Thune not sure what authority Trump using to deploy Marines to Los Angeles
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) supports President Trump's deployment of federal resources to quell the riots in Los Angeles, but he's not sure what authorities Trump is relying on to deploy 700 active-duty Marines to a U.S. city.
'I don't know the particulars on what authorities exist there but my assumption is that the administration has been looking carefully at what he can and can't do under the law. Obviously, the 1798 Act is available to them if they choose to exercise it,' Thune said, citing the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which authorizes the president during a declared war, invasion or predatory incursion to detain and deport citizens of an enemy nation.
Thune argued that a federal response was 'warranted' because local authorities failed to contain property destruction and the threat of violence.
'In this case at least there were clear just failures on the part of state and local officials, which is why I think it required the president to take a federal response,' he told reporters. 'There was a security situation out there that needed to be addressed and I think ultimately the president's objective is to keep people safe.'
The Pentagon on Monday ratcheted up the federal response to immigration enforcement protests by mobilizing 700 active-duty Marines.
Trump has also deployed 4,000 National Guard soldiers to the area — doubling the 2,000 he initially mobilized.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) insist the situation was under control before the Trump administration escalated tensions by making a provocative show of force.
Newsom accused Trump of 'intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities and endangering the principles of our great democracy.'
He said Sunday that Trump had taken over the California National Guard because 'they want a spectacle.'
Bass said over the weekend that deploying the National Guard was 'completely unnecessary' and would escalate tensions.
She argued that the Los Angeles Police Department was 'well equipped' to handle protests of actions by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
17 minutes ago
- Newsweek
How Project 2025 Compares With Trump's Los Angeles Response
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's response to protests in Los Angeles is in keeping with suggestions put forth in Project 2025, a political commentator has said. Allison Gill, who worked at the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, said on Wajahat Ali's the Left Hook Substack that the president's military response was "spelled out in Project 2025," a conservative policy dossier. She did not specify how. Newsweek has contacted the Heritage Foundation and Gill for comment by email. The Context Protests against immigration enforcement began in Los Angeles on Friday and have continued, with some isolated incidents of violence and looting. In response, Trump announced the deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to restore order, without California Governor Gavin Newsom's consent. While the president has said the move was necessary to prevent the city from "burning to the ground" amid protests and riots, officials in California have accused Trump of exacerbating the situation in an "unprecedented power grab." A police officer firing a soft round near the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles on June 8. A police officer firing a soft round near the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles on June 8. AP Photo/Eric Thayer What To Know Gill, who served Trump a lawsuit in 2023 accusing him of conspiring to fire her from the Veterans Affairs Department during his first presidency, said sending in the Marines was "propaganda" because the protests were not severe enough to require them. Though she said Project 2025 predicted the president's response to the protests, she did not elaborate on how. Project 2025 is a 900-page document of policy proposals published by the Heritage Foundation think tank. It advocates limited government, border security and tough immigration laws among other conservative measures. The policy proposals have proved divisive, and the president's critics and supporters alike have debated their influence on him. While Project 2025 does not mention the Insurrection Act, a November 2023 report from The Washington Post, citing internal communications and a person involved in the conversations, said the Project 2025 group had drafted executive orders that would use the Insurrection Act to deploy the military domestically. Gill told Ali that she warned people of Trump's potential use of the military to curb protests before the presidential election. "We did everything that we could in leading up to the election in 2024 to tell everyone as loud as we can, they are planning to do this," she said, adding: "Saying he's going to call this an invasion. He's going to call this an insurrection. And he's going to use that to invoke emergency powers so that he can unleash the military on United States citizens and perhaps even suspend habeas corpus so that he can detain his political enemies without due process." "This is scary," Gill, who hosts the Mueller, She Wrote podcast, continued. "This is full-on fascism, full-on authoritarianism." "This is a test case for authoritarianism," Ali added. Before the 2024 presidential election, Democrats accused Trump of planning to implement Project 2025 if he won. While Trump initially called parts of the plan "ridiculous and abysmal," he told Time after his electoral victory that he disagreed with parts of it, but not all of it. He has since appointed a number of people linked to Project 2025 to White House positions. In an October interview with Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures, Trump indicated that he would use the National Guard or the military if there were disruptions from "radical left lunatics" on Election Day. What Does Project 2025 Say? Project 2025 advocates for improved defense infrastructure and for the Department of Homeland Security to "thoroughly enforce immigration laws." The document added that DHS should "provide states and localities with a limited federal emergency response and preparedness." However, it did not say whether this would occur in the context of protests. What Trump's Advisers Have Said Trump's advisers have previously spoken about the use of National Guard troops in other contexts. According to a February 2024 report in The Atlantic, Stephen Miller, now the White House deputy chief of staff, said that Trump—if returned to office—would take National Guard troops from sympathetic Republican-controlled states and use them in Democratic-run states whose governors refused to cooperate with their mass deportation policy. What People Are Saying President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday: "If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can't do their jobs, which everyone knows they can't, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!" Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday: "We will always protect the constitutional right for Angelenos to peacefully protest. However, violence, destruction and vandalism will not be tolerated in our city and those responsible will be held fully accountable." What Happens Next The anti-ICE protests, which have spread to other cities, are likely to continue. Newsom has called on the Trump administration to remove federal troops from Los Angeles.
Boston Globe
17 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Mass. needs competitive pay for defense lawyers
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Legislators ought to listen to the committee. Ensuring that there are enough lawyers to uphold the constitutional right to representation enshrined in the Sixth Amendment should be a legislative priority. Whether in the state budget or in some other legislative vehicle, such as a supplemental budget, lawmakers should find a way to boost compensation rates across all categories of indigent defense, which span criminal, mental health, family law, and juvenile cases. Doing so would cost the state about $29 million annually. Advertisement Massachusetts' minimum bar advocate rate of $65 per hour is an outlier in New England. Maine's minimum rate is $150, New Hampshire's is $125 to $150, and Rhode Island's is $112 for most cases. Current rates in Massachusetts don't reflect the complexity of modern court cases, the overhead costs private attorneys pay out of pocket, or the state's sky-high cost of living. Advertisement The Senate's version of the budget does boost rates — but only for mental health appointments and Superior Court cases. The work stoppage is underscoring the critical work bar advocates produce. Since the stoppage began on May 27, the committee and its in-house counsel have struggled to provide attorneys for all clients that need them. Now, a slew of people accused of crimes are waiting, either in jails or out on bail — more than 150 people in Boston as of June 9, according to the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. These numbers are estimates, and bar advocate participation in the work stoppage varies between counties. But leaders agree that the number of unrepresented clients across Massachusetts is already in the hundreds and will continue to grow. Without representation, defendants are forced to stay in jail for days without arraignment, a violation of their constitutional rights. As early as next week, the Supreme Judicial Court may have to consider implementing the A shortage of bar advocates has put courts under pressure before. In 2019, Hampden County couldn't represent all of its clients, and a court instituted a day rate of $424 to incentivize additional private lawyers to handle arraignments. It was effective — and proved that low compensation really is a dissuasive factor for most private attorneys. Advertisement The legislature shouldn't wait for the crisis to deepen to provide a pay raise for bar advocates. Waiting to act will force more defendants to languish without representation, risking case mismanagement or pouring money into finding other private attorneys willing to do the work. This doesn't have to happen. The best way to solve this issue is to pay bar advocates fairly in the upcoming budget, allowing them to uphold the constitutional rights of their clients and ensuring due process across the Commonwealth. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China affirms trade deal with US, says it always keeps its word
BEIJING (Reuters) -China on Thursday affirmed a trade deal announced by U.S. President Donald Trump, saying both sides needed to abide by the consensus and adding China always kept its word. The deal, reached after Trump and China's President Xi Jinping spoke on the telephone last week, brings a delicate truce in a trade war between the world's two largest economies. "China has always kept its word and delivered results," Lin Jian, a foreign ministry spokesperson, said at a regular news conference. "Now that a consensus has been reached, both sides should abide by it." The Trump-Xi telephone call broke a standoff that had flared just weeks after a preliminary deal was reached in Geneva. The call was quickly followed by more talks in London that Washington said had put "meat on the bones" of the Geneva agreement to ease bilateral retaliatory tariffs. The Geneva deal had faltered over China's continued curbs on minerals exports, prompting the Trump administration to respond with export controls preventing shipments of semiconductor design software, jet engines for Chinese-made planes and other goods to China. Trump on Wednesday said he was very happy with the trade deal. "Our deal with China is done, subject to final approval with President Xi and me," Trump said on Truth Social. "Full magnets, and any necessary rare earths, will be supplied, up front, by China. Likewise, we will provide to China what was agreed to, including Chinese students using our colleges and universities (which has always been good with me!). We are getting a total of 55% tariffs, China is getting 10%." Still, specifics of the latest deal and details on how it will be implemented remain unclear. A White House official said the 55% represents the sum of a baseline 10% "reciprocal" tariff Trump has imposed on goods imported from nearly all U.S. trading partners, 20% on all Chinese imports associated with his accusation that China had not done enough to stem the flow of fentanyl into the U.S., and pre-existing 25% levies on imports from China put in place during Trump's first presidential term. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
