Trump Celebrates Temporary Ruling Allowing Troop Deployment: ‘We Saved L.A.'
President Donald Trump celebrated after an appeals court signed off on his deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops against protestors in Los Angeles.
'The Appeals Court ruled last night that I can use the National Guard to keep our cities, in this case Los Angeles, safe,' the president wrote on Truth Social. 'If I didn't send the Military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now. We saved L.A. Thank you for the Decision!!!'
On Thursday, a federal judge had sided against Trump, ordering him to relinquish control of California's National Guard to Governor Gavin Newsom.
Newsom, a Democrat who has sparred with Trump over the handling of protests over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in L.A., was quick to take a victory lap of his own—even as the federal government appealed the decision.
'This win is not just for California, but the nation,' Newsom wrote on X. 'It's a check on a man whose authoritarian tendencies are increasing by the day.'
But just hours later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals intervened and paused the ruling in a one-page order, meaning that Trump can keep the troops in L.A. for the time being. The court set a hearing for Tuesday.
It is still possible that Newsom could prevail over Trump once the court considers the case on its merits.
The San Francisco judge who originally sided with the governor—Charles Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton—was vehement in rejecting Trump's justification for deploying the guard.
'His actions were illegal,' the judge wrote, 'both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.'
Trump has also moved 700 Marines to L.A., but the judge's order didn't address these troops because they have not yet been actively involved in the protests.
Typically, a state's governor must sign off before the National Guard is mobilized. However, Trump invoked a law that allows the president to do so in cases where there is a rebellion.
Over the last week, as protests have raged in L.A.—at times becoming violent—Newsom and Trump have traded barbs.
Newsom has likened Trump to 'failed dictators,' calling his deployment of troops a 'brazen abuse of power.'
The president, meanwhile, has called Newsom 'grossly incompetent,' suggesting that he could be arrested for his handling of the protests.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
38 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The Shame of Trump's Parade
Today—250 years since the Continental Army officially formed to fight for the independence of the American colonies against the British monarchy—marks a milestone in President Donald Trump's effort to politicize the U.S. military. Though they are rare, military parades have happened before in Washington, D.C. For the most part, these have been celebrations of military achievements, such as the end of a war. But today is also Trump's birthday, and what he and his supporters have planned is a celebration of Trump himself. A mark of a free society is that its public institutions, especially its military, represent the body politic and the freedom-enabling equal rights that structure civic life. If service members and the public begin to believe that the military is not neutral but is in fact the servant of MAGA, this will threaten the military's legitimacy and increase the likelihood of violent conflict between the military and the public. Today's events bring us one step closer to this disaster. I have seen the politicization of the military firsthand. Last month, I resigned my tenured position as a philosophy professor at West Point in protest of the dramatic changes the Trump administration is making to academic programs at military-service academies. Following an executive order from January, the Department of Defense banned most discussions of race and gender in the classroom. West Point applied this standard to faculty scholarship as well. As a result, my research agenda—I study the relationship between masculinity and war, among other things—was effectively off limits. I consider what the Trump administration is doing to the military-service academies as a profound violation of the military's political neutrality. That destructive ethos is the same one apparent in the parade scheduled for today. Before Trump was reelected, the Army had planned significant celebrations across the country to mark this day, including the release of a commemorative postage stamp and a visit to the International Space Station by an Army astronaut. But according to The New York Times, arrangements for today's D.C. event, unlike the other plans, began only this year. The day is scheduled to begin with a variety of family-friendly concerts, a meet and greet with NFL players, and military-fitness competitions, all on the National Mall. If all goes to plan, the celebrations will culminate with what organizers are calling a 'grand military parade' that starts near the Pentagon, crosses the Potomac River, and ends near the White House. The parade is anticipated to involve 6,700 active-duty soldiers and a massive display of Army equipment: dozens of M1A1 Abrams tanks and Stryker armored personnel carriers, along with more than 100 other land vehicles, 50 helicopters, and a B-25 bomber. Trump is scheduled to give remarks after the parade and receive a flag delivered from the air by the U.S. Army Parachute Team known as the Golden Knights. A fireworks show is set to follow later tonight. The organizers have made it abundantly clear that today's purpose is to directly laud Trump and his politics. In promotional materials, they tell us, 'Under President Trump's leadership, the Army has been restored to strength and readiness.' They credit his 'America First agenda' for military pay increases, enlarged weapons stockpiles, new technologies, and improvements in recruitment, declaring that he has 'ensured our soldiers have the tools and support they need to win on any battlefield.' Monica Crowley, the State Department's chief of protocol and a former Fox News host, went on Steve Bannon's podcast WarRoom to say that the concurrence of the U.S. Army's anniversary and Trump's birthday is 'providential.' She called it 'meant to be. Hand of God, for sure.' She added, 'It is really a gift, and we want to be sure that we celebrate in a manner that is fitting, not just of this extraordinary president but of our extraordinary country.' She also expressed hope that the crowd would serenade the president with 'Happy Birthday.' Clearly, Trump isn't merely the guest of honor; he is the reason for the party. During his first administration, members of Trump's own Cabinet often thwarted his efforts to corrupt the Pentagon. This time, Trump has appointed a secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, who is willing to tear down the boundaries separating politics and the management of national defense. Trump and Hegseth claim to be purging the military of politicization instilled by previous administrations and resetting the DOD around the nonpartisan matter of readiness for war. But in reality, they have used this rationale as a cover to insert an unprecedented level of political partisanship into the military. Other events in recent months have pointed in this same direction. For instance, in February, the administration fired the top lawyers for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The only meaningful justification given for the move was Hegseth's claim that the fired lawyers might be roadblocks to the president's agenda—a frightening admission. In January, the administration banned transgender people from serving in the military, not because they allegedly pose a threat to unit cohesion or because their medical treatment is unusually expensive, but because they are supposedly bad people ('not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member'). At present, transgender soldiers who have met all performance standards are being discharged simply because of the administration's bigotry against them. The administration has also inserted its politics into all the military-service academies—the reason I left West Point last month. Trump and Hegseth have denied the validity of ideas that are taken seriously in a variety of disciplines and banned them from the classroom, including, as I noted above, matters pertaining to race and gender. Books and other works, most of which are by women and people of color, have been removed from the curriculum. The academic programs of the service academies are now structured around the Trump administration's ideological worldview. Faculty and cadets wonder if they are allowed to entertain perspectives inconsistent with the administration's politics. In May, Hegseth led an evangelical prayer service in the Pentagon's auditorium. Standing at a lectern with the Department of Defense seal, Hegseth led the audience in prayer to 'our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ.' The main speaker at this service was Hegseth's pastor, Brooks Potteiger, of the Pilgrim Hill Reformed Fellowship, in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. This church restricts all leadership positions to men, declares homosexuality immoral, and asserts that women should not serve in combat. Of course, there is nothing wrong with a secretary of defense acknowledging his religious faith. What's objectionable is the use of his authority to push his personal religious views on subordinates, especially as the director of a major institution of the secular state. The president now routinely speaks to uniformed service members in his red MAGA hat, using his trademark rhetoric centering himself and belittling, even demonizing, his critics. He openly suggests a special alliance between him and the military. At Fort Bragg on Tuesday, for instance, Trump encouraged uniformed soldiers to cheer his political agenda and boo his enemies. This is all extremely dangerous. Keeping the military a politically neutral servant of the constitutional order, not of the president or his political ideology, is vital to ensuring the security of civil society. Up until a week ago, the blurring of the boundaries between the administration's ideology and the military had not yet manifested as an attempt to employ the military directly on Trump's—or the Republican Party's—behalf. The steps taken until that point had been mostly symbolic. (The one possible exception was the deployment of the military at the southern border in what is essentially a law-enforcement matter.) But these symbolic expressions of military politicization have paved the way for that endgame—presidential orders that deploy the military for directly partisan ends. In just the past week, the Trump administration responded to protests against the enforcement of his immigration policies with military deployments. The likelihood that the administration will try to use the military against its political opponents is now very high. If that comes to pass, we will then learn just how successful Trump's efforts to politicize the military have been.
San Francisco Chronicle
42 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Donald Trump is losing. Here's how California can keep the pressure on
Californians are angry. They should be. President Donald Trump's militarized mass deportation policies aren't just thoughtless and cruel — they have, in many instances, been executed illegally. This includes targeting international college students with legal residence for their political expression. Four undocumented children in San Francisco were also among those rounded up, among them a 3-year-old, whose family was lawfully complying with a scheduled check-in with immigration authorities. Abundant evidence suggests racial profiling is part and parcel of the administration's strategy. Federal agents aren't simply doing the hard work of tracking down the immigrants with criminal records whom Trump has emphasized for deportation. Instead, they've fished for people en masse at places like Home Depot — sometimes masked and without visible identification — sweeping up citizens of color in the process. In some cases, Trump isn't deporting people back to their native lands. He has sent hundreds of undocumented immigrants, the vast majority of whom had violated no other law than coming to the country without authorization, to prisons in places that are not their country of origin — including what could best be described as a gulag in El Salvador. In the fear and confusion that has ensued from these actions, criminals pretending to be Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are exploiting the chaos to attack vulnerable communities. And so Californians — and increasingly people across the nation — have taken to the streets in protest. The Constitution and the moral imperative are on their side. In response, Trump has sent thousands of federalized National Guard troops and 700 Marines to the streets of Los Angeles in a clear act of intimidation — claiming an insurrection, but notably not invoking the Insurrection Act statue that would give him the legal authority (and the checks and balances that come with it) to mobilize troops. When U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California attempted to publicly question Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about these excesses and injustices, he was shoved and handcuffed by federal agents. It's a perilous time for American democracy. The threat of a descent into unchecked authoritarianism is real. Protestors are correct in their assessment that silence in the face of such tyranny is unacceptable. But as citizens of conscience take to the streets — particularly in California, where the undocumented migrant population is bearing the brunt of our nation's political war — there is something important they should keep in mind: Donald Trump is losing. In recent months, courts have shot down any number of his executive orders, along with his targeting of international students with legal residence. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled on Thursday that Trump's federalization and deployment of California National Guard troops was 'illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.' The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will consider an appeal of Breyer's ruling on Tuesday. Beyond the legal realm, Trump's economic policies are floundering. His 'big, beautiful' budget is in disarray after an embarrassing public fallout with the world's richest man. His tariff negotiations have gone nowhere. His foreign policy bluster has resulted in heightened global instability. The American people are beginning to widely see Trump for what he is: a failure Only 38% of registered voters approve of his performance, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday. And on immigration, 57% disapprove of his policies. Perhaps recognizing the turning tide, Trump has wobbled on many of his more aggressive stances. After calling for an all-out ban on Chinese students, he suggested this week that he would actually like 500,000 to come to the United States. He further said he had changed his views on migrant farm workers. 'You go into a farm and you look at people — they've been there for 20, 25 years, and they've worked great, and the owner of the farm loves them, and everything else and then you're supposed to throw them out,' Trump said Thursday at the White House. He ultimately backed down from these positions. But the flip-flopping shows his weakness — and the reality that better federal immigration policy, not crackdowns, are needed if we want to better meet the country's workforce needs. The question now for Californians is how to keep the pressure on Trump and defend the rights of immigrants without turning against one another or giving the Trump administration the kind of public spectacle it craves. While Trump is weak, he remains a master manipulator. He has already tried to leverage scenes of carnage stemming from a handful of bad actors at the protests in Los Angeles. California cannot afford to give him more fodder. That danger runs particularly high in Los Angeles, where Trump's federalized troops add an element of unpredictability. 'It's like bringing in a new player to a game and not giving them the playbook,' former Houston police chief and crowd control expert Art Acevedo told the editorial board. 'It's counterproductive. It's theater. And it's not operationally sound.' Acevedo, who drew nationwide praise for his handling of the 2020 protests in George Floyd's native Houston in the wake of his murder by police, said that the best way to protect the public's First Amendment rights is through local organization and communication. Here in San Francisco, Mayor Daniel Lurie has been criticized for his reluctance to even say Trump's name in public. But San Francisco doesn't need him to make fiery speeches. What it needs, Acevedo said, is for officials and the police department to keep lines of communication open with activists and protest leaders and to signal their compassion. San Franciscans are more than capable of speaking for their city. They need to trust that they will be safely empowered to do so. That does not preclude the necessity of weeding out bad actors. Trump is weak. With the discipline to maintain the moral high ground, he can be defeated. As Michael Ansara, who as a student helped organize the March on Washington in 1965, concluded in a recent op-ed: Protesting against Trump is good. Organizing against him is better.
Buzz Feed
43 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
Trump Voters Are Sharing Their True Thoughts On Tariffs
I was pretty shocked the other day to read about actual price differences caused by tariffs, and I wanted to learn specifically about how Trump voters feel about the tariffs — whether they think they're a good idea or not. So, I decided to ask Trump voters to tell me what they really think about the tariffs; and, for good measure, I turned to the answers to a post on the subreddit Ask Trump Supporters that asked, "Do Trump supporters see the new tariff policy as a smart negotiating tactic with allies, or is there concern it could backfire?" Here are some people's answers: "I love the idea of Trump pushing the tariffs. It will teach the consumer what is really important to be spending their money on and learn how to be conservative. Plus bring back the businesses to the grand ol' USA." —Anonymous, 72 years old, Kansas City, Missouri "Not me, but my grandad. He has said that he regrets voting for Trump, even though he hates Harris. One, the tariffs are going to make his small business (golf balls) suffer, and he's worried about my business (cosmetics) suffering, too." "Two, he thinks Trump has dementia, because of the way Trump has been talking and stuff. He also thinks Trump is really violent. Also, my grandad was absolutely horrified when Elon did the Nazi salute thing (why did everyone just forget about this?) because, even though my grandad is Catholic, he has multiple Jewish friends, and was actually the one who kickstarted my interest in the history of the Holocaust. When Trump made that 'joke' about wanting to be the new Pope, that was the breaking point for him."—Anonymous "Good decision, time will prove it was a good one." "Tariffs are not going to help small businesses or consumers. A tariff is a tax that is passed on to the consumer. The government will collect this tax. What they will do with it is anyone's guess." "Trump lied to his voters. Tariffs increase prices of goods and services. Once prices go up they will never come down. Many small businesses will close as they will not be able to pay the insurmountable prices added to products which were already too high. Many people will lose their jobs, and things will just get worse. Meanwhile, Trump is making all types of deals in the Middle East for his business. God bless America."—Anonymous "My boyfriend voted for him in 2016, 2020, and 2024, and he still argues that China (or whoever) pays the tariffs." "Absolutely genius. Europe is already buckling. They want reciprocal free trade, but are not yet willing to remove VAT on imports and all the other shenanigans they pull to restrict trade. Trump is not falling for it." "Well, I'm skeptical and on the fence. There are countries that totally deserve, like, a 300% tariff, like China. And I've always been very, VERY suspicious of a global economic system that seems to favor a country like China just too much. Let's see what happens." "I hope it's just a negotiating tactic in order to get other countries to lower their tariffs against us, something everyone should support. But I think Trump might actually just love tariffs and hate deficits." "It's a risky gambit, I won't deny that. But what we were doing was unsustainable and going to bankrupt us in time, most likely much sooner than we'd like, and I don't hear Democrats offering any better alternatives, just screaming, 'Trump Bad!'" "This isn't about making life easier for investors. Sure, once a new business is established, it'll be more competitive with experience, and perhaps not need tariffs to be competitive in four years." "I think it's more than a negotiating tactic, though he is obviously using them to that effect at times. But I think Trump is not a free trader at his core, and do not think his goal is just to get other countries to lower their trade barriers to zero (they won't do that anyway)." "I don't have confidence that the tariff policy laid out last week will be successful. They were also calculated incorrectly, and Trump likely exceeded the legal authority he is using to levy the tariffs." "Somehow, back in the 1950s-1980s, people managed to buy lots of American goods without even owning credit cards, generally. I wonder if local manufacturing jobs helped. The 1970s oil crisis created inflation twice as high as it's ever been in your life (unless you're over 50). And nobody even knows. By the Reagan '80s boom, it was forgotten. All it did was spur the invention of fuel-efficient cars." "More competition for workers in USA means wages go up." "We don't have enough thinking-type jobs to sustain young US workers. I don't know if the country will make more money, but the goal is better jobs than young workers currently can access." "It's a risk. But Trump is not the habit of letting things age — he wants to make deals. Some countries he might want to keep tariffs on, if it's judged to be good for the US. Otherwise, tariffs should be lower a year from now." And finally: "I honestly don't know; at this point, I'm waiting to see what happens." What do you think? I'm interested in hearing all your opinions down in the comments below. Or, if you have something to say but prefer to stay anonymous, you're more than welcome to write in to the anonymous form below.
