The history of National Guard deployments in LA: What to know
In January, California Gov. Gavin Newsom approved a request from Los Angeles County to deploy the state National Guard to support law enforcement during the wildfires. Thousands of Guard members were sent to the region to assist in firefighting efforts and to help local law enforcement with checkpoints and patrols in the evacuation areas.
While Vice President J.D. Vance has referred to the protesters as "insurrectionists" and senior White House aide Stephen Miller described the protests as a "violent insurrection," President Donald Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act.
Under the 1807 law, the president may have the legal authority to dispatch the military or federalize the Guard in states that cannot control insurrections under or are defying federal law.
In June 2020, USA TODAY reported that Trump had considered invoking the Insurrection Act over protests in response to the murder of George Floyd, a Black man who died after a former Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck on a street corner in May 2020. Protestors clashed with police across the country, including in Los Angeles, which prompted then-Mayor Eric Garcetti to ask Newsom for members of the Guard to be sent to the city.
At the time, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and others urged against deploying domestic troops to quell civil unrest.
In 1994, a magnitude 6.7 earthquake ‒ known as the Northridge earthquake – shook the San Fernando Valley, which is about 20 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles. The earthquake caused an estimated $20 billion in residential damages, according to the California Earthquake Authority. The Guard was sent as part of the disaster assistance operation.
The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in 1992 by former President George H.W. Bush, when the acquittal of the Los Angeles Police Department officers who beat Rodney King sparked civil unrest in Los Angeles, which left more than 60 people dead and 2,300 injured, according to the Bill of Rights Institute. Thousands of members of the Guard, the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps were deployed in the city.
In 1965, nearly 14,000 Guard troops were sent to Los Angeles amid the Watts riots at the request of the California lieutenant governor, according to Stanford University's Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute.
Contributing: Reuters
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Past National Guard deployments in LA: What to know
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
18 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Kate Merrill was replaced by another white blond anchor at WBZ. That's discrimination?
Merrill goes after WBZ-TV, CBS and its parent company Paramount Global, a former boss, and two Black colleagues who are still at WBZ — anchor seeking $4 million in damages. Not named? at WBZ who took Merrill's morning anchor slot after she left. Perhaps because Ebben is white, and that wouldn't fit Merrill's narrative of what happened. After reading Merrill's 57-page civil complaint, it's hard to take seriously the allegations that her career was harmed because she's white. WBZ-TV should want to diversify its staff, and put on air talent reflects the diversity of the market it serves. Advertisement What is apparent from the court case — which so far only provides Merrill's side of the story — was that there were micro aggressions flying around WBZ's newsroom. Sometimes Merrill felt aggrieved, other times her Black coworkers did. Related : Like the time Merrill accused Mikell of making an 'inappropriate sexual innuendo' about her on air and the station did not discipline him. Or the time Merrill told Mikell he was mispronouncing 'Concord' in a broadcast and, she claims, he confronted and yelled at her. Meanwhile, Cole apparently did not appreciate Merrill's suggestion that she move to Nashville, a smaller market where the younger Cole could become a main anchor. Advertisement Paula Ebben replaced Kate Merrill as a co-anchor on WBZ's morning show. CBS Boston (WBZ-TV) I don't know enough to take sides, though it's clear WBZ is a station where on-air talent didn't get along. More than anything, it looks like Merrill is attempting to cash in on the political moment, hoping her case will end in a big payday from a station owned by Paramount, which recently agreed to pay President Trump Paramount caved because it needed the Federal Communications Commission to bless its merger with Skydance Media, which the FCC then did. The The last thing the new company needs is a high-profile lawsuit alleging discrimination against white people. For the media giant, $4 million is a rounding error, and a settlement with Merrill could be another way to appease Trump, whose popularity comes from white people who feel they've been wronged and that diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts have gone too far. In that sense, Merrill's suit just as savvy as it is sad. Merrill and her lawyers are likely counting on a be held to the same legal standard as everyone else. Advertisement Cornell University Law School professor William Jacobson said he can't speak to the merits of Merrill's case, but noted that lawsuits like hers highlight some of the problems with how diversity policies have been rolled out in many workplaces. 'It's a cautionary tale for employers that you need to be extremely careful when you adopt DEI sort of policies,' said Jacobson, who is also founder of the 'You are now opening yourself up to multiple angles of complaint, from multiple types of people.' Related : Merrill resigned abruptly in May 2024, not long after she was stripped of morning anchor duties following the outcome of an HR investigation that sided with Mikell and Cole. She'd been at WBZ for 20 years, and we never knew why she left. And now we know Merrill had no intention of going quietly. In September, she filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination claiming unlawful discrimination and retaliation by WBZ, CBS, and Paramount. That set the stage for her civil suit. Even if Merrill loses her case, the whole situation is embarrassing for WBZ, CBS, and Paramount. She's getting her revenge with every headline about it all. With a lawsuit like this, it's not likely she'll work again in the Boston TV market. I doubt she wants to. And I'm not sure if she needs the money. Her husband, goalie in the NHL, and now works as a coach with the Boston Bruins. Advertisement Or maybe Merrill is just angling for a job at Fox News. She'd fit right in. Shirley Leung is a Business columnist. She can be reached at
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Why School Desegregation Still Matters In The Digital Age
School desegregation is an old topic and, frankly, one few people want to talk about. It forces us to confront uncomfortable memories of the past. To discuss desegregation, you must acknowledge a system that, for more than a century, assigned Black students to separate schools based solely on their race. These schools were consistently equipped with older, outdated books, substandard facilities, and fewer supplemental educational services compared to predominantly White schools in the same districts. This led to fewer opportunities. Educational inferiority was institutionalized and permitted by law. To suggest that desegregation remains relevant today is even more uncomfortable because it forces us to admit that more than 70 years after Brown v. Board of Education, many of the conditions above still exist. To confound this situation further, the advance of education technology has caused an evolution in inequality that simply carries on the ugly legacy of segregation. As of today, more than 100 school desegregation cases remain open in the federal court system. Nearly all are located in the southern United States. These open cases mean continued education inequality on the basis of race for far too many students.. But today's barriers to educational access reflect both the era we live in and the technologies that define it. In a society increasingly powered by the internet, access to Wi-Fi is a persistent challenge for many families in these districts. The shiny new laptops distributed to students in wealthier areas are a luxury many predominantly Black districts cannot afford. And in this digital age, poverty begets digital exclusion, which in turn begets more profound educational inequity. The current Department of Justice's answer to these open desegregation cases is simple: deny their relevance and push for their closure. I won't dispute that some of these federal court cases may be outdated and should be closed. At the Southern Education Foundation (SEF), we hope to see the day when they can all be closed because the conditions that required them have been corrected. That is the aspiration. But for every situation where a court could rightfully close one of these desegregation cases, I believe there are others where the facts require continued federal court intervention. The calculus has changed. From a thirty-thousand-foot view, the courts have already weighed in. When the U.S. Department of Education tried to terminate the grant that funds SEF's Equity Assistance Center–South, we challenged them in court. Why? Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandates the creation of what were originally called Desegregation Assistance Centers for the purpose of dismantling the Jim Crow system of segregation, specifically in public education. By mistakenly targeting the Desegregation Assistance Centers in its campaign against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, the Trump Administration is effectively eliminating a critical component of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The courts agreed with our position and issued a preliminary injunction against the Department of Education's continued termination of the grant to operate the desegregation assistance center. Shortly thereafter, the Department of Education reinstated our grant. SEF is now conducting an in-depth analysis of several districts still under desegregation orders to develop technical assistance plans that will finally bring these systems into compliance with federal law. Once complete, we will present these plans to the courts to help close these cases in a way that centers on the students. Because these cases began forty or more years ago, before the coming of the digital age we are now experiencing, the new compliance plans must incorporate the new education technology that, unfortunately, is not effectively accessible to students in most of the school districts involved in these open federal court cases. And so we return to the uncomfortable topic of school desegregation. The Black community saw hard-fought gains during the era of busing in the 1970s and 1980s—gains that some might even call a form of reparations. Where integration was implemented successfully, academic outcomes improved for Black and White students alike. But at the same time, we must also acknowledge what was lost. During desegregation, many White families fled rather than send their children to racially integrated schools. They were often followed by more affluent Black families. Black educators lost jobs, Black administrators were displaced, and many schools in Black communities were closed. What remained were large numbers of disadvantaged students attending increasingly under-resourced schools in disinvested communities. The issue has grown more complex in recent years, as changing demographics and evolving definitions of opportunity have, at times, obscured the particular harm that desegregation efforts were meant to address. While I fully acknowledge the barriers faced by other marginalized communities in this country, it is essential to note that none were subjected to the uniquely brutal institution of slavery. Black people were the targets of Jim Crow segregation. Black people were the focus of the post-Civil War amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Black people fought for and were the focus of the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and subsequently, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So yes, school desegregation still matters. In many ways, it is more important than ever. Today, the challenge is different. MacBooks have replaced textbooks. Spotty Wi-Fi access has become as harmful as a leaking roof. The digital divide, due to the sheer speed of technological advancement, can leave students behind faster than ever before. Without intervention, we risk reproducing the very inequities we set out to eliminate decades ago. Our current Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, has said she supports equality but not equity. Let's take her at her word. Let's ask whether students in these districts with open federal court desegregation orders truly have equal educational opportunity. In far too many places, the answer is no.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Pierogi vendor delivers retort after Alan Dershowitz dustup on Vineyard
Miskevich said that when Dershowitz, a longtime summer resident on the Vineyard, approached the Good Pierogi booth that day, 'what was in the forefront of my mind was the fact that this was the high-profile attorney who represented' Epstein and other 'predators and abusers.' Advertisement He said Dershowitz 'consciously decided' to defend and associate with people accused of abusing and harming women. Miskevich said selling pierogi to Dershowitz, who also represented O.J. Simpson, would've been tantamount to endorsing 'his decisions and statements.' 'I have no desire to argue about the legal system in the U.S., or one's right to a fair trial,' Miskevich said. 'But I personally know too many sexual abuse survivors.' Miskevich said Dershowitz's appearance at the booth caused him to 'pause and question my willingness to sell to him, and when I did, he began to harass us, misgender me, and film us without our consent.' Miskevich, who's nonbinary, added that the 'aggression and threats of groundless litigation have been followed by the distribution of defamatory flyers where we conduct business, in an effort to further cement falsehoods.' Advertisement A request for comment was sent to Dershowitz on Thursday morning. In a video statement last week, Dershowitz, who famously had 'And he said 'no,'' Dershowitz said. 'I said 'oh, you you've run out of pierogi? Too bad. [The vendor said] 'no no no, we have plenty of pierogi. I just won't sell them to you.'' Dershowitz said he asked for an explanation, and the vendor replied, ''I won't sell them to you because I don't approve of your politics. I don't approve of who you've represented. I don't approve of who you support.'' Dershowitz said he asked what specifically was objectionable about his political views, but the vendor wouldn't elaborate. 'The clear implication was that he opposed me because I He said that after being refused service, he 'said to the people who were approaching the tent where he was selling his pierogi, 'do you really want to buy pierogi from a guy who won't sell it to somebody based on his politics? I think that would be wrong. You wouldn't buy from somebody who didn't sell to Black people, or gay people, or transgender people, or anything like that.'' In Tuesday's statement, Miskevich said, 'I do not wish to argue with Mr. Dershowitz about Israel. ... I, Krem, am Jewish. Members of my immediate family live in Israel. I love Shabbat and making challah. My friends call me 'Rabbi Krem,' and I have personal relationships with both Rabbis on-island.' Advertisement However, Miskevich added, 'We stand against those who harm or seek to harm others as well as those that would defend them.' The statement followed a Monday X post from Dershowitz in which he called Miskevich an 'antisemite.' 'Don't patronize anti-semites who refuse to sell to Jewish Zionists,' Dershowitz said. 'Fight back against bigotry.' Don't buy perogies tainted with the poison of antisemitism As I correctly suspected, the bigot who refused to sell me perogi — Krem Miskevich — is a notorious anti-semite who is part of an anti-semitic organization that protests Jewish — not only Israeli— cultural events and… — Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) Meanwhile the Martha's Vineyard Times posted video footage of another encounter Dershowitz had at the Good Pierogi booth on Wednesday. With photographers snapping away, Dershowitz said he was asking to make a purchase in an effort to help 'restore community' on the island. Miskevich told Dershowitz the things he'd been saying online about the business were objectionable, and the lawyer said they were true. 'You have proof that I am an antisemite?' Miskevich said. 'You protested the Jewish culture festival last year, which had nothing to do with Israel, with Zionism,' Dershowitz said. Miskevich said they 'disagree' with the suggestion that the demonstration was antisemitic. Dershowitz's association with Trump has In August 2021, Dershowitz and David, the comic and creator of 'Curb Your Enthusiasm,' had a tense back and forth at the Chilmark General Store, according to the New York Post's Advertisement 'We can still talk, Larry,' Dershowitz reportedly said to David on the porch of the store after attempting to greet him. Dershowitz and David used to be friends, Dershowitz later dished to Page Six. 'No. No. We really can't,' David reportedly said. Material from prior Globe stories was used in this report. Travis Andersen can be reached at
