Pentagon ends deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles
Roughly 4,000 National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines have been in the city since early June. It wasn't immediately clear what prompted the 60-day deployment to end suddenly, nor was it immediately clear how long the rest of the troops would stay in the region.
In late June, the top military commander in charge of troops deployed to LA had asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for 200 of them to be returned to wildfire fighting duty amid warnings from Newsom that the Guard was understaffed as California entered peak wildfire season.
The end of the deployment comes a week after federal authorities and National Guard troops arrived at MacArthur Park with guns and horses in an operation that ended abruptly. Although the US Department of Homeland Security wouldn't explain the purpose of the operation or whether anyone had been arrested, local officials said it seemed designed to sow fear.
'Thanks to our troops who stepped up to answer the call, the lawlessness in Los Angeles is subsiding,' Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement in announcing the decision.
On June 8, thousands of protesters took to the streets in response to Trump's deployment of the Guard, blocking off a major freeway as law enforcement used tear gas, rubber bullets and flash bangs to control the crowd. Photos captured several Waymo robotaxis set on fire.
A day later, police officers used flash bangs and shot projectiles as they pushed protesters through Little Tokyo, where bystanders and restaurant workers rushed to get out of their way.
Mayor Karen Bass set a curfew in place for about a week that she said had successfully protected businesses and helped restore order. Demonstrations in the city and the region in recent weeks have been largely small impromptu protests around arrests.
Bass applauded the troops' departure.
'This happened because the people of Los Angeles stood united and stood strong. We organized peaceful protests, we came together at rallies, we took the Trump administration to court — all of this led to today's retreat,' she said in a statement, adding that 'We will not stop making our voices heard until this ends, not just here in LA, but throughout our country.'
On Tuesday afternoon, there was no visible military presence outside the federal complex downtown that had been the center of early protests and where National Guard troops first stood guard before the Marines were assigned to protect federal buildings. Hundreds of the soldiers have been accompanying agents on immigration operations.
President Donald Trump ordered the deployment against the wishes of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who sued to stop it.
Newsom sued to block Trump's command of the California National Guard, arguing that Trump violated the law when he deployed the troops despite his opposition. He also argued that the National Guard troops were likely violating the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits troops from conducting civilian law enforcement on US soil.
Newsom won an early victory in the case after a federal judge ruled the Guard deployment was illegal and exceeded Trump's authority. But an appeals court tossed that order, and control of the troops remained with the federal government. The federal court is set to hear arguments next month on whether the troops are violating the Posse Comitatus Act.
The deployment of National Guard troops was for 60 days, though Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had the discretion to shorten or extend it 'to flexibly respond to the evolving situation on the ground,' the Trump administration's lawyers wrote in a June 23 filing in the legal case.
Following the Pentagon's decision Tuesday, Newsom said in a statement that the National Guard's deployment to Los Angeles County has pulled troops away from their families and civilian work 'to serve as political pawns for the President.'
He added that the remaining troops 'continue without a mission, without direction and without any hopes of returning to help their communities.'
'We call on Trump and the Department of Defense to end this theater and send everyone home now,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
15 minutes ago
- Arab News
Trump tries to blame others as tensions rise around handling of Epstein case
President Donald Trump is countering criticism of the Justice Department's failure to release much-hyped records around the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case, trying to place blame on former government officials. On Tuesday, he accused former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, as well as former FBI Director James Comey, of making up such documents. 'I would say that, you know, these files were made up by Comey, they were made up by Obama, they were made up by the Biden ... ,' Trump told members of the press at the White House before departing for an event in Pennsylvania. The president on Wednesday posted on Truth Social blaming Democrats in general for a 'new SCAM' that 'we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax.' Epstein was arrested in 2019 and found dead in his cell at a federal jail in New York City about a month later. Investigators concluded that he killed himself. Trump presented no evidence in claiming that Democrats and Comey tampered with documents related to Epstein's case. Comey was fired in 2017, two years before Epstein's arrest, and has not returned to the government since. Obama was long gone from the White House by the time of Epstein's death. During Biden's presidency, the Justice Department put on trial Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell and secured a conviction against her, but there is zero indication that he or anyone from the White House had anything at any point to do with that case. Comey was a Republican for most of his adult life, but said in 2016 that he was that he was no longer registered with the party. Trump suggested last year that he was considering releasing information about the Epstein case if he won a second term. In February, the Justice Department released some government documents regarding the case, but there were no new revelations. Then, earlier this month, it acknowledged that a months-long review of additional evidence in the government's possession had not revealed a list of clients and said no more files related to the case — other than a video meant to prove that Epstein killed himself — would be made public. The announcement led to outcry from Trump supporters. Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared to intimate in a Fox News interview in February that a client list was 'sitting on my desk' to be reviewed for release. She said last week that she was referring to the Epstein case file generally, as opposed to an actual client list. Bondi and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino then had a contentious conversation at the White House as backlash grew to the Justice Department's decision to withhold records. Trump, members of his administration and conservative influencers have spread unsubstantiated claims surrounding Epstein for years. Conspiracy theories about Epstein's death are a popular trope in right-wing spheres, playing on Trump's repeated promises to reveal and dismantle the 'deep state' — a supposed secret network of powerful people manipulating government decisions behind the scenes. Trump's rivals have recently taken advantage of right-wing fissures over Epstein. Several Democratic lawmakers are calling for the release of all Epstein files and suggesting Trump could be resisting because he or someone close to him is featured in them.
Asharq Al-Awsat
3 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Trial Opens against Meta CEO Zuckerberg and Other Leaders over Facebook Privacy Violations
An $8 billion class action investors' lawsuit against Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and company leaders — current and former — began Wednesday, with claims stemming from the 2018 privacy scandal involving the Cambridge Analytica political consulting firm. Investors allege in their lawsuit that Meta did not fully disclose the risks that Facebook users' personal information would be misused by Cambridge Analytica, a firm that supported Donald Trump's successful Republican presidential campaign in 2016. Shareholders say Facebook officials repeatedly and continually violated a 2012 consent order with the Federal Trade Commission under which Facebook agreed to stop collecting and sharing personal data on platform users and friends without their consent. Facebook later sold user data to commercial partners in direct violation of the consent order and removed disclosures from privacy settings that were required under consent order, the lawsuit alleges. The fallout led to Facebook agreeing to pay a $5.1 billion penalty to settle FTC charges. The social media giant also faced significant fines in Europe and reached a $725 million privacy settlement with users. Now shareholders want Zuckerberg and others to reimburse Meta for the FTC fine and other legal costs, which the plaintiffs estimate total more than $8 billion. The first trial witness, privacy expert Neil Richards, testified Monday morning for the shareholders. 'Facebook's privacy disclosures were misleading,' said Richards, a professor at Washington University Law School. In later testimony, Jeffrey Zients, who served on Facebook's board from 2018 to 2020, testified that consumer privacy and user data were priorities for both management and the board. Nonetheless, he supported settling with the FTC as it investigated potential violations of the 2012 consent order, so the company could move forward. 'It was difficult because this was a lot of money, but I think it was better than the alternative,' Zients said. Asked if the board considered making its founder a party to the settlement, he said Zuckerberg was 'essential' to running the company. And, Zients, who served in both the Obama and Biden administrations, said, 'there was no indication that he had done anything wrong.' The case is expected to run through late next week and include testimony from both Zuckerberg and former Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg. Other witnesses expected in Delaware Chancery Court, where Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc. is incorporated, include board member Marc Andreessen and former board member Peter Thiel. The judge is not expected to rule for several months. Meta had hoped the Supreme Court would dismiss the case. Justices heard arguments in November before deciding they should not have taken it up. The high court dismissed the company's appeal, leaving in place an appellate ruling allowing the case to go forward.
Al Arabiya
4 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Federal lawsuit seeks to stop ICE agents from arresting people at immigration courts
A group of immigrants and legal advocates filed a class-action lawsuit Wednesday that seeks to stop Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers from arresting migrants who appear at immigration courts for previously scheduled hearings and placing them on a fast-track to deportation. The lawsuit filed in US District Court for the District of Columbia against the Department of Homeland Security, Justice Department, and ICE says the arrests of thousands of people at court have stripped them of rights afforded to them under US immigration law and the Fifth Amendment. The large-scale immigration court arrests that began in May have unleashed fear among asylum-seekers and immigrants. In what has become a familiar scene, a judge will grant a government lawyer's request to dismiss deportation proceedings against an immigrant, while ICE officers wait in the hallway to take them into custody. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, one of the groups that filed the lawsuit, said the Trump administration is weaponizing immigration courts and chilling participation in the legal process. People seeking refuge, safety, or relief should not be arrested, detained, and deported without a chance to be heard and given due process, Perryman said in a statement. Messages seeking comment from ICE, Homeland Security, and the Justice Department were not immediately returned. The Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the courts, declined to comment. President Donald Trump has pledged to deport the most dangerous criminals in the largest deportation program in American history to protect law-abiding citizens, but government data on the detentions show that the majority of people detained by ICE have no criminal convictions. The lawsuit represents 12 people who have been arrested at court hearings, along with the Immigrant Advocates Response Collaborative and American Gateways, which provide legal services to people who face potential arrest and deportation when they comply with their immigration proceedings by attending a court hearing. Some of the immigrants have lived in the United States for years and were separated from family members, some who were US citizens, without notice, the lawsuit said. Others fled persecution in their home countries and requested asylum, but those requests were quashed when the government lawyer dismissed their case. Priyanka Gandhi-Abriano, interim CEO for Immigrant Advocates Response Collaborative, said the arrests are a deliberate attempt to intimidate people. 'Our friends, neighbors, and families are told to do it the right way – to follow the legal process,' Gandhi-Abriano said in a statement. 'They're doing just that – showing up to court, complying with the law. Despite this, they're being arrested and detained.' Homeland Security officials have defended the practice, saying the Trump administration is implementing the rule of law after former President Joe Biden's catch and release policy that allowed millions of unvetted illegal aliens to be let loose on American streets. They said if a person has a credible fear claim, they can continue in the immigration proceedings, but if not claim is found, they'll be subject to swift deportation. Keren Zwick, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center, said, 'We are witnessing an authoritarian takeover of the US immigration court system by the Trump administration. The people attending the hearings to seek permission to stay in the US, but they're being rounded up and abruptly ripped from their families, homes, and livelihoods. Meanwhile, the administration is issuing directives telling immigration judges to violate those same immigration laws and strip people of fundamental due process rights,' Zwick said. 'We must continue fighting to overcome the administration's escalating attacks on the US Constitution and rule of law.'
