California's senators push Pentagon for answers on deployment of hundreds of Marines to L.A.
California's two U.S. Senators pushed top military officials Tuesday for more information about how hundreds of U.S. Marines were deployed to Los Angeles over the objections of local leaders and what the active-duty military will do on the ground.
In a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla asked the Pentagon to explain the legal basis for deploying 700 active-duty Marines amid ongoing protests and unrest over immigration raids across Southern California.
"A decision to deploy active-duty military personnel within the United States should only be undertaken during the most extreme circumstances, and these are not them," Schiff and Padilla wrote in the letter. "That this deployment was made over the objections of state authorities is all the more unjustifiable."
California is challenging the legality of the militarization, arguing in a lawsuit filed Monday that the deployment of both the National Guard and the Marines violated the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which spells out the limits of federal power.
Schiff and Padilla asked Hegseth to clarify the mission the Marines will be following during their deployment, as well as what training the troops have received for crowd control, use of force and de-escalation.
The senators also asked whether the Defense Department received any requests from the White House or the Department of Homeland Security about "the scope of the Marines' mission and duties."
Hegseth mobilized the Marines Monday from a base in Twentynine Palms. Convoys were seen heading east on the 10 Freeway toward Los Angeles on Monday evening.
Schiff and Padilla said that Congress received a notification from the U.S. Northern Command on Monday about the mobilization that said the Marines had been deployed to "restore order" and support the roughly 4,000 members of the state National Guard who had been called into service Saturday and Monday.
The notification, the senators said, "did not provide critical information to understand the legal authority, mission, or rules of engagement for Marines involved in this domestic deployment."
The California National Guard was first mobilized Saturday night over Newsom's objection.
The last time a president sent the National Guard into a state without a request from the governor was six decades ago, when President Lyndon B. Johnson mobilized troops in Alabama to defend civil rights demonstrators and enforce a federal court order in 1965.
Trump and the White House have said the military mobilization is legal under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Forces. The statute gives the president the authority to federalize the National Guard if there is "a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States," but also states that the Guard must be called up through an order from the state's governor.
Trump has said that without the mobilization of the military, "Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated."
Days of protests have included some violent clashes with police and some vandalism and burglaries.
"It was heading in the wrong direction," Trump said Monday. "It's now heading in the right direction. And we hope to have the support of Gavin, because Gavin is the big beneficiary as we straighten out his problems. I mean, his state is a mess."
On Tuesday morning, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass said city officials had not been told what the military would do, given that the National Guard is already in place outside of federal buildings.
'This is just absolutely unnecessary,' Bass said. 'People have asked me, 'What are the Marines going to do when they get here?' That's a good question. I have no idea.'
On Tuesday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta sought a restraining order to block the deployment.
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
31 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Cities brace for large crowds at anti-Trump ‘No Kings' demonstrations across the US
Police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades while officials enforced curfews in Los Angeles and Democratic governors called Trump's Guard deployment 'an alarming abuse of power' that 'shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Governors and city officials vowed to protect the right to protest and to show no tolerance for violence. Advertisement Republican governors in Virginia, Texas, Nebraska and Missouri are mobilizing National Guard troops to help law enforcement manage demonstrations. There will be 'zero tolerance' for violence, destruction or disrupting traffic, and 'if you violate the law, you're going to be arrested,' Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin told reporters Friday. In Missouri, Gov. Mike Kehoe issued a similar message, vowing to take a proactive approach and not to 'wait for chaos to ensue.' Nebraska's governor on Friday also signed an emergency proclamation for activating his state's National Guard, a step his office called 'a precautionary measure in reaction to recent instances of civil unrest across the country.' Advertisement Organizers say that one march will go to the gates of Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, where Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis warned demonstrators that the 'line is very clear' and not to cross it. Governors also urged calm. On social media, Washington state Gov. Bob Ferguson, a Democrat, called for peaceful protests over the weekend, to ensure Trump doesn't send military to the state. 'Donald Trump wants to be able to say that we cannot handle our own public safety in Washington state,' Ferguson said. In a statement Friday, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, urged 'protestors to remain peaceful and calm as they exercise their First Amendment right to make their voices heard.' Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, said his administration and state police are working with police in Philadelphia ahead of what organizers estimate could be a crowd approaching 100,000 people. Philadelphia's top prosecutor, District Attorney Larry Krasner, warned that anyone coming to Philadelphia to break the law or immigration agents exceeding their authority will face arrest. He invoked civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. as a guide for demonstrators. 'If you are doing what Martin Luther King would have done, you're going to be fine,' Krasner told a news conference. Some law enforcement agencies announced they were ramping up efforts for the weekend. In California, state troopers will be on 'tactical alert,' which means all days off are canceled for all officers. Why is it called 'No Kings'? The 'No Kings' theme was orchestrated by the 50501 Movement, to support democracy and against what they call the authoritarian actions of the Trump administration. The name 50501 stands for 50 states, 50 protests, one movement. Advertisement Protests earlier this year have denounced Trump and billionaire adviser Elon Musk. Protesters have called for Trump to be 'dethroned' as they compare his actions to that of a king and not a democratically elected president. Why are they protesting on Saturday? The No Kings Day of Defiance has been organized to reject authoritarianism, billionaire-first politics and the militarization of the country's democracy, according to a statement by organizers. Organizers intend for the protests to counter the Army's 250th anniversary celebration — which Trump has ratcheted up to include a military parade, which is estimated to cost $25 million to $45 million that the Army expects to attract as many as 200,000 people. The event will feature hundreds of military vehicles and aircraft and thousands of soldiers. It also happens to be Trump's 79th birthday and Flag Day. 'The flag doesn't belong to President Trump. It belongs to us,' the 'No Kings' website says. 'On June 14th, we're showing up everywhere he isn't — to say no thrones, no crowns, no kings.' What is planned at the 'No Kings' protests? Protests in nearly 2,000 locations are scheduled around the country, from city blocks to small towns, from courthouse steps to community parks, organizers said. Demonstrations are expected to include speeches and marches, organizers said in a call Wednesday. The group says a core principle behind all 'No Kings' events is a commitment to nonviolent action, and participants are expected to seek to de-escalate any confrontation. No weapons of any kind should be taken to 'No Kings' events, according to the website. How many people are expected to participate? The No Kings Day of Defiance is expected to be the largest single-day mobilization since Trump returned to office, organizers said. Organizers said they are preparing for millions of people to take to the streets across all 50 states and commonwealths. Advertisement
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Weather, war and protests threaten to rain on Trump's military parade
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's military parade here on Saturday — a celebration of the Army's 250th birthday that happens to coincide with the commander in chief's 79th birthday — comes at a time when American forces are supporting domestic deportation efforts and Israel's defense against Iranian missiles. The first such parade since Washington welcomed victorious U.S. troops home from the first Gulf War in 1991 — and an echo of similar extravaganzas following the Civil War and World Wars I and II — Saturday's affair will feature more than 6,000 troops, a procession of various types of armored vehicles alongside the National Mall on Constitution Avenue, and dozens of military aircraft cruising overhead. Trump, who relishes pomp, will have his own reviewing stand. But he runs the risk, literally and metaphorically, of watching rain drench his parade. Weather forecasts show a significant chance of precipitation and the possibility of evening thunderstorms. More substantively, the demonstrative show of American force will play out against the backdrop of Trump's inability to leverage U.S. power to fulfill campaign promises to end wars in Ukraine and Gaza. In a twist of timing, the long-planned exercises come the day after the U.S. began providing aid to Israel in shooting down Iranian missiles and days after Trump deployed National Guard and Marine troops to southern California to quell protests against immigration raids. Military parades have a long history in the United States, both at the national level and in local communities, said Barbara Perry, a presidential historian at the University of Virginia's Miller Center. "Humans are drawn to pageantry," Perry said, but she noted a difference between traditional military expositions and Trump's birthday version. "It's usually about the personnel," she said. "Now we know that this president has political issues all around the world, and wanting to show off the might. And if he views it, as in his first term, 'his generals,' and, if he views it as 'his military,' then you tie it to your personal special day of your birthday — that's what's different." Trump critics say he is exploiting the military to nurture his own ego — at a cost of as much as $45 million to taxpayers — and, as he claims sweeping executive powers, presenting himself in the manner of a dictator. For decades, Americans have associated heavily armed military parades with Cold War-era authoritarianism in the former Soviet Union and other countries. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., also made that comparison this week and said he didn't think the parade was the best idea. "I wouldn't have done it," Paul said Tuesday. "The images you saw in the Soviet Union and North Korea, we were proud not to be that." That may help explain why most American adults are sour on the idea. New NBC News Decision Desk polling, released Saturday morning, shows that 64% of adults surveyed say they disapprove of the parade. Protests are planned in Washington and across the country, organized under the slogan "No kings." Trump, who promised to meet protesters with "very big force," has sought to rebut the notion that he is celebrating himself. "It will be a parade like we haven't had in many, many decades here," he said this week. "And it's a celebration of our country. It's a celebration of the Army, actually." Democratic lawmakers pushed back on Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who was on Capitol Hill for a round of hearings this week, over their choices in how to use the military. "You are deploying the American military to police the American people. Sending the National Guard into California without the governor's request. Sending the Marines — not after foreign threats, but after American protesters," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, told Hegseth. 'And now President Trump is promising heavy force against peaceful protesters at his D.C. military parade," she said. "Those sorts of actions, and that sort of rhetoric from the president, should stop every one of us cold. Threatening to use our own troops — on our own citizens — at such scale is unprecedented, it is unconstitutional, and it is downright un-American." Ken Carodine, a retired Navy rear admiral, said in a telephone interview with NBC News that the parade is not just "a terrible idea" but one that many of the servicemembers may not be excited about. "Most of the guys that are involved in either organizing or participating in this thing, it's the last thing they want to be doing. But they can't say anything," he said, explaining that they must follow the orders of their superiors, right up to the commander in chief. "It's a stupid order," Carodine said. "But it's a legal order." Some Republican lawmakers, including those who routinely back the president's actions, said this week that they are not enamored of the idea of the display. "The United States of America is the most powerful country in all of human history," Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said Tuesday. "We're a lion, and a lion doesn't have to tell you it's a lion. Everybody else in the jungle knows. And we're a lion.' Federal officials held discussions Friday afternoon about whether to move the start of the parade, scheduled for 6:30 p.m. after a day of festivities around the National Mall, to try to avoid the dangers and discomfort of possible thunderstorms. They ultimately decided to move ahead as planned. For Trump, it promises to be another moment of triumph, an exclamation point on the 2024 election victory that brought him back to the helm of the most powerful nation on the planet. But while the U.S. military has executed many successful missions in the years since Operation Desert Storm pushed Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991, the more memorable wars for most Americans are the drawn out engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. is not fighting any war abroad right now, and it is not coming off of any recent victory. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars, once supported by the American public, became unpopular over time as they cost the nation dearly in blood and treasure. The U.S. retreated from Afghanistan in 2021 — after 20 years — under an agreement negotiated by Trump and fulfilled by President Joe Biden. "Nobody had a parade for the kids coming back from Afghanistan," Carodine said. "That would have made a lot more sense than what we're doing tomorrow." This article was originally published on
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bill Ketter column: Showdown over federal powers
Federal courts rarely agree with presidents who discount the boundaries of the rule of law. But that hasn't deterred President Trump from his concept of unbridled executive powers. A worrisome example is his dismissive trait for the checks and balances of the co-equal legislative and judicial branches of government ingrained in the Constitution by the republic's Founders 247 years ago. Trump's first term set the stage for radical change with his selection of three conservative Supreme Court justices to join the three already on the nine-member tribunal. He also appointed over 240 federal appeals court and district court judges. Now some of those appointees are among the judges pumping the brakes on his goal to bend the government to his will, which he exaggerates as his electoral mandate. Still, it is damn the torpedoes. Trump's full speed ahead agenda has tested the nation's nerves with a storm of executive orders overriding Congress, firing thousands of federal workers, imposing teeter-totter tariffs, deporting illegal and legal migrants, stretching conflict of interest rules, punishing adversaries and causing economic uncertainty. That's just a synopsis. Trump has already signed over 150 executive orders, many of which encroach on legislative prerogatives or face constitutional challenge. If there is a savior in the system, it is the Supreme Court. Yet our judicial system is the institution most under Trump's thunderous attack. If the high court finds merit in his effort to upend constitutional restraints, the repercussion will be an authoritarian government. Congress and the judiciary will hold supplicant status. That may seem far-fetched. But take a few minutes to reflect on Trump's conduct to undermine the divided authority explicit in our three branches of government. His disruptive rhetoric bears witness. Asked by Atlantic magazine this spring how his second term so far differed from his first term, Trump replied: 'The first time, I had two things to do — run the country and survive. I had all these crooked guys. and the second time, I run the country and the world.' Back in February, Trump ordered a halt to tolls for vehicles entering New York City's traffic-clogged core streets, declaring on his social media site: 'CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING!' In April, after several court orders blocking his worklist, he said: 'We cannot allow a handful of communist, radical-left judges to obstruct the enforcement of our laws and assume the duties that belong solely to the president of the United States.' Then came the Supreme Court ruling in May that Trump could not abruptly deport a group of Venezuelan migrants by ignoring their right to due process hearings in court. The president attacked the justices for 'not allowing me to do what I was elected to do. This is a bad and dangerous day for America.' Dangerous is a word some legal scholars apply to describe Trump's conduct toward immigrants. Due process, after all, is a right required by the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which makes clear 'any person' subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. laws is entitled to it. It is not just the rule of law and the Constitution that have invited Trump's ire. He recently lashed out at the Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization, and the American Bar Association for misguiding him on selecting judges in his first term. He blamed them for bad advice at a time he was new to Washington, relying on their counsel for judges aligned with his political views and sense of justice — even though federal judges take an oath to rule impartially and uphold the rule of law. This time he's insisting on deeper vetting of candidates for judgeships. Foremost, they must be diehard loyalists to his conservative causes, the same principal characteristic used to pick his lemming-like cabinet. That's the legacy of a dictator, not a president who promised meritocracy.
