House Republicans launch an investigation into LA riots ahead of No Kings protests across US
On the same day, the U.S. capital is hosting a military parade to mark the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary. This event coincides with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday.
But the protesters want to take away focus from the military parade and instead try to put the focus on an anti-Trump narrative.
'We did not want to give him the excuse to crack down on counter-protesters in DC,' said Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible, one of the groups behind the demonstrations.
'We didn't want to give him the narrative device to say we're protesting the military. Instead, we wanted to make him look as small and weak as he is, and protest everywhere else in the country.'
What does Trump think of this? 'I don't feel like a king. I have to go through hell to get things approved,' he told reporters.
'A king would say 'I'm not going to get this,'' Trump said.
'He wouldn't have to call up (House Speaker) Mike Johnson and (Senate Majority Leader John) Thune and say, 'Fellas you've got to pull this off' and after years we get it done. No, no, we're not a king, we're not a king at all."
Protests erupted across the U.S. earlier this week, in response to the raids against undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles. At times, the demonstrations took a violent turn as self-driving Waymo taxis were set on fire and concrete was hurled at law enforcement officers.
Reports also indicated instances of looting and confrontations with the Los Angeles Police Department. The authorities also arrested individuals who used homemade explosives against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and LAPD.
Levin said he thinks people assume 'a protest has to be everything. It's got to solve all your problems.'
'We need persistent, peaceful, people-powered organizing them on the ground in blue states, red states and purple states that allow people to push back against the escalating overreach from this administration,' Levin said.
On Tuesday, Trump threatened to use 'heavy force' against any protesters who show up in Washington, D.C.
Carlos Álvarez-Aranyos, founder of American Opposition, a political action committee that counters Trump, will be at the frontline of the protest in L.A.
He and his group have participated in thousands of protests since Trump took office, including a National Day of Protest on February 5th.
'There has never been violence at any of them,' he said in a press release.
Álvarez-Aranyos blamed the violence on Trump's immigration policies and his use of the National Guard to protect federal buildings and ICE officers.
He said the deployed troops are 'neither authorized nor trained' to help ICE or deal with civilians.
The raids on migrants in the country illegally are expected to continue for the next few weeks.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem joined masked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on one such raid Thursday.
But the reports from this instance were conflicting. According to KTLA 5, an L.A. television station, ICE targeted a pregnant mother of four in Huntington Park while looking for her husband.
The woman, Sabrina Medina, a U.S. citizen, saw 10 men, dressed in tactical gear and carrying rifles. ICE busted into her bathroom while she was in the shower and asked her to step out of the house. They held a warrant for her husband, David Garcia. But Medina said her husband's name is Jorge and he wasn't home.
Noem stayed outside while ICE agents went through Medina's home.
But Fox News' Bill Melugin pushed back against KTLA's report.
'I was at this operation with Noem. It wasn't targeting a 'pregnant mother', it was targeting her previously deported illegal alien Mexican husband who had been convicted of drug trafficking in February & had an attempted murder charge pleaded down to an assault conviction,' he wrote in a post on X.
'ICE had a criminal judicial warrant for his arrest, signed off on by a federal judge, because he illegally re-entered the U.S. after removal, which is a felony.'
He also criticized Medina for not providing her husband's criminal history. ICE confirmed these details.
The FBI has also stepped in several times, including for the arrest of a protester who provided 'bionic shield' face masks to suspected rioters over the last week.
FBI agents also arrested an individual two days ago for assaulting a federal officer in L.A.
U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli told Fox News, 'We have made it a huge priority to try to identify, locate and arrest those who are involved in organizing, supporting, funding or facilitating these riots.'
L.A.'s sanctuary laws prevent local authorities, like the LAPD, from aiding in enforcing federal immigration policy. But in reality, 'California state prisons regularly cooperate with ICE ... (It) is required by law to identify people subject to deportation within 90 days,' according to NBC News.
Three blue state governors — Kathy Hochul of New York, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Tim Walz of Minnesota — fielded heated questions from the House Oversight Committee.
'Sanctuary policies do not protect Americans,' said Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., who chairs the committee. 'They protect criminal illegal aliens.'
A day later, the Oversight panel launched an investigation into the LA protests amid the federal government's efforts to deported undocumented migrants.
The committee requested documents and communications from Gov. Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass' offices in a letter.
The lawmakers wrote in a letter that Newsom and Bass discouraged Trump from deploying the National Guard to L.A. over the weekend after growing demonstrations.
'You falsely claimed that state and local law enforcement had protests under control, however, police were clearly unable to quell the violence in Los Angeles prior to the arrival of the National Guardsmen,' lawmakers wrote in the letter.
It accused Newsom and Bass of championing sanctuary policies and choosing to not cooperate with federal authorities.
'You have also made it clear that you intend to block the objectives of the federal government, and defend aliens, regardless of their immigration status, criminal activity, anti-American views, or incitement to riot,' the letter added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
Tariff rebate checks in 2025? What we know about current legislation
(WJW) – It's not a pandemic stimulus check, but Congress is currently weighing the possibility of sending the American people more money. As part of the American Worker Rebate Act, introduced by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri in July, people would receive hundreds of dollars in tariff rebate checks, which work to counteract the financial burden imposed on families by the Trump administration's tariffs. As the bill stands now, a household would get $600 for every child and adult – meaning a family of four would receive $2,400. Check amounts go down for those U.S. residents who are making more than $150,000 as a family or $75,000 individually. The bill has not been passed by the Senate or the House, and it must overcome multiple obstacles before being brought to President Trump's desk to sign. However, last month, Trump did say he was 'thinking about' approving a rebate. If the revenue from the latest tariff rollout exceeds projections, the bill leaves room for a larger rebate to be sent out to the American people. So far, there has been no word from Congress or the IRS on the possibility of a fourth stimulus check, like those issued during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. A rebate is a refund of something already paid for, while a stimulus is simply money given to pump up the economy. The U.S. Senate is currently on break for the summer and will be back in action on Sept. 2.
The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
Watch live: Newsom outlines plan to combat Trump, GOP redistricting
California Gov. Gavin Newsom will speak to reporters Thursday afternoon as the mid-decade redistricting battle heats up across the U.S. ahead of the 2026 midterms, a day after announcing the ' Liberation Day ' event. His remarks come as Democrats push back against GOP 'gerrymandering' efforts in Texas that could give Republicans five additional seats in next year's election. Newsom sent a letter to President Trump and red state leaders earlier this week urging them to end the redistricting war. After Trump missed the deadline to respond, the governor said the Golden State would also be redrawing its House maps to counteract attempts to 'rig' the lines in the Lone Star State. The event is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. EDT. Watch the live video above.
The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
How Trump's tariffs could actually work
Economists prefer free trade because it is the best policy for global welfare. But what the debate around tariffs often fails to recognize is that there is an economic rationale for U.S. tariffs of 15 to 20 percent. Large countries like the U.S. have market power, which means U.S. demand affects global prices. Tariffs depress U.S. demand, pushing global prices down. As a result of tariffs, the U.S. imports goods at lower prices and also obtains revenue in the process. Most economists estimate that the optimal tariff for the U.S. is between 15 and 20 percent but could be as high as 60 percent. The major problem with imposing high tariffs is that if our trade partners retaliate with similarly high tariffs on imports from the U.S., the U.S. will be worse off. So, the U.S. wants a tariff if it can act alone, but cooperation on low tariffs is the best policy for all — and better for the U.S. — if the alternative is a trade war. To get a sense of the magnitudes, a recent study estimates that 19 percent tariffs could expand U.S. income by roughly 2 percent and boost employment if other countries don't retaliate. However, the effects on income and employment become negative when other countries also impose tariffs. The basic intuition for the tariff is that foreign sellers want access to the huge U.S. market and are willing to pay a fee for that access. Consider a German auto firm, say BMW, that sells lots of cars in the U.S. If the U.S. places a tariff on German cars, Americans will shift to buying more GMs and fewer BMWs. But the U.S. consumer is hard to replace, so BMW will lower the pre-tariff price of its cars to maintain competitiveness. U.S. consumers face somewhat higher prices on BMWs with the tariff, but the tariff revenue that the U.S. government collects more than compensates for the consumer loss, so the U.S. as a country is better off. Put differently, because the U.S. is large, some of the tariff is paid by BMW. The ability to pressure BMW and other German producers to lower prices only works because of the extraordinary buying power of the U.S. consumer. If, for example, a small country, say Ghana, puts a tariff on BMWs, it would negligibly affect total sales, so this effect would be absent. This market power is similar to the leverage that companies like Amazon and Walmart have to push down the prices of their suppliers because they control such a large share of the market. The problem with using market size to push down import prices is that the U.S. is not the only large country. If other large markets, like the European Union and China, also raise tariffs then everyone is worse off. In a trade war, U.S. exporters will also have a hard time selling abroad, while U.S. consumers will have fewer varieties to choose from and face higher prices. The biggest risk Trump took when he reversed decades of low, predictable tariffs was starting a trade war with tariffs spiraling out of control around the world. Given the recent news of U.S. bilateral trade deals with the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Korea and the EU, as well as a preliminary accord with China, the gamble may have paid off. One after another, our most important trade partners are accepting significantly higher U.S. tariffs without raising their own tariffs on imports from the U.S. Moreover, in addition to accepting higher tariffs on their exports to the U.S., Europe, Japan and Korea are committing to increased investment in the United States. Why are countries caving? The large market is part of it, but the gaping U.S. trade deficit with these markets also matters. It gives the U.S. additional leverage since American consumers are needed to buy foreign goods to a greater extent than American businesses need foreigners to buy U.S. goods. The U.S. military might also factor in, as many of the countries making deals depend on the U.S. for security. The unpredictability introduced may already be depressing investment and hiring, as investors and firms have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Similarly, companies that rely heavily on imported parts and components may be unable to survive in the U.S., leading to job loss in import-dependent industries. Already high, U.S. inequality could get worse if care is not taken since low-income families spend more of their income on goods, making them more vulnerable to price increases. There are also major global threats. The bullying that was part of achieving these trade deals could lead to backlash against the U.S. and its brand with real consequences of sustained loss of U.S. leadership and power in all global matters. The unpredictability introduced may depress investment, as investors have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Domestic political blowback in our trade partners against the U.S. could ultimately create pressure for higher tariffs on imports from the U.S., resulting in a trade war. Variable U.S. tariffs across trade partners — already ranging from 15 to 55 percent — will create trade diversion and administrative costs. Countries could look to other markets and make deals that exclude the U.S., reducing our global leverage. And the list goes on. But if the U.S. government moves on from these trade wins, facilitating a return to predictable policy, and shows more openness to global cooperation in other critical areas, Trump's trade policy could boost U.S. income without major damage to our global standing or global investment. Perhaps this is the hope that has been driving the stock market up. The risks are many and great. But given the (surprisingly) flexible response abroad to date, the policy is not guaranteed to fail as many assumed. One big bullet may have been dodged. .
