Chaos in Los Angeles as Governor pledges to take Trump to court
Protests are intensifying in Los Angeles following the deployment of 2,000 members of the National Guard as ordered by US President Donald Trump.
Cars were set alight and protestors chained themselves to furniture in a bid to put Los Angeles at a standstill as the violence entered a third day overnight.
On Sunday, the White House confirmed Trump had signed an order to deploy the National Guard with Californian Governor Gavin Newsom hitting out at the President, stating he wanted a 'spectacle.' Cars were set alight and protestors chained themselves to furniture in a bid to put Los Angeles in a standstill as the violence entered a third day overnight. Pic: RINGO CHIU/AFP via Getty Images
President Trump hit back at the Democratic governor as well as the mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social.
On Sunday, rioters were seen setting fire to Waymos driverless cars, and celebrating the havoc by dancing on the roofs of cars, waving Mexican flags and chanting, 'burn, burn, burn.'
The siege has resulted in the self-driving car company halting all services in and around the area. On Sunday, rioters were seen setting fire to Waymos driverless cars, and celebrating the havoc by dancing on the roofs of cars, waving Mexican flags and chanting, 'burn, burn, burn.' Pic: Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
The Daily Mail report that each self-driving robo-taxi is worth an estimated $150,000 (€131,000).
As the protests continue, so does the war of words between the US President and Californian Governor, with Governor Newsom stating that Trump 'wants chaos and [has] instigated violence.'
Taking to X, Newsom warned: 'Those who assault law enforcement or cause property damage will risk arrest. Stay peaceful. Stay focused. Don't give him the excuse he's looking for.'
Los Angeles: don't take Trump's bait.Trump wants chaos and he's instigated violence. Those who assault law enforcement or cause property damage will risk arrest.
Stay peaceful. Stay focused. Don't give him the excuse he's looking for.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Extra.ie
41 minutes ago
- Extra.ie
At least 10 dead and many injured in Austrian school shooting
At least 10 people have been shot and killed in a school in Austria. The shooting occurred at a school in the Austrian city of Graz, with reports varying that the number of people killed in the shooting range from nine to ten. It is understood that at least seven of the victims were students at the school, which has a very heavy police presence, as well as another adult. The perpetrator has also died in the shooting, although the nature of his death is not yet known. At least 10 people have been shot and killed in a school in Austria. Pic: ERWIN SCHERIAU/APA/AFP via Getty Images Ganz Mayor Elke Kahr said that many others have been injured and were rushed to hospital following the shooting, calling the incident 'a national tragedy.' A spokesperson for the Ganz Police said that the area has been sealed off, but declined to confirm how many were killed in the incident. It is understood that the gunman was found dead in a bathroom in the school. 'There is no further danger for the population, but there are several dead,' the spokesperson told Austrian television. The attack saw several deaths, including students at the school, and the gunman has also been killed. Pic: ERWIN SCHERIAU/APA/AFP via Getty Images The sale of pistols, revolvers and semi-automatic weapons are permitted in Austria, which has a heavily armed civilian population. Machine guns and pump action guns are banned, but rifles and shotguns are permitted with a firearms licence, or a valid hunting licence. Members of traditional shooting clubs are also permitted to hold these guns. Despite a recent report finding that there are approximately 30 guns per 100 people in Austria, public attacks are rare — but the country has been hit with several incidents over the last number of years, including back in February, when a Syrian asylum seeker stabbed a teenager to death and injured five others.
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Explainer: is it legal for Trump to use US troops to suppress protests?
In a rare use of military force on domestic soil, the Trump administration has deployed national guard troops and active-duty Marines in Los Angeles to respond to protests set off by its immigration crackdown. US president Donald Trump has long mused about using military force on domestic soil to crush violent protests or riots, fight crime and hunt for migrants living in the country illegally – a move that his aides talked him out of during his first term. Between his two presidencies, he said he would do so without the consent of state governors if he returned to the White House. The state of California and its governor, Gavin Newsom , filed a lawsuit on Monday night seeking to overturn Trump's move, calling it an unnecessary provocation and unlawful. Here is a closer look. READ MORE What did Trump's order do? Trump called up national guard troops to be put under federal control, issuing an order late on Saturday that authorised defence secretary Pete Hegseth to use them to protect immigration enforcement agents, buildings and functions from interference by protesters. As justification, the White House cited recent protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in Los Angeles. The order called for at least 2,000 troops to be deployed for at least 60 days. Trump also authorised Hegseth to use regular federal troops 'as necessary' to augment the work of the federalised national guard units. The national guard consists of military forces in the state, largely part-time troops who have separate, full-time civilian jobs. Normally, each state's governor controls its own guard, directing it to deal with a disaster or civil disorder. But under certain circumstances, federal law allows the president to take control. Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies clash with protesters in Compton on Saturday. Photograph: Philip Cheung/The New York Times On its face, deploying active-duty troops into an American city is an escalation because they fight war full time and, unlike a national guard, may come from anywhere around the country. Legally, both federalised national guard forces and active-duty troops are federal troops, under the control of the defence secretary and the president. What are the rules of engagement? This is unclear. For now, the federalised troops appear to have limited authority, Stephen I Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor, wrote in analysing the order over the weekend. It says the troops can protect ICE agents and federal buildings against attacks by protesters, but it does not authorise them to carry out immigration raids or police the city's streets in general. But Trump's order did not specify any standards for when troops would be able to use force – such as arresting people or shooting them – if his administration deemed a protest to threaten federal personnel, property or functions. Notably, Hegseth has railed against military lawyers who promoted what he saw as unduly restrictive rules of engagement aimed at protecting civilians in war zones. He has fired the top judge advocate general lawyers who give advice on legal constraints. And his remarks since Saturday have not signalled restraint. On social media, Hegseth called protests against ICE in Los Angeles 'violent mob assaults' intended to prevent the removal of migrants living in the country illegally who he said were engaged in an 'invasion.' Police fill the street as they face off with protesters in Los Angeles, California on Sunday. Photograph: EPA Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Security Project, said on Sunday that 'no matter who carries the gun or what uniform they wear, it's important to remember that the constitution – and in particular the First Amendment – applies and troops' conduct is governed by strict constitutional limits.' Is it legal to use federal troops on US soil? Usually it is not, but sometimes it can be. Under an 1878 law called the Posse Comitatus Act, it is normally illegal to use federal troops on domestic soil for policing purposes. But an 1807 law, the Insurrection Act, creates an exception to that ban for situations in which the president decides that 'unlawful obstructions, combinations or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States' make it 'impracticable' to enforce federal law. Trump's order criticised the protests as violent and said they threatened to damage federal immigration detention facilities. 'To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws,' it added, 'they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.' But he did not invoke the Insurrection Act. What legal authority did Trump cite? Trump invoked a statute, Section 12406 of Title 10 of the US code, that allows him to call national guard members and units into federal service under certain circumstances, including during a rebellion against the authority of the federal government. The call-up statute does not, on its face, appear to confer any authority to use any kind of federal troops – whether they be federalised national guard members or active-duty Marines – in the ways Trump has authorised. But Trump also referred to 'the authority vested in me as president by the Constitution,' which may suggest his administration believes he can claim inherent constitutional power as the commander in chief to use troops on US soil in those ways. During the Vietnam War, William Rehnquist, then a lawyer for the justice department before being confirmed to the US supreme court, wrote memos for its office of legal counsel saying that presidents had inherent power to use troops to prevent anti-war protesters from obstructing federal functions or damaging federal property in the District of Columbia and at the Pentagon. Using troops in such a protective capacity would not violate the Posse Comitatus Act, Rehnquist argued at the time. But there was no definitive court test of that idea. Moreover, the nation's capital and the campus of the Pentagon are both federal enclaves, unlike the businesses in Los Angeles where ICE agents are carrying out raids. Must a state's governor consent to federal troops? Not always. But Section 12406 says that orders for national guard call-ups 'shall be issued through the governors of the states.' One of the state's complaints is that Hegseth ignored that provision, notifying the general in charge of California's national guard without going through Newsom. The Insurrection Act would provide a separate basis for federalising California's National Guard or for using active-duty troops without going through a governor. California attorney general Rob Bonta said on Monday that his office had been studying that law should Trump try to invoke it, but he insisted that local authorities were 'completely prepared' to address any developments. Protesters confront police near a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in San Francisco. Photograph: Loren Elliott/The New York Times Using federal troops on domestic soil outside military bases for policing purposes has happened only in rare and extraordinary circumstances, and doing so over the objection of a state's governor is even more unusual. The last time a president used federal troops for domestic policing purposes was in 1992, when then president George HW Bush invoked the Insurrection Act to suppress widespread riots in Los Angeles after a jury acquitted police officers who had been videotaped beating a black motorist, Rodney King. But in that instance, California's governor, Pete Wilson, and Los Angeles' mayor, Tom Bradley, asked for federal assistance. Presidents have not used federal troops without the permission of state governors since the Civil Rights Movement, when Southern governors defied court orders to desegregate state schools. Which troops is Trump using? For now, the national guard troops have come from the California National Guard, while about 700 Marines joining them are normally based at Twentynine Palms in California, said US northern command. But Trump directed Hegseth to 'co-ordinate with the governors of the states' – plural – in identifying which units to call into federal service. That raises the possibility that Hegseth could send troops from a Republican-controlled state, further heightening the political tensions. Another possibility is that the administration envisions expanding the use of troops to other parts of the country. Trump's order is not limited to Los Angeles, stating instead that troops must protect immigration enforcement operations at any 'locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur.' What is the status of the court challenge? California filed a lawsuit on Monday evening. It argued that the Trump administration had violated the procedure required by the National Guard call-up statute in bypassing Newsom. It also argued that local law enforcement could handle policing the protests, and by sending federal troops into the fray, Trump was impeding states' rights protected by the 10th Amendment. It reserves to the states those governing powers that the constitution does not bestow on the federal government. The US justice department has not yet responded to the lawsuit and declined to comment. As events unfold, there could also be lawsuits on behalf of protesters, invoking individual rights such as First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and assembly. This article originally appeared in The New York Times . 2025 The New York Times Company
RTÉ News
3 hours ago
- RTÉ News
How Trump's actions against LA protesters defy all precedents
Analysis: Trump's unilateral decision to take federal control over the National Guard pits the president against the state of California Violence has erupted on the streets of cities across southern California over the weekend, as protesters clashed with agents from the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency detaining people they suspected to be illegal immigrants. The US president, Donald Trump, took the unusual decision on Saturday to deploy 2,000 troops from California's National Guard, despite not being requested to by the state's governor, Gavin Newsom. Newsom has threatened to sue Trump over what he has called "an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act". Other California officials have also denounced the move, with Senator Adam Schiff calling it a "dangerous precedent for unilateral misuse of the guard across the country". Raids by ICE agents have increased significantly since mid-May when the Trump administration threatened to fire senior ICE officials if they did not deliver on higher arrest quotas. Several high-profile wrongful arrests of US citizens have further inflamed tensions. Protests have escalated in California, a Democratic stronghold and a "sanctuary state" where local law enforcement does not cooperate with ICE to detain illegal immigrants. At around 24,000 troops, California's National Guard is the largest in the United States. Each state has its own National Guard unit, a reserve force under the control of the governor which can be called upon in times of crisis – often to help out during natural disasters or other emergencies. For example, in January, Newsom activated several thousand troops to aid relief work during the devastating fires that threatened Los Angeles. In 1992, the then president, George H.W. Bush, backed the call of the then governor of California, Pete Wilson, call to deploy National Guard members to quell the South Central LA riots. From RTÉ Radio 1's Today with Claire Byrne, Los Angeles-based reporter Sean Mandell reports on the ongoing LA protests Now troops are back on the streets of LA. But this time not at the behest of the governor. Trump's unilateral decision to take federal control over the National Guard pits the president against the state of California – and importantly, against a state that has constantly resisted his anti-immigrant agenda. Newsom is seen by many as a possible contender for the Democratic Party's nomination in the 2028 presidential election. Historical precedents Is there a precedent for this? Yes and no. The Insurrection Act (passed in 1807, but revised several times) authorises the president to call on the National Guard in times of crisis or war to supplement state and local forces. This has been codified in title 10 of the US Code, which details the laws of the land. In 1871, the law was revised to specifically allow for the National Guard to be used in the protection of civil rights for black Americans. Legal experts have long called for reform of the Insurrection Act, arguing that the language is too vague and open to misuse. From RTÉ News, Trump calls deployment of troops in Los Angeles a 'great decision' In the past, former US presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson all invoked different sections of the Act to protect civil rights, particularly against segregationist states. While the act implies consent between governor and president, it does not require it. Two examples stand out. On June 11 1963, Kennedy issued executive order 11111 mobilising the National Guard to protect desegregation of the University of Alabama, against the wishes of Alabama governor George Wallace. Wallace's determination to block the registration of two black students, Vivian Malone and James Hood, produced a produced a sensational media moment when Wallace physically blocked the entrance of the university. Local law enforcement stood by the governor. With the state of Alabama in defiance of federal law, Kennedy saw no alternative but to deploy the guard. Less than two years later, in March 1965 Lyndon B. Johnson again deployed the guard in Alabama, bypassing Governor Wallace. In February, a state trooper in the town of Marion killed a young voters-rights activist, Jimmie Lee Jackson. This shooting, along with several violent attacks by the local police on voter registration activists in Selma, inspired a series of marches in support of the 1965 voting rights bill. On the eve of the march from Selma to Montgomery, tensions between local police and civil rights protesters were at a high. In response, Johnson bypassed Wallace and called in the National Guard to ensure, as he put it, the rights of Americans "to walk peaceably and safely without injury or loss of life from Selma to Montgomery". Before last Saturday, this was the last time a president circumvented the authority of the state governor in deploying the guard. But even in this instance, there was an implied request from Wallace, who explicitly requested federal aid in the absence of state resources. The subtext here is that Wallace did not want to be seen to call up the National Guard himself, so he forced Johnson to make that decision, allowing him to claim that the president was trampling on state sovereignty. Insurrection Act But this is not the current situation in California. The LAPD is the third largest police force in the US, with over just under 9,000 sworn officers. While its ranks have shrunk in recent years, it has been responding to the recent protests and unrest. There is no reason to think that Newsom would hesitate to call in the National Guard if warranted. In reality, Trump has invoked the Insurrection Act to protect ICE agents. Indeed, the National Guard has a complicated history of responding to civil unrest. The current situation is in stark contrast with the past, and faces serious questions of legitimacy. It is difficult not to see this as the latest move by the Trump administration to subjugate California. In early January Trump threatened to withhold federal aid to rebuild after the wildfires. In past months he threatened to withdraw all of the state's federal funding to punish it for its stance on campus protests and the inclusion of transgender athletes in women's sports. Unlike his predecessors, Trump has not mobilised the National Guard to protect civil rights against a hostile police force. Instead, he appears to be using this as leverage to undermine a political opponent he views as blocking his agenda. Circumventing gubernatorial powers over the National Guard in this way has no precedent and heralds the next stage in an extended conflict between the president and the state of California.
