baltimore and even Oakland here in the Bay Area as his next potential targets.”

Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer said in court that Hegseth’s statements Monday could tip the scales in favor of the state, which must show the law is likely to be violated again so long as troops remain.

But the White House hasn’t let the pending case stall its agenda. Nor have Trump officials been fazed by a judge’s order restricting so-called roving patrols used by federal agents to indiscriminately sweep up suspected immigrants.

After Border Patrol agents last week sprang from a Penske moving truck and snatched up workers at a Westlake Home Depot — appearing to openly defy the court’s order — some attorneys warned the rule of law is crumbling in plain sight.

“It is just breathtaking,” said Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel, part of the coalition challenging the use of racial profiling by immigration enforcement. “Somewhere there are founding fathers who are turning over in their graves.”

The chaotic immigration arrests that swept through Los Angeles this summer had all but ceased after the original July 11 order, which bars agents from snatching people off the streets without first establishing reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally.

An Aug. 1 ruling in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seemed to assure they could not resume again for weeks, if ever.

For the Department of Justice, the 9th Circuit loss was the latest blow in a protracted judicial beatdown, as many of the administration’s most aggressive moves have been held back by federal judges and tied up in appellate courts.

Trump “is losing consistently in the lower courts, almost nine times out of 10,” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law.

In the last two weeks alone, the 9th Circuit also found Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship unconstitutional and signaled it would probably rule in favor of a group of University of California researchers hoping to claw back funding from Trump’s war on diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

Elsewhere in the U.S., the D.C. Circuit Court appeared poised to block Trump’s tariffs, while a federal judge in Miami temporarily stopped construction at the migrant detention center known as Alligator Alcatraz.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has noted that his Department of Justice had sued the administration nearly 40 times.

But even the breakneck pace of current litigation is glacial compared with the actions of immigration agents and federalized troops.

Federal officials have publicly relished big-footing California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who have repeatedly warned the city is being used as a “petri dish” for executive force.

On Monday, the White House seemed to vindicate them by sending the National Guard to Washington.

Speaking for more than half an hour, Trump rattled off a list of American cities he characterized as under siege.

Asked whether he would deploy troops to those cities as well, the president said, “We’re just gonna see what happens.”

“We’re going to look at New York. And if we need to, we’re going to do the same thing in Chicago,” he said. “Hopefully, L.A. is watching.”

This image taken from video shows U.S. Border Patrol agents jumping out of a Penske box truck.

This image taken from video shows U.S. Border Patrol agents jumping out of a Penske box truck during an immigration raid at a Home Depot in Los Angeles, on Aug. 6, 2025.

(FOX News/Matt Finn via AP)

The U.S. Department of Justice argues that the same power that allows the president to federalize troops and deploy them on American streets also creates a “Constitutional exception” to the Posse Comitatus Act, a 19th century law that bars troops from civilian police action.

California lawyers say no such exception exists.

“I’m looking at this case and trying to figure out, is there any limitation to the use of federal forces?” Judge Breyer said.

Even if they keep taking losses, Trump administration officials “don’t have much to lose” by picking fights, said Ilya Somin, law professor at George Mason University and a constitutional scholar at the Cato Institute.

“The base likes it,” Somin said of the Trump’s most controversial moves. “If they lose, they can consider whether they defy the court.”

Other experts agreed.

“The bigger question is whether the courts can actually do anything to enforce the orders that they’re making,” said David J. Bier, an immigration expert at the Cato Institute. “There’s no indication to me that [Department of Homeland Security agents] are changing their behavior.”

Some scholars speculated the losses in lower courts might actually be a strategic sacrifice in the war to extend presidential power in the Supreme Court.

“It’s not a strategy whose primary ambition is to win,” said professor Mark Graber of the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. “They are losing cases right and left in the district court, but consistently having district court orders stayed in the Supreme Court.”

Win or lose in the lower courts, the political allure of targeting California is potent, argued Segall, the law professor who studies the Supreme Court.

“There is an emotional hostility to California that people on the West Coast don’t understand,” Segall said. “California … is deemed a separate country almost.”

A favorable ruling in the Supreme Court could pave the way for deployments across the country, he and others warned.

“We don’t want the military on America’s streets, period, full stop,” Segall said. “I don’t think martial law is off the table.”

Pedro Vásquez Perdomo, a day laborer who is one of the plaintiffs in the Southern California case challenging racial profiling by immigration enforcement, has said the case is bigger than him.

He took to the podium outside the American Civil Liberties Union’s downtown offices Aug. 4, his voice trembling as he spoke about the temporary restraining order — upheld days earlier by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — that stood between his fellow Angelenos and unchecked federal authority.

“I don’t want silence to be my story,” he said. “I want justice for me and for every other person whose humanity has been denied.”

Source link

Trump wants troops in D.C. But don’t expect him to stop there

Well, at least they’re not eating the cats and dogs.

To hear President Trump tell it, Washington, D.C., has become a barbarous hellhole — worse even than Springfield, Ohio, it would seem, where he accused Black immigrants, many from Somalia, of barbecuing pets last year during the campaign.

Back then, Trump was just a candidate. Now, he’s the commander in chief of the U.S. military with a clear desire to use troops of war on American streets, whether it’s for a fancy birthday parade, to enforce his immigration agenda in Los Angeles or to stop car thefts in the nation’s capital.

“It’s becoming a situation of complete and total lawlessness,” Trump said during a Monday news conference, announcing that he was calling up National Guard troops to help with domestic policing in D.C.

“We’ll get rid of the slums, too. We have slums here. We’ll get rid of them,” he said. “I know it’s not politically correct. You’ll say, ‘Oh, so terrible.’ No, we’re getting rid of the slums where they live.”

Where “they” live.

While the use of the military on American streets is alarming, it should be just as scary how blatantly this president is tying race not just to crime, but to violence so uncontrollable it requires military troops to stop it. Tying race to criminality is nothing new, of course. It’s a big part of American history and our justice system has unfortunately been steeped in it, from the Jim Crow era to the 1990s war on drugs, which targeted inner cities with the same rhetoric that Trump is recycling now.

The difference between that last attack on minorities — started by President Nixon and lasting through Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, also under the guise of law and order — and our current circumstances is that in this instance, the notion of war isn’t just hyperbole. We are literally talking about soldiers in the streets, targeting Black and brown people. Whether they are car wash employees in California or teenagers on school break in D.C., actual crimes don’t seem to matter. Skin color is enough for law enforcement scrutiny, a sad and dangerous return to an era before civil rights.

“Certainly the language that President Trump is using with regard to D.C. has a message that’s racially based,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law.

Chemerinsky pointed out that just a few days ago, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals called out the Trump administration for immigration raids that were unconstitutional because they were basically racial sweeps. But he is unabashed. His calls for violence against people of color are escalating. It increasingly appears that bringing troops to Los Angeles was a test case for a larger use of the military in civilian settings.

President Trump holding up a chart in front of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

President Trump holds up a chart in front of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during Monday’s news conference announcing the deployment of troops in Washington, D.C.

(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

“This will go further,” Trump ominously said, making it clear he’d like to see soldiers policing across America.

“We have other cities also that are bad, very bad. You look at Chicago, how bad it is,” he went on. “We have other cities that are very bad. New York has a problem. And then you have, of course, Baltimore and Oakland. We don’t even mention that anymore, they’re so, they’re so far gone.”

In reality, crime is dropping across the United States, including in Washington. As the Washington Post pointed out, violent crime rates, including murders, have for the most part been on a downward trend since 2023. But all it takes is a few explosive examples to banish truth from conscientiousness. Trump pointed out some tragic and horrific examples — including the beating of Edward “Big Balls” Coristine, a former employee of the president’s Department of Government Efficiency who was attacked after attempting to defend a woman during a carjacking recently, not far from the White House.

These are crimes that should be punished, and certainly not tolerated. But the exploitation we are seeing from Trump is a dangerous precedent to justify military force for domestic law enforcement, which until now has been forbidden — or at least assumed forbidden — by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

This week, just how strong that prohibition is will be debated in a San Francisco courtroom, during the three-day trial over the deployment of troops in Los Angeles. While it’s uncertain how that case will resolve, “Los Angeles could provide a bit of a road map for any jurisdiction seeking to push back against the Trump administration when there’s a potential threat of sending in federal troops,” Jessica Levinson, a constitutional legal scholar at Loyola Law School, told me.

Again, California coming out as the biggest foil to a Trump autocracy.

But while we wait in the hopes that the courts will catch up to Trump, we can’t be blind to what is happening on our streets. Race and crime are not linked by anything other than racism.

Allowing our military to terrorize Black and brown people under the guise of law and order is nothing more than a power grab based on the exploitation of our darkest natures.

It’s a tactic Trump has perfected, but one which will fundamentally change, and weaken, American justice if we do not stop it.

Source link

More than 1,000 National Guard troops leaving L.A.

Nearly two months after President Trump took the extraordinary step of deploying the National Guard to Los Angeles to quell public unrest over immigration raids, the Pentagon on Wednesday announced that it was withdrawing more than a thousand troops.

The departure of about 1,350 members of the National Guard, ordered by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, represents just the latest rollback of troops from L.A. this month since more than 5,000 National Guard members and Marines were deployed to the city in June.

Sean Parnell, chief spokesman for the Pentagon, said that approximately 250 California Guard members would remain in L.A. to protect federal agents and buildings.

“We greatly appreciate the support of the more than 5,000 Guardsmen and Marines who mobilized to Los Angeles to defend Federal functions against the rampant lawlessness occurring in the city,” Parnell said in a statement.

Mayor Karen Bass, who had dubbed the deployment an “armed occupation,” was quick to celebrate the troops’ departure.

“Another win for Los Angeles,” Bass said on X on Wednesday night. “We will continue this pressure until ALL troops are out of L.A.”

The troops’ presence in Los Angeles — and their role of protecting federal agents conducting immigration raids — was fiercely contested. President Trump said the troops were necessary to maintain order as the administration ramped up its immigration raids and protesters covered downtown buildings in graffiti, set Waymos on fire and clashed with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

But many of California’s key Democratic leaders said there was no need for federal troops in the city: Local law enforcement could handle the protesters, they said, and the presence of federal troops in highly militarized gear only inflamed tension in the region. They also argued that federal officials had deployed the troops illegally.

Just a day after the first convoys of National Guard troops rumbled into to L.A. on June 8, Gov. Gavin Newsom sued federal officials, saying that the deployment exceeded federal authority and violated the 10th Amendment in an “unprecedented usurpation” of state power. Newsom also complained that the deployment had diverted the California National Guard from critical duties such as combating wildfires and interrupting the drug trade at the U.S.-Mexico border and across California.

His office released a statement responding to the latest drawdown Thursday.

“President Trump is realizing that his political theater backfired. This militarization was always unnecessary and deeply unpopular,” the statement said. “The President must do the right thing to end this illegal militarization now because the economic and societal impacts are dire. The women and men of our military deserve more than to be used as props in the federal government’s propaganda machine.”

Over the weeks, as the L.A. protests subsided, the troops did not appear to have a clear role and many appeared to be bored. By July, a source within Newsom’s office with knowledge of the military operation told The Times that only about 3% of the troops were taking part in daily missions.

“There’s not much to do,” one Marine told The Times as he stood guard earlier this month outside the Wilshire Federal Building in Westwood.

The majority of National Guard members were left largely milling about the Joint Forces Training Base in Los Alamitos in an operation that the Pentagon had estimated would cost about $134 million.

On July 15, the Pentagon withdrew nearly 2,000 California National Guard soldiers from L.A. and on July 21 it withdrew 700 active-duty Marines.

Source link

Marines to leave Los Angeles, Pentagon says

More than a month after President Trump made the fiercely contentious decision to send about 700 U.S. Marines to Los Angeles, those troops will begin withdrawing from the city, Pentagon officials said Monday.

The decision comes a week after the Pentagon announced that half of the almost 4,000 National Guard soldiers deployed to the Los Angeles area would be released from duty. The Marines and National Guard were sent to the city in early June amid widespread federal immigration raids and fiery protests against the raids, with the Trump administration vowing to crack down on “rioters, looters and thugs.”

While the president contended that he had “saved Los Angeles,” local and state officials ferociously denounced the extraordinary deployment of military troops to the streets of an American city.

Advocates and California politicians also argued that the heavy-handed spectacle would be incendiary, potentially putting both the troops and protesters at risk.

In recent days, the troops have been largely fighting tedium, without much to do.

The sometimes volatile protests, which erupted in downtown Los Angeles and other parts of the region in mid-June, have since wound down. The troops have been tasked with guarding federal buildings, and some have accompanied immigration agents on tense enforcement actions.

Speaking on behalf of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell seemed to acknowledge the quiet in a statement Monday.

“With stability returning to Los Angeles, the Secretary has directed the redeployment of the 700 Marines whose presence sent a clear message: lawlessness will not be tolerated,” Parnell said. “Their rapid response, unwavering discipline, and unmistakable presence were instrumental in restoring order and upholding the rule of law. We’re deeply grateful for their service, and for the strength and professionalism they brought to this mission.”

News of the Marines’ withdrawal, which was first reported by the New York Times, broke minutes after Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass finished a Monday morning public appearance with veterans’ groups, where she decried the “inappropriate” presence of military forces on L.A. streets.

“This is another win for Los Angeles. As we said this morning — the way to best support our troops is to have them do what they enlisted to do, not to protect two office buildings,” Bass said in response to the withdrawal.

Roughly 2,000 National Guard troops remain in the region, according to U.S. Northern Command.

Source link

National Guard came to L.A. to fight unrest. Troops ended up fighting boredom

They were deployed by the Trump administration to combat “violent, insurrectionist mobs” in and around Los Angeles, but in recent days the only thing many U.S. Marines and California National Guard troops seemed to be fighting was tedium.

“There’s not much to do,” one Marine said as he stood guard outside the towering Wilshire Federal Building in Westwood this week.

The blazing protests that first met federal immigration raids in downtown Los Angeles were nowhere to be seen along Wilshire Boulevard or Veteran Avenue, so many troops passed the time chatting and joking over energy drinks. The Marine, who declined to give his name because he was not authorized to speak to reporters, said his duties consisted mostly of approving access for federal workers and visitors to the Veterans Affairs office.

More than five weeks after Trump mobilized an extraordinary show of military force against the will of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, few National Guard troops and Marines have remained in public view, most retreating to local military bases in Orange County.

As an indication of the military’s dwindling role in immigration enforcement operations, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on Tuesday ordered the release of 2,000 National Guard troops. Now, Bass, Newsom and others are demanding the complete removal of remaining troops — or about 2,000 California National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines.

“Thousands of members are still federalized in Los Angeles for no reason and unable to carry out their critical duties across the state,” Newsom said on X, accusing Trump of using California National Guard troops as “political pawns.”

“End this theater and send everyone home,” the governor said.

Bass said the troops’ primary mission in L.A. was to guard federal buildings that “frankly didn’t need to be guarded.”

“They had to leave their families, they had to leave their education, they had to leave their work,” Bass said at a news conference Tuesday. “We have had no problems for weeks, so why were they here?”

Steve Woolford, a resource counselor for GI Rights Hotline, a nonprofit group that provides free, confidential information to service members, said calls from troops had gone down dramatically over the last month.

“The most recent people I talked to sounded like they’re sitting around bored without much to do,” Woolford said. “And they’re happy with that: They aren’t asking to do more. At the same time, I don’t think people see a real purpose in what they’re doing at all.”

The majority of National Guard troops have been stationed at the Joint Forces Training Base in Los Alamitos, according to military officials and governor’s office officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Over the last few weeks, a massive tent city has risen at the Orange County base — about 25 miles southeast of downtown L.A. The tents, some of which stretch up to 50 yards long, provide living quarters, cafeteria space and other facilities. On a recent morning, National Guards troops — some dressed in full combat fatigues, others in T-shirts and shorts — could be seen exercising, milling about and playing a game of touch football.

A separate group of Marines and National Guard troops have remained at the Westwood federal building for an entire month. The federal building has been outfitted with sleeping and eating arrangements for troops, according to a Marine who spoke with The Times.

To be sure, some California National Guard troops embarked on tense missions with federal immigration agents on sweeps at farms, warehouses and public streets.

On July 7, Guard troops accompanied federal agents as they descended on MacArthur Park on horses and in armored vehicles in a heavily militarized show of force. It’s still unclear whether any arrests were made that day, but crowds quickly formed around the federal agents and military troops, screaming for them to “get the f— out!”

A few days later, Guard troops wearing riot face shields and clutching long, wooden batons faced off with hundreds of protesters in Ventura County as immigration agents arrested about 200 suspected undocumented immigrants at Glass House Farms, a large, licensed cannabis greenhouse in Camarillo.

But most of the deployed Guard troops and Marines do not appear to have been engaged in raids or even the federal building security in recent weeks.

An estimated 90% of the National Guard troops stationed in the L.A. area over the last few days have not been deployed on daily missions, according to a source within Newsom’s office who has knowledge of the military operation.

“For the most part … they’re sitting around,” the source said.

The source, who spoke on condition on anonymity because they were unauthorized to speak publicly on the deployment, said an estimated 3% of the 4,000 troops — about 120 soldiers — were taking part in daily missions, mostly consisting of security at federal buildings.

An additional couple hundred were standing by for “quick response force” missions — ready to mobilize within a few hours for an immigration raid or a crowd control operation. But even if all those troops were used each day, the source said, that still left about 88% of the 4,000 troops — or about three-quarters of the remaining 2,000 — underutilized.

The Pentagon and Task Force 51, the military’s designation for Los Angeles area troops, declined to answer questions about how many Guard troops and Marines were engaged in protecting federal buildings or accompanying immigration agents on daily missions. Nor did they comment on the claim from Newsom’s office that most troops were “sitting around.”

Guard soldiers and Marines were “primarily protecting fixed-site federal facilities and protecting federal law enforcement personnel while they conduct immigration enforcement activities, such as warrant services,” read a task force statement.

Federal officials have also declined to provide precise details on the cost of the deployment. Hegseth previously said that the mobilization of troops would cost $134 million, but it’s unclear whether that estimate is accurate.

Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, a military research group, said there is little evidence that the military presence is necessary.

“The need for military forces in Los Angeles is low while the need for National Guard forces elsewhere in the state is rising,” Kavanagh said. “That they’re still deployed after so much time, when there doesn’t seem to be a need, suggests that this really is about setting precedent of having military forces involved in immigration enforcement and deployed in U.S. cities.”

Kori Schake, senior fellow and director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, agreed: “They have a real job to be training for — fighting and winning the nation’s wars — which this performative policing is a distraction from.”

The first convoys of Guard troops rumbled into L.A. on June 8, shortly after the Trump administration announced it would send 2,000 Guard members to the city to quell unrest as protesters graffitied buildings downtown, set Waymo driverless cars ablaze and clashed with ICE agents as they tried to conduct immigration raids.

As California leaders protested, and called the deployment unnecessary, the Trump administration doubled down. On June 10, 700 Marines from the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center about 150 miles west in Twentynine Palms arrived in L.A. A week later, the task force ballooned to 4,800 personnel when Hegseth added 2,000 more Guard troops.

Newsom condemned Trump for diverting members of the California National Guard as they geared up for wildfire season, noting that the unit assigned to combating wildfires was at just 40% of its regular staffing levels due to the deployment. The governor’s office also complained that about 150 California Guard soldiers were being pulled from the state’s Counterdrug Task Force, which focuses on interrupting drug trade at the U.S.-Mexico border and throughout California.

The Trump administration eventually approved a request to release 150 Guard members for state wildfire suppression.

The Guard has been deployed to Los Angeles before, but never against the will of the L.A. mayor and California governor.

In 1992, President George H.W. Bush mobilized the National Guard to L.A. after multiple days of riots following a jury’s acquittal of four white police officers in the beating of Black motorist Rodney King. About 6,000 troops were ultimately sent in, requested by California’s then-Gov. Pete Wilson and Mayor Tom Bradley, to guard trouble spots and gain control of neighborhoods after rioters attacked stores, torched buildings and, in some extreme cases, beat and killed residents. The Times dubbed it “the worst civil unrest in Los Angeles history.”

Nearly 30 years later, Guard troops were called in again during the 2020 protests following the murder of George Floyd. After downtown buildings were vandalized and graffitied and police cars were set aflame, L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti asked Newsom to send in 1,000 National Guard troops to restore order and assist local law enforcement.

But last month, the federal government sent in the troops without local politicians’ support, setting in motion an intense legal showdown.

A day after National Guard troops hit the ground in L.A., Newsom and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to end the “illegal and unnecessary takeover” of a California National Guard unit. They argued that the unwarranted commandeering of National Guard troops, without the consent or input of the governor, violated the U.S. Constitution and exceeded the president’s Title 10 authority.

A U.S. district judge in San Francisco sided with the state, ruling June 12 that Trump broke the law when he deployed thousands of California National Guard troops to L.A. against the state’s will. The judge issued a temporary restraining order that would have returned control of the National Guard to California. But the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals paused that court order, allowing the troops to remain in L.A. while the case played out in federal court.

Kavanagh said she was disturbed to see Guard troops accompanying federal agents on immigration raids. Even if they had orders not to participate in law enforcement activities, confrontations could escalate quickly.

“There’s so many chances for things to spiral out of control,” she said. “While we haven’t seen any unintentional escalation yet, that doesn’t mean we won’t.”

When troops were first deployed to L.A., advocates for service members warned of low morale. The GI Rights Hotline received a flurry of calls voicing concern about immigration enforcement, Woolford said.

Some military personnel told the hotline that they did not want to support ICE or play any role in deporting people because they considered immigrants part of the community or had immigrants in their family, Woolford said. Others said they did not want to point guns at citizens. A few worried that the country was on the verge of turning into something like martial law, and said that they didn’t want to be on the side of being armed occupiers of their own country.

Many were shocked that the deployment orders were for 60 days.

“There’s no way they’re really going to keep us here that long, are they?” Woolford said he was asked.

But as the military brought in more contractors and set up giant tents with cots, Woolford said, callers to the hotline seemed more resigned to the idea that they would remain in L.A. a long time.

Asked about the pressures facing troops on their mission to Los Angeles, one Marine outside the Wilshire Federal Building summed it up this way:

“That’s just orders,” he said. “We do what we’re told — it’s the system.”

Times staff writer Jeanette Marantos contributed to this report.

Source link

Bass condemns Trump’s troop deployment to LA park as ‘un-American’

July 8 (UPI) — Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has criticized the federal government as “un-American” over its deployment of U.S. troops to MacArthur Park as part of President Donald Trump‘s crackdown on immigration.

U.S. troops and armed federal immigration agents were seen Monday, including military vehicles, descending upon MacArthur Park. Bass posted footage of the operation, showing heavily armed law enforcement and mounted personnel walking in formation across a soccer field.

The Department of Defense said in a statement that the soldiers were on the ground “to ensure the safety of federal agents.”

“We will protect federal law enforcement and assist by establishing a security perimeter.”

The results and nature of the operation were unknown.

Bass lambasted the Trump administration during a press conference later Monday for deploying troops to the park, which she said displaced children attending a summer camp there. She said the operation was part of Trump’s “political agenda of provoking fear and terror.”

“Frankly, it is outrageous and un-American that we have federal armed vehicles in our parks when nothing is going on in the parks. It’s outrageous and un-American that the federal government seized our state’s National Guard. It’s outrageous and un-American that we have U.S. Marines who are trained to kill foreign soldiers overseas deployed in our American city.

Trump seized and then deployed some 2,000 California National Guardsmen to Los Angeles in response to protests erupting June 6 in response to Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. Since then, more than 4,000 Guardsmen and hundreds of U.S. Marines have been deployed in the city to aid federal immigration operations.

The New York real estate mogul returned to the White House in January after employing often derogatory rhetoric and misinformation about migrants during his campaign in support of his plans to conduct mass deportations.

Amid his second term, Trump has tried to make good on his campaign promises, but has attracted criticism for attacking the due process rights of migrants as well as facing litigation.

Bass chastised Trump’s immigration policy of deploying U.S. troops in American cities for trying to instill fear and stoke chaos.

“Home Depot one day, a car was the next, armed vehicles and what looked like mounted military units in a park the next day,” she said. “What happened to the criminals, the drug dealers, the violent individuals? Who were in the park today were children. It was their summer camp.”

During a press conference Monday on the six-month anniversary marking the Los Angeles fires, California Gov. Gavin Newsom described what had happened at MacArthur Park earlier in the day as a “disgrace” and “theater.”

“That’s the message from the polluted heart of the president of the United States. That’s the message of the polluted heart of Stephen Miller,” he said, referring to Trump’s White House deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security advisor.

“Those National Guards men and women that were out there protecting people are not being used as political pawns, out there on horseback, running through soccer fields in the middle of the day, timed around announcements and events like this, saying everything you and I need to know about the state of mind of the president of the United States and this administration.”

Source link

‘Making America militarized again’: Use of military in U.S. erodes democracy, veteran advocates say

Spouses experiencing health emergencies alone, because their loved ones are serving on the streets of Los Angeles. Troops fatigued by a mission they weren’t prepared for. Children of active-duty troops left without their parents, who were deployed on U.S. soil.

Such incidents are happening because of the Trump administration’s decision to send troops to Los Angeles, said Brandi Jones, organizing director for the Secure Families Initiative, a nonprofit that advocates for military spouses, children and veterans.

“We’ve heard from families who have a concern that what their loved ones have sacrificed and served in protection of the Constitution, and all the rights it guarantees, are really under siege right now in a way they could never have expected,” Jones said Thursday during a virtual news conference.

A crowd of protesters, some with flags, standing outside a federal building guarded by troops with rifles

California National Guard troops stand outside a federal building in downtown Los Angeles during a June 14 protest.

(Zurie Pope / Los Angeles Times)

On the eve of Independence Day, veterans, legal scholars and advocates for active-duty troops warned that sending troops to quell protests in California’s largest city threatens democratic norms. Under a 147-year-old law, federal troops are barred from being used for civilian law enforcement.

Dan Maurer, a retired lieutenant colonel who is now a law professor at Ohio Northern University, described this state of affairs during the news conference as “exactly the situation we fought for independence from,” adding that President Trump is “making America militarized again.”

Though 150 National Guard troops were released from protest duty on Tuesday, according to a news release from U.S Northern Command, around 3,950 remain in Los Angeles alongside 700 Marines, who are protecting federal property from protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions.

Trump has defended the deployment of troops in Los Angeles, saying on his social media platform that the city “would be burning to the ground right now” if they were not sent. He has suggested doing the same in other U.S. cities, calling the L.A. deployment “the first, perhaps of many,” during an Oval Office news conference.

Troops in L.A. were federalized under Title 10 of the United States code, and their purview is narrow. They do not have the authority to arrest, only to detain individuals before handing them over to police, and they are only obligated to protect federal property and personnel, according to the U.S Northern Command.

Though Marines detained a U.S. Army veteran in early June, the most active involvement they and the National Guard have had in ICE’s activity is providing security during arrests, according to reports from Reuters and the CBS show “Face the Nation.”

“The administration has unnecessarily and provocatively deployed the military in a way that reflects the very fears that our founding fathers had,” Maurer said. “Using the military as a police force in all but name.”

“The closer they [the military] act to providing security around a perimeter … the closer they act to detaining individuals, the closer they act to questioning individuals that are suspected of being illegal immigrants, the closer the military is pushed to that Posse Comitatus line,” Maurer said, referring to the law that prohibits use of troops in a law enforcement capacity on American soil. “That is a very dangerous place to be.”

Other speakers argued that the use of troops in Los Angeles jeopardizes service members, placing them in a environment they were never trained for, and pitting them against American citizens.

“Our Marines are our nation’s shock troops, and it’s entirely inappropriate that they’re deployed in the streets of Los Angeles,” said Joe Plenzler, a Marine combat veteran who served as platoon commander, weapons platoon commander and company executive officer for the 2nd Batallion 7th Marines, which is now deployed in downtown L.A.

Plenzler recalled that more than half of the men he served with in 2nd Batallion came from Spanish-speaking families, and some were in this country as legal permanent residents with green cards and had yet to enjoy all the benefits of citizenship.

Two Guardsmen in uniform at a protest

Members of the California National Guard are deployed at a June 14 protest in downtown L.A.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

“Think about what might be going through their heads right now, as they’re being ordered to help ICE arrest and deport hardworking people who look a lot like people they would see at their own family reunions,” Plenzler said.

Plenzler also contrasted the training Marines receive with those of civilian law enforcement.

“We are not cops,” Plenzler said. “Marines aren’t trained in de-escalatory tactics required in community policing. We don’t deploy troops in civilian settings, typically because it increases the risk of excessive force, wrongful deaths and erosion of public trust.”

During the 1992 L.A. riots, Marines responded with the LAPD to a domestic dispute. One officer asked the Marines to cover him, and they, mistakenly believing he was asking them to open fire, fired 200 rounds into the home.

“Our troops are under-prepared, overstretched and overwhelmed,” said Christopher Purdy, founder of the nonprofit veteran advocacy group The Chamberlain Network and a veteran of the Army National Guard.

“Guard units doing these missions are often doing them with minimal preparation,” Purdy said, stating that many units are given a single civil unrest training block a year.

“When I deployed to Iraq, we spent weeks of intense training on cultural competency, local laws and customs, how we should operate in a blend of civil and combat operations,” Purdy said. “If we wouldn’t accept that kind of shortcut for a combat deployment, why are we accepting it now when troops are being put out on the front line in American streets?”

Each speaker reflected on the importance of holding the federal government accountable, not only for its treatment of active-duty troops, but also for how these men and women are being used on American soil.

“I reflect this Fourth of July on both the promise and the responsibility of freedom. Military family readiness is force readiness,” Jones said. “At Secure Families Initiative, we’re hearing from active-duty families: You can’t keep the force if families are stretched thin — or if troops are used against civilians.”

Added Maurer: “The rule of law means absolutely nothing if those that we democratically entrust to enforce it faithfully ignore it at will. And I think that’s where we are.”



Source link