Live Updates: Tensions Flare Between Protesters and Law Enforcement in L.A.
News Analysis
National Guard troops in Los Angeles on Sunday. Gov. Gavin Newsom of California has formally asked the Trump administration to remove them.
It is the fight President Trump had been waiting for, a showdown with a top political rival in a deep blue state over an issue core to his political agenda.
In bypassing the authority of Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, a Democrat, to call in the National Guard to quell protests in the Los Angeles area over his administration's efforts to deport more migrants, Mr. Trump is now pushing the boundaries of presidential authority and stoking criticism that he is inflaming the situation for political gain.
Local and state authorities had not sought help in dealing with the scattered protests that erupted after an immigration raid on Friday in the garment district. But Mr. Trump and his top aides leaned into the confrontation with California leaders on Sunday, portraying the demonstrations as an existential threat to the country — setting in motion an aggressive federal response that in turn sparked new protests across the city.
As more demonstrators took to the streets, the president wrote on social media that Los Angeles was being 'invaded and occupied' by 'violent, insurrectionist mobs,' and directed three of his top cabinet officials to take any actions necessary to 'liberate Los Angeles from the Migrant Invasion.'
'Nobody's going to spit on our police officers. Nobody's going to spit on our military,' Mr. Trump told reporters as he headed to Camp David on Sunday, although it was unclear whether any such incidents had occurred. 'That happens, they get hit very hard.'
The president declined to say whether he planned to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act, which allows for the use of federal troops on domestic soil to quell a rebellion. But either way, he added, 'we're going to have troops everywhere.'
Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, posted on social media that 'this is a fight to save civilization.'
Mr. Trump's decision to deploy at least 2,000 members of the California National Guard is the latest example of his willingness and, at times, an eagerness to shatter norms to pursue his political goals and bypass limits on presidential power. The last president to send in the National Guard for a domestic operation without a request from the state's governor, Lyndon B. Johnson, did so in 1965, to protect civil rights demonstrators in Alabama.
Image
President Donald Trump in New Jersey on Sunday. On social media, he, his aides and allies have sought to frame the demonstrations against immigration officials on their own terms.
Credit...
Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times
But aides and allies of the president say the events unfolding in Los Angeles provide an almost perfect distillation of why Mr. Trump was elected in November.
'It could not be clearer,' said Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker and ally of the president who noted that Mr. Trump had been focused on immigration enforcement since 2015. 'One side is for enforcing the law and protecting Americans, and the other side is for defending illegals and being on the side of the people who break the law.'
Sporadic protests have occurred across the country in recent days as federal agents have descended on Los Angeles and other cities searching workplaces for undocumented immigrants, part of an expanded effort by the administration to ramp up the number of daily deportations.
On social media, Mr. Trump, his aides and allies have sought to frame the demonstrations against immigration officials on their own terms. They have shared images and videos of the most violent episodes — focusing particularly on examples of protesters lashing out at federal agents — even as many remained peaceful. Officials also zeroed in on demonstrators waving flags of other countries, including Mexico and El Salvador, as evidence of a foreign invasion.
'Illegal criminal aliens and violent mobs have been committing arson, throwing rocks at vehicles, and attacking federal law enforcement for days,' wrote Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary.
Mr. Newsom, whom the president refers to as 'Newscum,' has long been a foil for Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly targeted California and its leader as emblematic of failures of the Democratic Party.
'We expected this, we prepared for this,' Mr. Newsom said in a statement to The New York Times. 'This is not surprising — for them to succeed, California must fail, and so they're going to try everything in their tired playbook despite the evidence against them.'
Image
Law enforcement officers and members of the California National Guard engaged protesters in downtown Los Angeles on Sunday.
Credit...
Gabriela Bhaskar/The New York Times
On Sunday, the governor sent a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth formally requesting that Mr. Trump rescind the call-up of the National Guard, saying federal actions were inflaming the situation.
He was echoed by other Democratic officials, who said the mounting demonstrations were the result of Mr. Trump's own actions.
The president and his aides 'are masters of misinformation and disinformation,' Senator Alex Padilla of California, a Democrat, said in an interview. 'They create a crisis of their own making and come in with all the theatrics and cruelty of immigration enforcement. They should not be surprised in a community like Los Angeles they will be met by demonstrators who are very passionate about standing up for fundamental rights and due process.'
Republicans defended Mr. Trump's moves, saying he was rightfully exercising his power to protect public safety.
'The president is extremely concerned about the safety of federal officials in L.A. right now who have been subject to acts of violence and harassment and obstruction,' Representative Kevin Kiley, Republican of California, said in an interview.
He added: 'We are in this moment because of a series of reckless decisions by California's political leaders, the aiding and abetting the open-border policies of President Biden.'
Trump officials said on Sunday that they were ready to escalate their response even more, if necessary. Tom Homan, the president's border czar, suggested in an interview with NBC News that the administration would arrest anyone, including public officials, who interfered with immigration enforcement activities, which he said would continue in California and across the country.
Image
Protesters in Pasadena, Calif., on Sunday.
Credit...
Alex Welsh for The New York Times
Mr. Trump appears to be deploying against California a similar playbook that he has used to punish universities, law firms and other institutions and individuals that he views as political adversaries.
Last month, he threatened to strip 'large scale' federal funding from California 'maybe permanently' over the inclusion of transgender athletes in women's sports. And in recent days, his administration said it would pull roughly $4 billion in federal funding for California's high-speed train, which would further delay a project that has long been plagued by delays and funding shortages.
'Everything he's done to attack California or anybody he fears isn't supportive of him is going to continue to be an obsession of his,' Mr. Padilla said. 'He may think it plays smart for his base, but it's actually been bad for the country.'
White House officials said there was a different common denominator that explains Mr. Trump's actions both against institutions like Harvard and immigration protests in Los Angeles.
'For years Democrat-run cities and institutions have failed the American people, by both choice and incompetence,' Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement.
'In each instance,' she added, 'the president took necessary action to protect Americans when Democrats refused.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Southern Baptists vote to seek repeal of ruling that legalized same-sex marriage
Delegates from the Southern Baptist Convention have overwhelmingly backed a resolution opposing same-sex marriage, even urging the reversal of the Supreme Court's Obergefell v Hodges decision, which legalized it nationwide in 2015. The resolution was passed at the denomination's annual meeting, which hosted more than 10,000 church representatives. While the resolution does not explicitly use the word "ban," it calls for the "overturning of laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v Hodges, that defy God's design for marriage and family," and advocates "for laws that affirm marriage between one man and one women." The resolution also implored legislators to restrict sports betting and support policies that encourage childbearing. Even if the 2015 Obergefell decision were reversed, it would not automatically result in a nationwide ban, as 36 states had already legalized same-sex marriage at the time of the ruling, and support for it remains strong in many areas. However, if the convention got its wish, not only would Obergefell be overturned, but so would every law and court ruling that affirmed same-sex marriage. There was no debate on the marriage resolution. The marriage issue was incorporated into a much larger resolution on marriage and family — one that calls for civil law to be based on what the convention says is the divinely created order as stated in the Bible. The resolution says legislators have a duty to "pass laws that reflect the truth of creation and natural law — about marriage, sex, human life, and family" and to oppose laws contradicting "what God has made plain through nature and Scripture." The same resolution calls for recognizing "the biological reality of male and female" and opposes "any law or policy that compels people to speak falsehoods about sex and gender." It urges Christians to "embrace marriage and childbearing" and to see children "as blessings rather than burdens." But it also frames that issue as one of public policy. It calls "for renewed moral clarity in public discourse regarding the crisis of declining fertility and for policies that support the bearing and raising of children within intact, married families." It laments that modern culture is "pursuing willful childlessness which contributes to a declining fertility rate," echoing a growing subject of discourse on the religious and political right. The pornography resolution, which had no debate, calls such material destructive, addictive and exploitive and says governments have the power to ban it. The sports betting resolution draws on Southern Baptists' historic opposition to gambling. It called sports betting "harmful and predatory." Andrew Walker, chair of the Committee on Resolutions, said at a news conference that the marriage resolution shows that Southern Baptists aren't going along with the widespread social acceptance of same-sex marriage. But Walker, a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, acknowledged that a realistic rollback strategy would require incremental steps, such as seeking to overturn Obergefell. "I'm clear-eyed about the difficulties and the headwinds in this resolution," he said. The two-day annual meeting began Tuesday morning with praise sessions and optimistic reports about growing numbers of baptisms. But casting a pall over the gathering is the recent death of one of the most high-profile whistleblowers in the Southern Baptists' scandal of sexual abuse. Jennifer Lyell, a onetime denominational publishing executive who went public in 2019 with allegations that she had been sexually abused by a seminary professor while a student, died Saturday at 47. She "suffered catastrophic strokes," a friend and fellow advocate, Rachael Denhollander, posted Sunday on X. Friends reported that the backlash Lyell received after going public with her report took a devastating toll on her. Several abuse survivors and advocates for reform, who previously had a prominent presence in recent SBC meetings, are skipping this year's gathering, citing lack of progress by the convention. Two people sought to fill that void, standing vigil outside of the meeting at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center Dallas as attendees walked by. The pair held up signs with photos of Lyell and of Gareld Duane Rollins, who died earlier this spring and who was among those who accused longtime SBC power broker Paul Pressler of sexual abuse. "It's not a healthy thing for them (survivors) to be here," said Johnna Harris, host of a podcast on abuse in evangelical ministries. "I felt like it was important for someone to show up. I want people to know there are people who care." The SBC Executive Committee, in a 2022 apology, acknowledged "its failure to adequately listen, protect, and care for Jennifer Lyell when she came forward to share her story." It also acknowledged the denomination's official news agency had not accurately reported the situation as "sexual abuse by a trusted minister in a position of power at a Southern Baptist seminary." SBC officials issued statements this week lamenting Lyell's death, but her fellow advocates have denounced what they say is a failure to implement reforms. The SBC's 2022 meeting voted overwhelmingly to create a way to track pastors and other church workers credibly accused of sex abuse. That came shortly after the release of a blockbuster report by an outside consultant, which said Southern Baptist leaders mishandled abuse cases and stonewalled victims for years. But the denomination's Executive Committee president, Jeff Iorg, said earlier this year that creating a database is not a focus and that the committee instead plans to refer churches to existing databases of sex offenders and focus on education about abuse prevention. The committee administers the denomination's day-to-day business. Advocates for reform don't see those approaches as adequate. It is the latest instance of "officials trailing out hollow words, impotent task forces and phony dog-and-pony shows of reform," abuse survivor and longtime advocate Christa Brown wrote on Baptist News Global, which is not SBC-affiliated. In a related action, the Executive Committee will also be seeking $3 million in convention funding for ongoing legal expenses related to abuse cases.
34 minutes ago
Judge tosses lawsuit over Trump's firing of US African Development Foundation board members
A federal judge has tossed out a lawsuit over President Donald Trump's dismantling of a U.S. federal agency that invests in African small businesses. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., dismissed the case on Tuesday, finding that Trump was acting within his legal authority when he fired the U.S. African Development Foundation's board members in February. In March, the same judge ruled that the administration's removal of most grant money and staff from the congressionally created agency was also legal, as long as the agency was maintained at the minimum level required by law. USADF was created as an independent agency in 1980, and its board members must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In 2023, Congress allocated $46 million to the agency to invest in small agricultural and energy infrastructure projects and other economic development initiatives in 22 African countries. On Feb. 19, Trump issued an executive order that said USADF, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation and the Presidio Trust should be scaled back to the minimum presence required by law. At the time, USADF had five of its seven board seats filled. A few days later, an administration official told Ward Brehm that he was fired, and emails were sent to the other board members notifying them that they had also been terminated. Those emails were never received, however, because they were sent to the wrong email addresses. The four board members, believing they still held their posts because they had not been given notice, met in March and passed a resolution appointing Brehm as the president of the board. But Trump had already appointed Pete Marocco as the new chairman of what the administration believed to now be a board of one. Since then, both men have claimed to be the president of the agency, and Brehm filed the lawsuit March 6. Leon said that even though they didn't receive the emails, the four board members were effectively terminated in February, and so they didn't have the authority to appoint Brehm to lead the board. Brehm's attorney, Bradley Girard with Democracy Forward, expressed disappointment with the judge's decision. 'But in our parallel case, Rural Development Innovations v. Marocco, a grantee and two USADF employees have also challenged Marocco's unlawful appointment," Girard wrote in an email. "We are hopeful that the Court will reject the defendants' attempt to ignore the constitutional and statutory requirements for appointing board members to federal agencies.' That lawsuit is still pending before the same judge. In that case, two USADF staffers and a consulting firm based in Zambia that works closely with USADF contend that the Trump administration's efforts to deeply scale back the agency wrongly usurps Congress' powers. They also say Marocco was unlawfully appointed to the board, in part because he was never confirmed by the Senate as required.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Washington AG exploring potential challenge to new federal travel restrictions
Jun. 10—Washington is "taking a careful look" at where it has standing to challenge President Donald Trump's recent proclamation restricting travel from 12 countries, Attorney General Nick Brown said during a news conference Tuesday. "The president says his travel ban is about national security, but this racist order will not make anyone safer," Brown said. The restrictions, Brown said, have stalled medical care, "struck fear" into Afghan refugees who previously aided the United States military and could hinder international students looking to study at American universities. "We are actively looking at ways to challenge this ban, but it will be difficult," Brown said, adding that the Supreme Court has upheld other travel bans in recent years. Trump last Wednesday announced that citizens from 12 countries — Afghanistan, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — would be barred from entering the United States. The president also partially banned citizens from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. In a video posted on social media, Trump said the "strength of the restrictions we're applying depends on the threat posed" and said countries could be added or removed from the list. "But we will not allow people who enter our country who wish to do us harm," Trump said. "And nothing will stop us from keeping America safe." The restrictions continue a trend by Trump, who issued several bans on international travel during his first administration. The first, which barred travel from seven majority-Muslim countries, faced swift backlash and was challenged within days by then-Attorney General Bob Ferguson. "I'll always be proud that Washington state was indeed the first state to take on that first travel ban, the first state to take on Donald Trump, and the first state to defeat Donald Trump in court," Ferguson said. "It is a little difficult to wrap my mind around the fact that we are back here again on another travel ban." Ferguson said that Washington will lead other states on standing up against Trump's orders. "And I want all Washingtonians to know that," Ferguson said. "We have a new attorney general, but guess what? The good news is he is as deeply connected to this issue, and as resolved to stand up against it, as we were eight years ago." Among those feeling the impact of the travel ban is Katia Jasmin, founder and executive director of Creole Resources in Spokane. During an interview Tuesday, Jasmin said the inclusion of Haiti caught her by surprise. Jasmin said the ban could have wide-ranging effects on Spokane's Haitian community, including deepening the existing trauma that many have experienced. Jasmin said the ban could also result in family separation, as many permanent residents or citizens still have family abroad — something she knows firsthand. "I have my brother that lives in Haiti, and he comes to see us, and now he won't be able to come and see us," Jasmin said. Katia's brother, Jay, was set to serve as the best man in an upcoming wedding — plans that seem to be in doubt. "My brother won't be able to see us, so I don't know how long we'll have to wait to be able to see him," Jasmin said. The restrictions, Jasmin said, will ultimately have minimal impact on safety. "If you people are scared of gang members coming to the States, I don't know how we are scared of the gang members; they don't have visas, they don't have anything. I don't think a gang member from Haiti will come here to the United States to do anything," Jasmin said. "So whatever they try to say that it's for, the security or stuff, it's not true."
