troops

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Tuesday questioning both President Trump’s decision to deploy federal troops to Los Angeles and the court’s right to review it, teeing up what is likely to be a fierce new challenge to presidential power in the U.S. Supreme Court.

A panel of three judges — two appointed by President Trump, one by President Biden — pressed hard on the administration’s central assertion that the president had nearly unlimited discretion to deploy the military on American streets.

But they also appeared to cast doubt on last week’s ruling from a federal judge in San Francisco that control of the National Guard must immediately return to California authorities. A pause on that decision remains in effect while the judges deliberate, with a decision expected as soon as this week.

“The crucial question … is whether the judges seem inclined to accept Trump’s argument that he alone gets to decide if the statutory requirements for nationalizing the California national guard are met,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law.

The questions at the heart of the case test the limits of presidential authority, which the U.S. Supreme Court has vastly expanded in recent years.

When one of the Trump appointees, Judge Mark J. Bennett of Honolulu, asked if a president could call up the National Guard in all 50 states and the District of Columbia in response to unrest in California and be confident that decision was “entirely unreviewable” by the courts, Assistant Atty. Gen. Brett Shumate replied unequivocally: “Yes.”

“That couldn’t be any more clear,” Shumate said. “The president gets to decide how many forces are necessary to quell rebellion and execute federal laws.”

“It’s not for the court to abuse its authority just because there may be hypothetical cases in the future where the president might have abused his authority,” he added.

California Deputy Solicitor General Samuel Harbourt said that interpretation was dangerously broad and risked harm to American democratic norms if upheld.

“We don’t have a problem with according the president some level of appropriate deference,” Harbourt said. “The problem … is that there’s really nothing to defer to here.”

The Trump administration said it deployed troops to L.A. to ensure immigration enforcement agents could make arrests and conduct deportations, arguing demonstrations downtown against that activity amounted to “rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”

State and local officials said the move was unjustified and nakedly political — an assessment shared by Senior District Judge Charles R. Breyer, whose ruling last week would have handed control of most troops back to California leaders.

Breyer heard the challenge in California’s Northern District, but saw his decision appealed and put on hold within hours by the 9th Circuit.

The appellate court’s stay left the Trump administration in command of thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines in L.A. through the weekend, when demonstrators flooded streets as part of the nationwide “No Kings” protests.

The events were largely peaceful, with just more than three dozen demonstrators arrested in L.A. Saturday and none on Sunday — compared to more than 500 taken into custody during the unrest of the previous week.

Hundreds of Marines still stationed in L.A.”will provide logistical support” processing ICE detainees, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement Tuesday. Under last week’s executive order, National Guard troops will remain deployed for 60 days.

Arguing before the appellate panel Tuesday, Shumate said the military presence was necessary to defend against ongoing “mob violence” in L.A. streets.

“Federal personnel in Los Angeles continue to face sustained mob violence in Los Angeles,” the administration’s lawyer said. “Unfortunately, local authorities are either unable or unwilling to protect federal personnel and property.”

Harbourt struck back at those claims.

“[Violence] is of profound concern to the leaders of the state,” the California deputy solicitor general said. “But the state is dealing with it.”

However, the three judges seemed less interested in the facts on the ground in Los Angeles than in the legal question of who gets to decide how to respond.

“In the normal course, the level of resistance encountered by federal law enforcement officers is not zero, right?” Judge Eric D. Miller of Seattle asked. “So does that mean … you could invoke this whenever?”

While the appellate court weighed those arguments, California officials sought to bolster the state’s case in district court in filings Monday and early Tuesday.

“The actions of the President and the Secretary of Defense amount to an unprecedented and dangerous assertion of executive power,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta wrote in a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Marines push back anti-ICE protesters in front of the Federal Building during “No Kings Day” in Downtown on Saturday.

(Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times)

“The President asserts that [the law] authorizes him to federalize State National Guard units and deploy armed soldiers into the streets of American cities and towns whenever he perceives ‘opposition’ or ‘disobedience of a legal command,’” the motion continued. “He then asserts that no court can review that decision, assigning himself virtually unchecked power.”

The president boasted he would “liberate Los Angeles,” during a speech to troops at Fort Bragg last week.

In court, Bonta called the deployment a “military occupation of the nation’s second-largest city.”

Los Angeles officials also weighed in, saying in an amicus brief filed Monday by the City Attorney’s office that the military deployment “complicates” efforts to keep Angelenos safe.

“The domestic use of the military is corrosive,” the brief said. “Every day that this deployment continues sows fear among City residents, erodes their trust in the City, and escalates the conflicts they have with local law enforcement.”

The appellate court largely sidestepped that question, though Bennett and Judge Jennifer Sung in Portland appeared moved by Harbourt’s argument that keeping guard troops in L.A. kept them from other critical duties, including fighting wildfires.

“The judges were sensitive to that, and so if they’re ultimately going to land on a ‘no’ for the troops, they’ll do it sooner rather than later,” said professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond. “If they’re persuaded I think they’ll move fast.”

With the issue all but certain to face further litigation and a fast-track to the Supreme Court, observers said the 9th Circuit’s decision will influence how the next set of judges interpret the case — a process that could drag on for months.

“Both sides seem in a hurry to have a decision, but all [the Supreme Court] can do this late in the term is hear an emergency appeal,” Tobias said. “Any full-dress ruling would likely not come until the next term.”

June 15 (UPI) — Mayor Karen Bass said Sunday that Los Angeles does not need National Guard troops to bolster city police amid protests against raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, despite the gatherings turning violent in recent days.

“We don’t want them here,” Bass said on CNN’s State of the Union. “They don’t need to be here. Our local law enforcement have complete control of this situation.”

President Donald Trump deployed thousands of U.S. National Guard soldiers to Los Angeles to assist ICE with immigration raids of locations that were suspected of employing or harboring undocumented migrants.

Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer ruled that Trump must return control of the situation to the Los Angeles Police Department, and that Trump’s deployment of the troops was unconstitutional.

But hours later, a federal appeals court panel lifted Breyer’s order, allowing the soldiers to continue to assist in the immigration raids.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has also been critical of Trump’s troop deployment and said the president overstepped his bounds without first seeking input from state or local officials.

Newsom called Trump a “stone cold liar” in response to the president’s comments that he consulted the California governor before deploying the soldiers.

Immigration raids continue. However, Trump has appeared to be moderating on targeting some workplaces, including some farms, meatpacking plants, hotels and restaurants.

Amid the backdrop of the raids and protests, thousands of people rallied in the streets Saturday to protest Trump’s policies that his critics have called authoritarian. The “No Kings” rallies took place in cities across the country at the same time that the U.S. paraded high0end military equipment through the streets of Washington in an event that was estimated to cost as much as $45 million. Saturday was also Trump’s 79th birthday.

Despite a stinging rebuke from a federal judge Thursday, military forces deployed in Los Angeles will remain under presidential control through the weekend, setting up a series of high-stakes showdowns.

On the streets of Los Angeles, protesters will continue to be met with platoons of armed soldiers. State and local officials remain in open conflict with the president. And in the courts, Trump administration lawyers are digging deep into case law in search of archaic statutes that can be cited to justify the ongoing federal crackdown — including constitutional maneuvers invented to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

Many legal scholars say the current battle over Los Angeles is a test case for powers the White House has long hoped to wield — not just squelching protest or big-footing blue state leaders, but stretching presidential authority to its legal limit.

“A lot rides on what happens this weekend,” said Christopher Mirasola, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

By staying the order that would have delivered control of most troops back to California leaders until after the weekend, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals left the Trump administration in command of thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines ahead of the nationwide “No Kings” protests planned for Saturday.

The Trump administration claimed in court that it had the authority to deploy troops to L.A. due to protesters preventing ICE agents from arresting and deporting unauthorized immigrants — and because demonstrations downtown amounted to “rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”

But U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco wrote Thursday that Trump had steamrolled state leaders when he federalized California’s troops and deployed them against protesters.

“His actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Breyer wrote.

While ICE “was not able to detain as many people as Defendants believe it could have,” it was still able to uphold U.S. immigration law without the military’s help, Breyer ruled. A few belligerents among thousands of peaceful protesters did not make an insurrection, he added.

“The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and ‘rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States’ is untenable and dangerous,” the judge wrote.

The 9th Circuit stayed Breyer’s ruling hours after he issued a temporary restraining order that would have allowed California leaders to withdraw the National Guard soldiers from L.A.

The pause will remain in effect until at least Tuesday when a three-judge panel — made up of two appointed by President Trump and one by former President Biden — will hear arguments over whether the troops can remain under federal direction.

The court battle has drawn on precedents that stretch back to the foundation of the country, offering starkly contrasting visions of federal authority and states’ rights.

The last time the president federalized the National Guard over the objections of a state governor was in 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to protect Martin Luther King Jr. and the Selma to Montgomery March in defiance of then-Gov. George Wallace.

But sending troops in to assist ICE has less in common with Johnson’s move than it does with President Millard Fillmore’s actions a century earlier, Mirasola said. Beginning in 1850, the Houston law professor said, Fillmore sent troops to accompany federal marshals seeking to apprehend escaped slaves who had fled north.

Trump’s arguments to deploy the National Guard and Marines in support of federal immigration enforcement efforts rely on the same principle, drawn from the “take care” clause of Article II of the Constitution, Mirasola said. He noted that anger over the military’s repeated clashes with civilians helped stoke the flames that led to the Civil War.

“Much of the population actively opposed enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act,” the professor said.

Some analysts believe Trump strategically chose immigration as the issue through which to advance his version of the so-called “unitary executive theory,” a legal doctrine that says the legislature has no power and the judiciary has no right to interfere with how the president wields control of the executive branch.

“It’s not a coincidence that we’re seeing immigration be the flash point,” said Ming Hsu Chen, a professor at the UCSF Law School. “Someone who wants to exert strong federal power over immigration would see L.A. as a highly symbolic place, a ground zero to show their authority.”

Chen, who heads the Race, Immigration, Citizenship, and Equality Program at UCSF Law, said it’s clear Trump and his advisers have a “vision of how ICE can be emboldened.”

“He’s putting that on steroids,” Chen said. “He’s folding together many different kinds of excesses of executive power as though they were the same thing.”

Some experts point out that Judge Breyer’s order is limited only to California, which means that until it’s fully litigated — a process that can drag on for weeks or months — the president may attempt similar moves elsewhere.

“The president could try the same thing in another jurisdiction,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice.

“President Trump’s memorandum to deploy troops in Los Angeles made it very clear he thinks it’s appropriate … wherever protests are occurring,” Goitein said. “He certainly seems to think that even peaceful protests can be met with force.”

Experts said Breyer’s ruling set a high bar for what may be considered “rebellion” under the law, making it harder — if it is allowed to stand on appeal — for the administration to credibly claim one is afoot in L.A.

“It’s hard to imagine that whatever we see over the weekend is going to be an organized, armed attempt to overthrow the government,” Goitein said.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, hasn’t budged from its insistence that extreme measures are needed to restore order and protect federal agents as they go about their work.

“The rioters will not stop or slow ICE down from arresting criminal illegal aliens,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a news release this week, which included mugshots of several alleged criminals who had been arrested. “Murderers, pedophiles, and drug traffickers. These are the types of criminal illegal aliens that rioters are fighting to protect.”

Even after the 9th Circuit decision, the issue could still be headed to the Supreme Court. Some legal scholars fear Trump might defy the court if he keeps losing. Others say he may be content with the havoc wrought while doomed cases wend their way through the justice system.

“It’s a strange thing for me to say as a law professor that maybe the law doesn’t matter,” Chen said. “I don’t know that [Trump] particularly cares that he’s doing something illegal.”

Times staff writer Sandra McDonald contributed to this report.

This Saturday, a parade celebrating the Army’s 250th anniversary kicks off in Washington. It will include nearly 10,000 soldiers and dozens of helicopters, tanks and armored fighting vehicles. The 90-minute event is expected to cost $45 million — factoring in the roughly $16 million for anticipated damage to roads not accustomed to such heavy tracked vehicles.

In a recent interview, President Trump promoted the event, which also falls on his 79th birthday: “We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And we’re going to celebrate it.”

Thing is — after 25 years in the Army, from West Point to Iraq — I (like everyone else who’s worn a uniform) can affirm that our equipment isn’t what makes us great. Our Army and all America’s armed services are made of men and women, not metal and wire. The gear always changes; the Americans who serve and sacrifice are the constant.

It’s not just the parade. Other recent events suggest the commander-in-chief could use a friendly nudge toward the right way to honor our military. On May 24, Trump gave a graduation speech at West Point with his red campaign hat on, veered into a five-minute story about avoiding “trophy wives,” blew off the traditional handshake with cadets by saying, “I’m going back now to deal with Russia, to deal with China” — and then flew straight to his golf club in New Jersey.

The next morning, Trump began with a Truth Social message: “HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY TO ALL, INCLUDING THE SCUM THAT SPENT THE LAST FOUR YEARS TRYING TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY.” Which made his next “weave,” during what’s typically a somber speech at Arlington National Cemetery, seem almost tame: “We have the World Cup and we have the Olympics…. Now look what I have. I have everything.”

Of course, neither is exactly the right tone to memorialize those who’ve fallen. (Who even says “happy” Memorial Day?)

But gaffes like this raise a far more important question: How should we honor our military? How ought civilians properly thank those in uniform, past and present?

It can be awkward. I know from experience. I was a 24-year-old lieutenant when I got home from my first yearlong tour in Iraq. I was wearing my camo uniform when someone loudly said, “Thanks for your service!” from about 15 feet away. I didn’t know what to do, so I nodded in response. I was embarrassed at the acknowledgment. Better men whom I served with didn’t come home.

I’m not the first to feel that feeling. Eighty years ago, nearly to the day, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered an address in London just after the end of the Second World War. He said, “Humility must always be the portion of any man who receives acclaim earned in the blood of his followers and the sacrifices of his friends.” Anyone who’s served in real close combat knows full well that when you’re fortunate enough to get to come home, you can be proud, very proud of your service — but you never brag or boast.

So here’s the right way to think about honoring our military: We appreciate a modest acknowledgment — no more, never less — of our unique role in defending our country and way of life.

“No more” because we are not special. Soldiers aren’t movie superheroes — if we were, there would be nothing to honor because there’d be no risk. We come to service from among you. We’re the guy you sat next to in chemistry, the girl you played with on the playground. We’re not always victims, we’re not always villains, we’re not always valorous, and we’re not always victorious. We’re some blend of all these things. Even George Washington, arguably our greatest general, who won the war that mattered most and protected America when it was still in its crib — worried constantly about losing. He was scared because he was human, and so have been all those since who’ve worn an American uniform.

“Never less” because we are unique. We train to get over our fears to fight. We go where we’re sent, not where we choose. We trade soldiers’ lives for our nation’s protection, for objectives, for time, for military value. Nobody ever said this better than John Ruskin. “The soldier’s trade, verily and essentially, is not slaying, but being slain,” the English historian wrote in the 1800s. “Put him in a fortress breach, with all the pleasures of the world behind him, and only death and his duty in front of him, he will keep his face to the front; and he knows that this choice may be put to him at any moment.”

But just as we acknowledge this unique role, we in uniform must also equally appreciate those who make our service possible. For those in uniform aren’t the only ones in America who sacrifice. Imagine the parents who send their only daughter or son into combat — would anyone dare say they do not also risk everything?

Or other forms of service. My mother was a special education teacher in a poorer part of town and struggled for years to give a chance to otherwise forgotten kids. My father was among the first to join the Transportation Security Administration after 9/11. So I’ve seen civilians serving, even when it was hard.

There are some who misguidedly claim military members have a monopoly on service. This myopia is best captured by a bumper sticker shaped in a soldier silhouette: “Freedom Isn’t Free — I Paid for It.”

This claim is as flimsy as the sticker it’s printed on. It ignores those who also contribute to the fullness of freedom: journalists who free the truth, doctors who free us of disease, clergy who free our souls, teachers who free us of ignorance, lawyers who free the innocent, and so many more in society who silently serve every day. After all, each soldier is the direct result of this entire community. And while basic security may be necessary for the exercise of freedom, it’s certainly not sufficient to ensure “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” That takes a bigger American team.

It’s taken me two decades to figure out how to respond to “Thanks for your service.” I now say, “It’s been the greatest privilege — thank you for making it possible.”

That doesn’t cost $45 million or even 45 cents. All it should ever cost is a brief moment of direct eye contact, a few genuinely felt words — and never ever forget the handshake.

ML Cavanaugh is the author of the forthcoming book “Best Scar Wins: How You Can Be More Than You Were Before.” @MLCavanaugh

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was met with sharp questions and criticism Tuesday by lawmakers who demanded details on his move to deploy troops to Los Angeles, and they expressed bipartisan frustration that Congress has not yet received a full defense budget from the Trump administration.

“Your tenure as secretary has been marked by endless chaos,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) told Hegseth. Others, including Republican leaders, warned that massive spending projects such as President Trump’s desire for a $175-billion space-based “Golden Dome” missile defense system will get broad congressional scrutiny.

The troop deployment triggered several fiery exchanges that at times devolved into shouting matches as committee members and Hegseth yelled over one another.

After persistent questioning about the cost of sending National Guard members and Marines to Los Angeles, Hegseth turned to his acting comptroller, Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell, who said it would cost $134 million. Hegseth defended Trump’s decision to send the troops, saying they are needed to protect federal agents as they do their jobs.

And he suggested that the use of troops in the United States will continue to expand.

“I think we’re entering another phase, especially under President Trump with his focus on the homeland, where the National Guard and Reserves become a critical component of how we secure that homeland,” he said.

The House Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing was the first time lawmakers have been able to challenge Trump’s defense chief since he was confirmed. It is the first of three congressional hearings he will face this week.

Lawmakers take aim at Pentagon’s planned spending

Lawmakers complained widely that Congress hasn’t yet received details of the administration’s first proposed defense budget, which Trump has said would total $1 trillion, a significant increase over the current spending level of more than $800 billion. And they said they are unhappy with the administration’s efforts to go around Congress to push through changes.

Key spending issues that have raised questions in recent weeks include plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on security upgrades to turn a Qatari jet into Air Force One and to pour as much as $45 million into a parade recently added to the Army’s 250th birthday bash, which coincides with Trump’s birthday Saturday.

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) quizzed Hegseth on deploying about 700 Marines to assist more than 4,100 National Guard troops in protecting federal buildings and personnel during immigration raid protests in Los Angeles.

She engaged in a testy back-and-forth with him over the costs of the operation. He evaded the questions but later turned to MacDonnell, who provided the estimate and said it covers the costs of travel, housing and food.

Hegseth said the 60-day deployment of troops is needed “because we want to ensure that those rioters, looters and thugs on the other side assaulting our police officers know that we’re not going anywhere.”

Under the Posse Comitatus Act, troops are prohibited from policing U.S. citizens on American soil. Invoking the Insurrection Act, which allows troops to do that, is incredibly rare, and it’s not clear if Trump plans to do it.

The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Eric Smith, told lawmakers at a separate budget hearing Tuesday that the Marines who have arrived in Los Angeles have not yet been called on to respond. He said they have no arrest authority and are there only to protect federal property and federal personnel.

When asked by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, whether a possible use of lethal force by the Marines could result in injuries and deaths, Smith said, “I have great faith in my Marines and their junior leaders and their more senior leaders to execute the lawful tasks that they are given.”

Pentagon learns from Ukraine but will cut funding

Committee members pressed Hegseth on Ukraine’s surprise drone attack in early June that destroyed a large number of Russian bomber aircraft. And they questioned the administration’s future funding for Kyiv.

Hegseth said the strikes caught the U.S. off guard and represented significant advances in drone warfare. The attack has the Pentagon rethinking drone defenses “so we are not vulnerable to a threat and an attack like that,” he said, adding that the department is learning from Ukraine and is focused on how to better defend its own military airfields.

He acknowledged, however, that funding for Ukraine military assistance, which has been robust for the past two years, will be reduced in the upcoming defense budget. That cut means that Kyiv will receive fewer of the weapons systems that have been key to countering Russia’s onslaught.

“This administration takes a very different view of that conflict,” he said. “We believe that a negotiated peaceful settlement is in the best interest of both parties and our nation’s interests.”

The U.S. to date has provided Ukraine more than $66 billion in military aid since Russia invaded in February 2022.

What Hegseth has focused on so far

The panel zeroed in on funding issues, with only a few mentions of other entanglements that have marked Hegseth’s early months. They touched only briefly on his moves to fire key military leaders and purge diversity programs. And there was no discussion of his use of the Signal messaging app to discuss operational details of strikes in Yemen.

Hegseth has spent vast amounts of time during his first five months in office promoting the social changes he’s making at the Pentagon. He’s been far less visible in the administration’s more critical international security crises and negotiations involving Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Gaza and Iran.

Hegseth has posted numerous videos of his morning workouts with troops or of himself signing directives to purge diversity and equity programs and online content from the military. He has boasted of removing transgender service members from the force and firing so-called woke generals, many of whom were women.

He was on the international stage about a week ago, addressing an annual national security conference in Asia about threats from China. But a trip to NATO headquarters last week was quick and quiet, and he deliberately skipped a gathering of about 50 allies and partners where they discussed support for Ukraine.

Baldor and Copp write for the Associated Press. Adriana Gomez Licon in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., contributed reporting.

On June 8, United States President Donald Trump praised the California National Guard for its response to Los Angeles immigration enforcement protests.

“Great job by the National Guard in Los Angeles after two days of violence, clashes and unrest,” he wrote on Truth Social at 02:41 EDT, Eastern Daylight Time, (06:41 GMT) on Tuesday. He ended the post, “Thank you to the National Guard for a job well done!”

But the National Guard had not yet arrived in Los Angeles, according to news reports and a spokesperson for the California governor.

The protests in downtown Los Angeles began on June 6 in response to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids.

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) declared the protests an “unlawful assembly” the same evening and began using tear gas, rubber bullets and other deterrents.

Protests continued throughout the weekend, with reports of vandalism, burning cars and looting. Trump announced on June 7 that he was deploying 2,000 California National Guard members, an action that Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Governor Gavin Newsom, both Democrats, criticised as an unnecessary escalation.

Less than an hour after Trump’s Truth Social post, Bass said the National Guard was not on scene. “Just to be clear, the National Guard has not been deployed in the City of Los Angeles,” she wrote on X.

Later that morning, Newsom criticised Trump’s post praising the National Guard by pointing out the timeline discrepancy.

“For those keeping track, Donald Trump’s National Guard had not been deployed on the ground when he posted this,” Newsom wrote on X.

Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a Newsom spokesperson, told PolitiFact the National Guard deployed on June 8 between 02:00 PDT, Pacific Daylight Time, and 04:00 PDT, which is 05:00 EDT to 07:00 EDT (09:00 GMT to 11:00 GMT).

The first media reports of California National Guard troops on the ground in Los Angeles were on June 8 at about 06:00 PDT, or about 09:00 EDT (13:00 GMT). Here’s what we know about the timeline of California National Guard troop activation and arrival.

June 8 timeline

00:51 EDT (04:51 GMT): United States Northern Command, a Department of Defense sector that assists with National Guard oversight, said on X that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “directed US Northern Command to assume command of 2,000 California National Guard forces to protect federal personnel and federal property in the greater Los Angeles area”. The post said active-duty US Marines might also be called to respond.

02:41 EDT (06:41 GMT): Trump praised the National Guard for a “great job”, criticised Newsom and Bass, and described the protests as violent unrest.

03:22 EDT (07:22 GMT): Bass posted on X that the National Guard was not yet present.

04:32 EDT (08:32 GMT): CNN reported it had “seen no evidence that Guard units are on the ground”.

Between 05:00 EDT and 07:00 EDT (09:00 GMT-11:00 GMT): The National Guard deployed during this timeframe, according to Crofts-Pelayo.

About 09:00 EDT (13:00 GMT): The Washington Post reported that the earliest photos and videos of National Guard members arriving in Los Angeles were captured around this time, which was 06:00 PDT, or 09:00 EDT (13:00 GMT).

11:03 EDT (15:03 GMT): US Northern Command reported that members of the California National Guard had arrived in Los Angeles: “Can confirm that elements of the 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team from the California National Guard have begun deploying to the Los Angeles area, with some already on the ground.”

12:07 EDT (16:07 GMT): US Northern Command announced that 300 members of the California National Guard were deployed to three locations in the Los Angeles area.

12:08 EDT (16:08 GMT): The California National Guard members gathered near the Metropolitan Detention Centre in downtown LA, the Los Angeles Times reported.

12:17 EDT (16:17 GMT): The LAPD announced that the National Guard had been deployed to federal facilities.

About 13:30 EDT (17:30 GMT): The New York Times reported that at 10:30 PDT, “nearly 300 members of the California Guard took positions at three different sites around the city”.

KABC-TV, a local news channel, reported that National Guard members had appeared in downtown Los Angeles and posted video of troops driving through the city of Paramount.

12:29 EDT (18:29 GMT): US Northern Command posted photos of California National Guard members in LA, working with the Department of Homeland Security.

17:06 EDT (21:06 GMT): Trump said he directed federal agencies to coordinate their response to the Los Angeles protests.

18:27 EDT (22:27 GMT): Newsom posted that he “formally requested the Trump Administration rescind their unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles County and return them to [his] command”.

20:03 EDT (00:03 GMT): US Northern Command shared a press release on X announcing that approximately 2,000 members of the California National Guard had been “placed under federal command” to be ready to assist in efforts against LA protests. It reiterated that 300 ​​members of the California Army National Guard were deployed at three locations.

22:23 EDT (02:23 GMT): Newsom said in an MSNBC interview that he would file a lawsuit against Trump for taking over the California National Guard.

PolitiFact researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.

Thousands of protesters have clashed with authorities as they took to the streets of Los Angeles for a third night in response to United States President Donald Trump’s extraordinary deployment of the National Guard.

Sunday’s protests in Los Angeles, a sprawling city of 4 million people, were centred in several blocks of the city centre. It was the third and most intense day of demonstrations against Trump’s immigration crackdown in the region, as the arrival of about 300 National Guard troops spurred anger and fear among many residents.

The troops were deployed specifically to protect federal buildings, including the Metropolitan Detention Center where protesters concentrated.

The crowds blocked a major highway and set fire to self-driving cars. The authorities used tear gas, rubber bullets and flashbangs.

Governor Gavin Newsom requested Trump remove the National Guard in a letter, calling their deployment a “serious breach of state sovereignty”.

It was the first time in decades that a state’s National Guard was activated without a request from its governor, a significant escalation against those who have sought to hinder the administration’s mass deportation efforts.

The arrival of the National Guard followed two days of protests, which began on Friday in central Los Angeles before spreading on Saturday to Paramount, a heavily Latino city to the south, and neighbouring Compton.

Federal agents arrested immigrants in LA’s fashion district, in a Home Depot car park and at several other locations on Friday.

The next day, they were staging at a Department of Homeland Security office near another Home Depot in Paramount, which drew out protesters who suspected another raid. Federal authorities later said there was no enforcement activity at that Home Depot.

The weeklong tally of immigrant arrests in the LA area climbed above 100, federal authorities said. Many more were arrested whilst protesting, including a prominent union leader who was accused of impeding law enforcement.

The last time the National Guard was activated without a governor’s permission was in 1965, when President Lyndon B Johnson sent troops to protect a civil rights march in Alabama, according to the Brennan Centre for Justice.

Activists say Israeli troops have boarded a yacht trying to bring humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.

“Connection has been lost” on the Madleen, the Freedom Flotilla Coalition campaign group said on the Telegram app.

It posted a photo showing people in life jackets sitting with their hands up. The report could not be independently verified.

Climate activist Greta Thunberg is among those aboard the vessel, which is believed to be off the Egyptian coast.

Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz earlier ordered the military to prevent the ship from breaking the blockade of Gaza. Israel says the blockade is necessary to prevent weapons from reaching Hamas.

United States President Donald Trump has ordered the deployment of 2,000 members of the National Guard to Los Angeles County to quell protests against coordinated immigration raids, bypassing the authority of the governor of California.

The extraordinary development came on Saturday, the second day of protests, amid clashes between law enforcement officers and demonstrators in the city.

The Los Angeles Police Department said Saturday’s demonstrations were peaceful and that “the day concluded without incident”. But in the two cities south of Los Angeles, Compton and Paramount, street battles broke out between protesters and police who used tear gas and flashbangs to disperse the crowds.

Local authorities did not request federal assistance. On the contrary, California Governor Gavin Newsom called Trump’s decision to call in National Guard troops “purposefully inflammatory”.

He accused the Trump administration of ordering the deployment “not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle”.

How did it start?

It all started on Friday, when law enforcement officials in full riot gear descended on Los Angeles, rounding up day labourers at a building supply shop.

The raids, part of a military-style operation, signalled a step up in the Trump administration’s use of force in its crackdown against undocumented immigrants. The arrests were carried out without judicial warrants, according to multiple legal observers and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Department of Homeland Security said more than 100 undocumented immigrants have been arrested in two days of raids across southern California.

After word spread through southern Los Angeles of immigration agents arresting people, residents came out to show their outrage, and a police crackdown followed.

What is the National Guard?

It is made up of part-time soldiers who can be used at the state and federal levels. Under the authority of state governors, National Guard troops can be deployed to respond to emergencies, such as the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. It can also be used to tackle social unrest when local police are overwhelmed.

During times of war or national emergencies, the federal government can order a deployment for military service – that is, when the National Guard is federalised and serves under the control of the president.

Can the president deploy the National Guard in a state?

The president can federalise, or take control of, the National Guard in very specific cases.

The main legal mechanism that a president can use to send military forces is the Insurrection Act to suppress insurrections, rebellions, and civil disorder within the country. If certain conditions are met, the president can send in the National Guard, bypassing the authority of the governor, though that is rare and politically sensitive.

Following the breakout of protests in Los Angeles, Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act, but rather a specific provision of the US Code on Armed Services. It says National Guard troops can be placed under federal command when “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority” of the US.

But the law also says “orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors” of the states, making it not clear whether Trump had the legal authority to bypass Newsom.

Trump’s directive ordering the deployment of troops said “protests or acts of violence” directly inhibiting the execution of the laws would “constitute a form of rebellion” against the government.

According to Robert Patillo, a civil and human rights lawyer, Trump’s order will likely face legal challenges.

“Normally, federal troops are going to be used inside states at the invitation of the governor of that state,” he told Al Jazeera, citing the 1992 riots in Los Angeles, which were put down by federal troops invited by Pete Wilson, then-governor of California.

“But if the governor, such as Gavin Newsom, has not asked for federal troops to come in, and these troops are coming in against his will, then there will be challenges … and this will have to go to the Supreme Court in order to determine who has a legal right to deploy those troops,” Patillo said.

Is it the first time Trump has activated the National Guard?

In 2020, Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to respond to the protests that followed the killing by a Minneapolis police officer of George Floyd. Then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper pushed back, saying active-duty troops in a law enforcement role should be used “only in the most urgent and dire of situations”.

Finally, Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act and asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, DC. Those who refused to send them were allowed to do so.

But this time around, Trump has already signalled his unwillingness to hold back on calling in troops. When on the campaign trail in 2023, Trump told supporters in Iowa that he would not be waiting for a governor to be asked to send in troops as during his first term.

“The next time, I’m not waiting,” he said.

The Trump administration announced Saturday that National Guard troops were being sent to Los Angeles — an action Gov. Gavin Newsom said he opposed. President Trump is activating the Guard by using powers that have been invoked only rarely.

Trump said in a memo to the Defense and Homeland Security departments that he was calling the National Guard into federal service under a provision called Title 10 to “temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions.”

What is Title 10?

Title 10 provides for activating National Guard troops for federal service. Such Title 10 orders can be used for deploying National Guard members in the United States or abroad.

Erwin Chemerinsky, one of the nation’s leading constitutional law scholars, said “for the federal government to take over the California National Guard, without the request of the governor, to put down protests is truly chilling.”

“It is using the military domestically to stop dissent,” said Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. “It certainly sends a message as to how this administration is going to respond to protests. It is very frightening to see this done.”

Tom Homan, the Trump administration’s “border czar,” announced the plan to send the National Guard in an interview Saturday on Fox News as protesters continued confronting immigration agents during raids.

“This is about enforcing the law,” Homan said. “We’re not going to apologize for doing it. We’re stepping up.”

“We’re already ahead of the game. We were already mobilizing,” he added. “We’re gonna bring the National Guard in tonight. We’re gonna continue doing our job. We’re gonna push back on these people.”

Newsom criticized the federal action, saying that local law enforcement was already mobilized and that sending in troops was a move that was “purposefully inflammatory” and would “only escalate tensions.”

The governor called the president and they spoke for about 40 minutes, according to the governor’s office.

Other rarely used powers

Critics have raised concerns that Trump also might try to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to activate troops as part of his campaign to deport large numbers of undocumented immigrants.

The president has the authority under the Insurrection Act to federalize the National Guard units of states to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” that “so hinders the execution of the laws” that any portion of the state’s inhabitants are deprived of a constitutional right and state authorities are unable or unwilling to protect that right.

The American Civil Liberties Union has warned that Trump’s use of the military domestically would be misguided and dangerous.

According to the ACLU, Title 10 activation of National Guard troops has historically been rare and Congress has prohibited troops deployed under the law from providing “direct assistance” to civilian law enforcement — under both a separate provision of Title 10 as well as the Posse Comitatus Act.

The Insurrection Act, however, is viewed as an exception to the prohibitions under the Posse Comitatus Act.

In 1958, President Eisenhower invoked the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Arkansas to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision ending racial segregation in schools, and to defend Black students against a violent mob.

Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, wrote in a recent article that if Trump were to invoke the Insurrection Act “to activate federalized troops for mass deportation — whether at the border or somewhere else in the country — it would be unprecedented, unnecessary, and wrong.”

Chemerinsky said invoking the Insurrection Act and nationalizing a state’s National Guard has been reserved for extreme circumstances in which there are no other alternatives to maintain the peace.

Chemerinsky said he feared that in this case the Trump administration was seeking “to send a message to protesters of the willingness of the federal government to use federal troops to quell protests.”

In 1992, California Gov. Pete Wilson requested that President George H.W. Bush use the National Guard to quell the unrest in Los Angeles after police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. That was under a different provision of federal law that allows the president to use military force in the United States. That provision applies if a state governor or legislature requests it.

California politics editor Phil Willon contributed to this report.

Defence Minister Phumtham Wechayachai says Thailand reinforces military presence in response to Cambodia move.

Thailand has reinforced its military presence along a disputed border with Cambodia following an increase in troops on the other side, the Thai defence minister has said.

Tensions between the two Southeast Asian countries have been rising since a Cambodian soldier was killed on May 28 in a brief skirmish in an undemarcated border area.

Since the incident, the two governments have been exchanging carefully worded statements committing to dialogue.

Thailand’s Defence Minister Phumtham Wechayachai, who also serves as deputy prime minister, said on Saturday that Cambodia had rejected proposals in bilateral talks held on Thursday that could have led to a de-escalation.

“Furthermore, there has been a reinforcement of military presence, which has exacerbated tensions along the border,” Phumtham said in a statement.

“Consequently, the Royal Thai Government has deemed it necessary to implement additional measures and to reinforce our military posture accordingly.”

He did not provide further details on the extent of reinforcements by either side.

There was no immediate comment from Cambodia.

In a separate statement on Saturday, the Thai army said Cambodian civilians had also repeatedly made incursions into Thailand’s territory.

“These provocations, and the buildup of military forces, indicate a clear intent to use force,” the Thai army said, adding it would take control of all Thai checkpoints along the Cambodia border.

Thailand and Cambodia have for more than a century contested sovereignty at various undemarcated points along their 817km (508-mile) land border.

Tension escalated in 2008 over an 11th-century Hindu temple, leading to skirmishes over several years and at least a dozen deaths, including during a weeklong exchange of artillery fire in 2011.

On Monday, Cambodia’s Prime Minister Hun Manet said the government would file a complaint with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over the border dispute.

“Cambodia hopes that the Thai side will agree with Cambodia to jointly bring these issues to the International Court of Justice… to prevent armed confrontation again over border uncertainty,” Hun Manet said during a meeting between MPs and senators.

Thailand has not recognised the ICJ’s jurisdiction since 1960 and has instead called for bilateral talks.

Efforts have been made by Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, who is the current chair of the Southeast Asian ASEAN bloc, and China to reduce tensions, but the border remains disputed.

A meeting of the Cambodia-Thailand Joint Boundary Commission – which addresses border demarcation issues – is scheduled for June 14.

ARMY Sergeant Majors are being urged to stop shouting at sensitive recruits, we can reveal.

Rather than barking orders like in war film Full Metal Jacket, they are encouraged to be more like mild-mannered David Beckham.

1

Regimental Sergeant Majors have traditionally been feared as they are responsible for enforcing Army discipline.

But Warrant Officer 1st Class Matt Howarth, head of the Army’s Non-Commissioned Officers Academy, told Soldier Magazine: “There are people who believe the drill sergeant in Full Metal Jacket is what we’re like.

“But the era when people shouted and screamed is long gone — for me, the picture of a good leader is more like David Beckham who never seemed to raise his voice.”

In 1987 film Full Metal Jacket Gunnery Sergeant Hartman bullies a bunch of Vietnam recruits.

Similarly, in 1970s It Ain’t Half Hot Mum, Windsor Davies played fiery Battery Sgt Major Williams.

By contrast, former England footie ace Beckham hardly ever lost his temper on the pitch.

But WO1 Ciar Crow reckoned: “You’d need to convince me that Beckham is the ideal model.

“My assumption is that he is a good leader but I’m not sure he has ‘a good telling off’ in him.

“People need to know Hartman is in you even if he doesn’t often appear.

“It’s no good if all you do is shout, though. My style is more of the disappointed dad.”

May 24 (UPI) — Germany is deploying soldiers beyond its border, moving troops into Lithuania to defend its European neighbor.

Deploying troops to the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius is an indefinite move, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on X, accompanied by photos of him greeting soldiers.

“In Lithuania we are taking the defence of NATO’s eastern flank into our own hands: Together, Lithuanians and Germans show that we are ready to defend Europe’s freedom against any aggressor,” Merz said in the post.

“Germany stands by its responsibility. Today. Tomorrow. For as long as it takes.”

The move marks the first time Germany has installed a permanent military presence in another country since World War II.

Merz last month signaled that Germany would send troops to Lithuania on a long-term basis.

The deployment is meant to shore up the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s eastern flank and to ensure “the security of our Baltic allies is also our security,” Merz said during the event.

German officials expect the 45th Armored Brigade to be at full strength in late 2027. At that point, it is expected to have around 4,800 soldiers and 2,000 vehicles, including tanks and will be headquartered in the Lithuanian city of Rudninkai, near the capital.

Earlier in the month, Merz said Germany planned to build the “strongest conventional army in Europe,” citing a demand from its “friends and partners.”

Lithuania is straddled by allies Belarus to the east and the Russian province of Kaliningrad to the west.

This week, Lithuania accused Belarus of carrying out a massive smuggling scheme and launched legal proceedings against its neighbor at the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

Only a narrow strip of land known as the Suwalki Gap connects Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia to other NATO territories in Europe. The strip straddles the border between Poland and Lithuania and has a small population, making it a potential target for possible Russian military aggression.

In Vilnius this week, Merz mentioned the area while discussing “Russia’s aggressive revisionism” in relation to that country’s ongoing war in Ukraine.

May 23 (UPI) — The Pentagon is sending an additional 1,115 soldiers to the U.S.-Mexico border, U.S. Northern Command announced Thursday.

The troops are being deployed to Joint Task Force-Southern Border to provide sustainment, engineering, medical and operational capabilities, USNORTHCOM said in a statement.

Securing the border has been a top priority of President Donald Trump. On Jan. 20, his first in office, Trump declared a controversial emergency at the southern border, claiming “America’s sovereignty is under attack.”

Two days later, the Defense Department announced the first deployment of some 1,500 troops to the border.

With the announcement Thursday, the deployment grows to some 10,000 troops.

Earlier this month, the Department of Homeland Security asked the Pentagon for more than 20,000 National Guard members to support Trump’s crackdown on immigration.

US President Donald Trump, who promised to end America’s foreign military campaigns, has paid a visit to US troops stationed in Qatar. Trump praised the US’s deadly arsenal, hit out at his predecessor and made fun of France.

The 21-day army operation was part of India’s offensive against the last remaining groups of the Naxalite rebellion.

Indian security forces have killed 31 Maoist rebels in what the country’s home minister called the “biggest operation against Naxalism”.

Amit Shah said on social media on Wednesday that the operation took place on Karreguttalu Hill on the border of Chhattisgarh and Telangana.

“The hill on which the red terror once reigned, today the tricolour is flying proudly … Our security forces completed this biggest anti-Naxal operation in just 21 days and I am extremely happy that there was not a single casualty in the security forces in this operation,” he wrote on X.

India has been waging an offensive against the last remaining groups of the Naxalite rebellion, a far-left Maoist-inspired fighter movement that began in 1967.

The Karreguttalu Hills used to be the unified headquarters of several Naxalite organisations, where rebels were provided weapons and strategic training.

But the Naxalites have been fighting for what they say is the defence of the rights of the tribal people in the region.

At the group’s peak in the mid-2000s, they controlled nearly a third of the country with an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 fighters.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi welcomed the news of the success of the operation.

“This success of the security forces shows that our campaign towards rooting out Naxalism is moving in the right direction,” Modi wrote on X.

“We are fully committed to establishing peace in the Naxal-affected areas and connecting them with the mainstream of development.”

Director General Central Reserve Police Force GP Singh also said on Wednesday that the government is “committed to eliminate” Naxalism by March 31, 2026 “through relentless and ruthless operations”.

According to government data, since last year, Indian soldiers have killed at least 400 rebels.

More recently, 11 rebels were killed by Indian troops in the states of Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand.

In February, security forces killed 11 fighters and killed a further 30 in March.

Moreover, according to a news release by the Foreign Office, 718 Naxalites have so far surrendered in the first four months of 2025.