White House defends crackdown on protesters in LA as Trump calls for California governor's arrest
Members of the Los Angeles Metro Police clash with demonstrators during a protest against federal immigration sweeps in downtown Los Angeles, June 8. PHOTO: REUTERS
Listen to article
California officials blamed President Donald Trump on Monday for inflaming an already tense situation in Los Angeles by sending in National Guard troops, while the White House argued the sometimes violent demonstrations justified ramping up deportation efforts even further.
Trump even suggested California Governor Gavin Newsom be arrested.
As the city faced a fourth day of protests over Trump's immigration policies, Democrats and Republicans clashed over what has become the biggest flashpoint in the Republican administration's aggressive efforts to deport migrants who are in the country illegally.
Earlier in the day, Newsom, viewed as a potential Democratic presidential contender in 2028, vowed to sue the federal government over its deployment of the Guard, calling it unlawful.
"This is exactly what Donald Trump wanted. He flamed the fires and illegally acted to federalize the National Guard," Newsom posted on X on Monday. "We're suing him."
Federal law allows the president to deploy the Guard if the nation is invaded, if there is 'rebellion or danger of rebellion,' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.'
Returning to the White House after a night at Camp David, Trump was asked by a reporter whether his border czar, Tom Homan, should arrest Newsom. Homan has threatened to arrest anyone who obstructs immigration enforcement efforts, including the governor.
"I would do it if I were Tom. I think it's great," Trump replied. "Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing."
The streets were calm early on Monday after protests erupted on Friday when US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents targeted several locations in the city for sweeps as part of the administration's efforts to arrest migrants. The demonstrations continued over the weekend, resulting in a large police response.
The White House contended the protests were a further reason for Republicans in Congress to pass Trump's 'one big beautiful bill' that would increase border security and military spending.
The bill, now in the US Senate after clearing the US House of Representatives, would also slash taxes, cut Medicaid benefits and do away with green-energy initiatives.
'We need the One Big, Beautiful Bill to pass ASAP!' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted on X.
Fiscal conservatives in the Senate, along with former Trump adviser Elon Musk, have balked at the bill's cost, saying it will inflate the nation's budget deficit.
Clash raises newsom's profile
Trump has pledged to deport record numbers of people who are in the country illegally and to lock down the US-Mexico border, setting the ICE border enforcement agency a daily goal of arresting at least 3,000 migrants.
For Democrats, lacking leadership since Trump won the presidential election last November, the Los Angeles protests have served as a rallying point, allowing them to find some political footing while standing up to the administration's policies.
The episode has provided Newsom, serving his second term as governor, with a national platform that has allowed him to portray himself as Trump's chief antagonist.
But it has also underscored the risks of appearing too sympathetic to protesters, some of whom have set cars on fire and thrown bottles at police. During his first term, Trump castigated Democrats for civil unrest during riots protesting the murder of George Floyd, a Black man, by a white police officer in 2020.
In one demonstration of that delicate balancing act, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass blamed the Trump administration for inciting tensions by sending in the Guard, while also condemning protesters.
"I don't want people to fall into the chaos that I believe is being created by the administration completely unnecessarily," Bass told a press conference on Sunday.
Trump accused Newsom and Bass of playing down the violence.
"We made a great decision in sending the National Guard to deal with the violent, instigated riots in California," he posted on social media on Monday. "If we had not done so, Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated."
On guard
US Northern Command said 300 members of the California National Guard had been deployed to three spots in the Los Angeles area. The Department of Homeland Security said the Guard's mission was to protect federal buildings.
Police declared all of downtown Los Angeles on Sunday to be an unlawful assembly area and ordered protesters to go home after a third day of violence hit immigration protests.
During those protests, officers on horseback tried to control the crowds. Some used flash-bang grenades and tear gas, CNN reported.
Demonstrators shouted "Shame on you!" at police and some appeared to throw objects, video images showed. One group blocked the 101 Freeway, a downtown thoroughfare.
Several self-driving cars from Alphabet's Waymo were set ablaze on a downtown street on Sunday evening.
City police chief Jim McDonnell told a media briefing on Sunday evening that people had a right to protest peacefully but the violence he had seen by some was "disgusting."
Asked if the National Guard was needed, McDonnell said police would not "go to that right away," but added, "Looking at the violence tonight, I think we've got to make a reassessment."
Police said they had arrested 10 people on Sunday and 29 the previous night.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
an hour ago
- Business Recorder
China's angry rebuttal to Trump's tariff Tsunami
My reading of China has always been of a country that is sagacious, forgiving and accommodating—an entity flowing naturally through history, shaped by the burden and blessing of over 5,000 years of civilizational legacy. China has long carried the unique distinction of never being an occupying force in the historical sense, never driven by the imperial ambition to rule the world. Despite holding immense power at different junctures in history, China refrained from conquest. Its Great Wall was built not as a launchpad for outward domination, but as a safeguard for inward integration. This tradition of strategic restraint and internal focus has morphed into the philosophical foundation of President Xi Jinping's economic and diplomatic agenda in the 21st century. China's foreign policy, even amid rising global tensions, has maintained its emphasis on win-win cooperation, mutual growth, and infrastructural diplomacy. It does not promote regime change, nor does it meddle in the internal politics of other nations. China's strength lies in its ability to uplift weaker economies through massive infrastructure projects, energy support, port development, and institutional capacity-building. These efforts are not intended to dominate but to elevate. That is the spirit of China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), offering struggling nations an alternative model of growth without conditionalities that mirror neo-colonialism. In contrast, the Trump administration's aggressive 'America First' policy has been marked by an unrelenting tariff war, often in violation of international norms, bilateral treaties, and the principles of the World Trade Organization (WTO). These tariffs were not just protectionist; they were unilateral assaults on the interconnected architecture of the global economy. By weaponizing tariffs, Trump sought to coerce trading partners and reconfigure supply chains through brute economic power. However, in doing so, the administration not only antagonized allies and adversaries alike but also disrupted global trade balances, supply chains, and investor confidence. The global economy is an ecosystem. If one part of it is harmed, the ripple effects are felt across continents. In this context, the Trump tariffs didn't just target China—they undermined the very structure of global trade and collaboration. The United States, which once championed free trade, suddenly became its greatest disruptor. This led to global uncertainty, inflation in various sectors, and rising consumer prices within the United States itself. In response to this unprecedented tariff regime, China issued its strongest economic and diplomatic rebuttal to date. Breaking from its traditional quiet diplomacy, Beijing made it unequivocally clear that it would not succumb to unilateral economic bullying. For the first time, Chinese officials accused the United States of distorting international trade norms and harming global economic recovery. China argued that the United States had, in fact, been the largest beneficiary of globalization. With a massive 25% share in world trade, the US economic dominance was built on the very trade practices it was now dismantling. China emphasized that it did not initiate the trade war but would not hesitate to defend its interests. It pledged to open up its economy further, reduce tariffs, and increase imports—not out of compulsion, but to demonstrate its commitment to global cooperation. This stands in sharp contrast to the inward-looking, protectionist tendencies of the Trump administration. China's response was calm but resolute. It promised to uphold the principles of extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits. It reaffirmed its belief in genuine multilateralism, rejecting all forms of unilateralism and economic coercion. China stood firmly in support of the international system with the United Nations at its core and the multilateral trading system with the WTO at its foundation. China's declaration also emphasized that the vast majority of nations still believed in fairness, justice, and the rule of international law. These countries, it argued, would eventually stand on the right side of history—not because of allegiance to any one superpower, but because equity must triumph over hegemony. Trump, meanwhile, sought to justify the economic fallout from his tariff blitzkrieg by promising future investments totaling $7 trillion. However, even he admitted that the US stock market had lost nearly $6 trillion in value within days. While the theoretical future investment may or may not materialize over four to five years, the immediate damage was undeniable. The American consumer bore the brunt of the tariffs, with increased prices on everything from electronics to household goods. What Trump failed to recognize—or perhaps chose to ignore—is that tariffs on imports function as a hidden tax on American citizens. When tariffs are levied on goods from China or any other country, US importers pass those costs onto retailers, who in turn pass them onto consumers. So, while the US Treasury may gain in the short term from tariff revenues, it is ultimately the American people who pay the price. This disconnect between political rhetoric and economic reality triggered public backlash. Demonstrations erupted across the United States, not just from ideological opponents of Trump but from ordinary citizens suffering from inflation and job insecurity. The symbols associated with Trump's protectionist agenda—banners, flags, and campaign props—became the targets of public outrage, a visible expression of disillusionment with failed promises and mounting hardship. The damage was not just economic; it was reputational. America's standing as a leader of the free world, a promoter of open markets and democratic values, was called into question. The aggressive imposition of tariffs on allies and adversaries alike sent a message that America was retreating from the world stage, abandoning its commitments, and undermining its credibility. What is the via media in this escalating trade conflict? The answer lies in dialogue, cooperation, and mutual respect. Instead of unilaterally imposing tariffs, the United States must return to the table and engage its partners through negotiation, evidence-based studies, and inclusive policy-making. Any trade policy that causes disproportionate harm to a segment of the global population—be it American or foreign—is inherently flawed. Tariffs should be the last resort, not the first weapon of choice. They must be evaluated based on who truly benefits and who bears the cost. If the people of both nations stand to gain, then policy adjustments may be justified. But if tariffs disproportionately hurt consumers, strain diplomatic ties, and fracture global supply chains, then they are not only counterproductive but dangerous. The world today demands cooperation over confrontation. It requires strategic empathy rather than economic nationalism. China's model of infrastructure-led diplomacy and economic integration may not be perfect, but it offers an alternative vision to brute-force protectionism. A world driven by consultation and shared prosperity is far more stable than one governed by unilateral decrees and economic coercion. The battle between tariff wars and trade cooperation is not just a contest of policies—it is a contest of visions. The world must choose between retreating into silos or building bridges across continents. In this defining moment, China's calm and strategic response to Trump's aggressive tariffs may well mark a turning point in the global order. It is a call for equity—not hegemony. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
5 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Newer world order in Trump era — and Pakistan
Listen to article After President Donald Trump's second coming to the Oval Office, the US ways, means and ends of foreign policy are witnessing a transformation. The evolving 'Newer World Order', though dynamic and transitory, needs to be understood. Deciphering President Trump's speeches, announcements, presidential orders, tweets and utterances of last five months, it can be concluded that "trade and tariffs" are the principle means of his interstate relations philosophy. He is well focused at realising his electioneering slogan 'Make America Great Again', for which he is trying to rejuvenate the US economy, bring FDI, reinvigorate the industrial sector, create more jobs, secure US homeland against crimes and illegal immigration, save on extra expenditure made overseas, shift responsibility of defence to self-help by partners and collect more tariffs on imports to reduce taxes on American citizens. His major worry appears to be the back-breaking US debt of trillions of dollars. This approach has been well reflected in his visit to the Middle East where he was successful in securing trillions of dollars of investments and billions of dollars of sales in defence, technology and aviation sectors. Trump portrays himself as anti-war, but perhaps he is for short military showdowns, trade wars and employment of economic coercion to attain his policy ends. Manifestation of this approach was also seen during the last month's Indian aggression against Pakistan, and Pakistan's effective and successful counter offensive. He has reiterated multiple times the role played by him and the US secretary of state in brokering the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. It is inferred that, during his presidency, US interstate relations shall be increasingly woven around trade and economy, rather than security. Trump desires to go down in the history as an American President who helped stop major conflicts in the world, and took his country out of colossal debt and deficit. Trump is likely to help bring peace in the Middle East and work for 'two-state solution' to realise his dream of 'Abraham Accords'. KSA and Turkey are also playing a role in his peace efforts. Lifting of sanctions on Syria, meeting with the Syrian president and expression of hope that a deal could be reached with Iran are positive indicators. Iran is expected to be pragmatic as well. President Trump is ardently working for a ceasefire in Ukraine, and get closer to Russia — perhaps to forestall Russia and China getting into an unmanageable alliance. Though a priority, containment of China may retake shape of 'Congagemnent' during his tenure. China making great strides in high-end technology would wish to maintain pace of its comprehensive rise by avoiding conflicts and developing a good working relationship with the US. However, to protect its interests, China is expected to remain assertive in all domains. The US is likely to continue trade with China, but on more favourable terms. Important fact is that finding an alternative to high quality Chinese products on cost effective rates for US consumers in short term may not be possible. China has been a trusted ally of Pakistan. The China-Pakistan friendship bond has gained newer heights during the May 2025 Pak-India War. Pakistan's grit and tenacity and its courageous, swift, skilful, comprehensive and lethal response to the Indian aggression must have impressed the friends and foes alike. At this point in time, Pakistan and China, their people and militaries are closer than ever before. China will continue to support Pakistan unequivocally. This relationship is likely to experience stress due to the enduring US-China competition. It is important that an understanding is developed in the western capitals that for Pakistan, in the absence of any alternative, the only choice for realising ends of its comprehensive 'National Security Policy' that is predicated on geo-economics, remains the People's Republic of China. The recent China-Pakistan-Afghanistan tripartite meeting and PM Shehbaz Sharif's visit to Turkiye, Iran and Azerbaijan — aimed at conveying gratitude for their support during the Indian aggression, reaffirming the closer relation and expanding the ties to make the mutually beneficial friendship even stronger — is a step in right direction. The warm welcome and pleasant exchanges reflect mutual desires to strengthen the exiting bonds. The second tripartite meeting held between Pakistan, Turkiye and Azerbaijan at Lachin in Azerbaijan further manifests the growing understanding between Pakistan and the regional countries. The PM and his delegation also visited Tajikistan to strengthen the bilateral cooperation in multifaceted areas. Russia and Pakistan are getting closer too, which is being seen as a very positive development. Pakistan has sent delegations to various countries of the world to forge an understanding in the comity of nations to communicate Pakistan's position on perpetuating Indian arrogance and aggressiveness as against Pakistan's desire for enduring peace and stability in the region. Pakistan has been making efforts to develop good relations with all the neighbours, including India. Unfortunately, Indian intransigence remained a hurdle. The impasse seems to have been broken by the short but intense May 2025 War, imposed on Pakistan by the rash Indian leadership, and the ceasefire sought by India through the US. President Trump has expressed his willingness to help resolve the Kashmir dispute by convening a Pakistan-India meeting in some third country — something that is being considered a silver lining. The global milieu engenders quest to forge peace and enhance trade instead of war. Pakistan should continue trying to avoid conflicts and have good relations with all the countries, including India. The US president's promise of mediation must be pursued for resolution of the Kashmir dispute, reversal of Indian announcement of holding IWT in abeyance and restoration of special status of IIOJK. Very good relations with China, the US, the UK, EU, Gulf states, Turkiye, Afghanistan and Iran warrant added focus by Pakistan. Connectivity is the way forward for mutually beneficial socio-economic development and societal emancipation.
Business Recorder
7 hours ago
- Business Recorder
US envoy says he does not think Palestinian state is US policy goal, Bloomberg reports
WASHINGTON: U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said he did not think that an independent Palestinian state remains a goal of U.S. foreign policy, according to an interview with Bloomberg News released on Tuesday. 'I don't think so,' Huckabee said when asked if a Palestinian state remains a goal of U.S. policy, Bloomberg reported. Asked whether Huckabee's remarks represented a change in U.S. policy, U.S. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce declined to comment, saying policy-making was a matter for President Donald Trump and the White House. 'I'm not going to characterize the ambassador's remarks. I'm not going to explain them or really comment on them at all. I think he certainly speaks for himself,' Bruce told a regular press briefing. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Huckabee's remarks. US asking countries for 'voluntary' Palestinian relocation: Rubio Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, is a staunch pro-Israel conservative picked by Trump to be his envoy to Israel. 'Unless there are some significant things that happen that change the culture, there's no room for it,' Huckabee was quoted as saying. Those probably won't happen 'in our lifetime,' he told the news agency. Trump, in his first term, was relatively tepid in his approach to a two-state solution, a longtime pillar of U.S. Middle East policy, and he has given little sign of where he stands on the issue in his second term. Huckabee suggested a piece of land could be carved out of a Muslim country rather than asking Israel to make room. 'Does it have to be in Judea and Samaria?' Huckabee said, using the biblical name the Israeli government favors for the West Bank, where some 3 million Palestinians live under occupation. An evangelical Christian, Huckabee has been a vocal supporter of Israel throughout his political career and a longtime defender of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank. Trump has pursued strongly pro-Israel policies as president and his choice of Huckabee as ambassador signaled that they would continue.
