Los Angeles faces second night of curfew as Trump expands crackdown: ‘democracy under assault'
The Los Angeles Police Department moved swiftly on Wednesday night to quell disorder stemming from anti-deportation protests, charging crowds on horses and firing 'less lethal' munitions to clear protesters.
After the initial burst of activity, the downtown area – under a second night of curfew imposed by Mayor Karen Bass – was calmer, with a heavy police presence designed to prevent a repeat of the unrest that has led to 600 arrests since the weekend and acts of vandalism and looting.
Tensions remain high though as the city is gripped by the divide between local and federal powers. California Governor Gavin Newsom used a national address to slam President Donald Trump for activating 700 active-duty Marines and authorising the deployment of up to 4,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles.
'Democracy is under assault right before our eyes,' Newsom said. 'This moment we have feared has arrived.'
Protests over raids continued to spread across the US, including Spokane, Washington, where Mayor Lisa Brown issued a curfew on Wednesday night and police made 30 arrests, according to media reports. Las Vegas police declared an 'unlawful assembly' and fired tear gas at protesters. Demonstrations have also popped up in cities including New York, Chicago and Milwaukee, with protesters clashing with police and local officials.
A man hit by a non-lethal munition is assisted by a woman, as people march as part of the ongoing protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Los Angeles on Wednesday. Photo: Reuters
The demonstrations sprouted as the federal government further expands its show of force. The National Guard in Los Angeles will support immigration arrests made by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents on city streets. On Wednesday, US Attorney General Pam Bondi said the administration is invoking the Hobbs Act to allow federal prosecutors to take over criminal cases that would typically be handled by California authorities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
23 minutes ago
- South China Morning Post
Huawei's AI semiconductor output limited to 200,000 in 2025, US commerce official says
Huawei Technologies is expected to ship no more than 200,000 of its advanced artificial intelligence (AI) semiconductors this year, according to a senior Trump administration official overseeing US export controls, who estimated that 'most or all of' those chips would be supplied to enterprises within China. That figure would pale in comparison to the more than 1 million China-specific H20 graphics processing units (GPUs) produced by Nvidia in the last nine months of 2024, according to a January report from US research firm SemiAnalysis. Washington in April added the H20 to tightened tech export restrictions on China. At a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing on Thursday, Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security Jeffrey Kessler told lawmakers that the US government should not 'take too much comfort from' Huawei's estimated 2025 Ascend chip production capacity being 'at or below 200,000' units. He did not elaborate on the source of that assessment. 'China is investing huge amounts to increase its AI chip production, as well as the capabilities of the chips it produces,' Kessler said. 'So it's critical for us not to have a false sense of security to understand that China is catching up quickly.' At the congressional hearing, Kessler called for increased funding for US export control measures under the Bureau of Industry and Security. This marked the first time a US government official publicly provided an estimate of Huawei's AI chip output, as the US-sanctioned Chinese firm closely guards details of its Ascend semiconductor technology, development and production.
South China Morning Post
3 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
South China Sea needs US-China ‘security talks mechanism' to prevent conflict: think tank
China and the US should consider setting up a 'security dialogue mechanism' on the South China Sea to help prevent conflict in the contested waterway, a noted independent Chinese think tank has suggested. According to analysts at the Beijing-based Grandview Institution, US-China aerial and maritime interactions in the South China Sea have been marked by confrontational, complex and unpredictable dynamics. However, competition in the strategic waterway was still 'manageable', though it was likely to be prolonged 'structurally', they said in a report published on Thursday. The report, titled 'Competition and Risk Reduction on the South China Sea – Views from China and the United States', was prepared in collaboration with the Pacific Forum, a Hawaii-based foreign policy research institute. Both China and the United States recognised the risk of inadvertent escalation and had developed several crisis management tools, according to the executive summary of the report. 'However, implementation remains inconsistent,' it said. Liu Xiaobo and Sophie Wushuang Yi, both researchers with Grandview, called on both sides to consider 'institutionalised' dialogue mechanisms focused on the regional security architecture, maritime legal order and law enforcement norms, and crisis response protocols. Liu and Yi co-wrote one of the three papers making up the report. Jeffrey Ordaniel, a non-resident adjunct senior fellow and director of maritime programmes at the Pacific Forum, authored another, while the third was by Thomas Shattuck, another Pacific Forum non-resident fellow.
Asia Times
4 hours ago
- Asia Times
Why Trump won't kill AUKUS
The Pentagon has announced it will review the massive AUKUS agreement between the United States, United Kingdom and Australia to ensure it's aligned with US President Donald Trump's 'America first' agenda. The US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby is reportedly going to oversee the review. The announcement has raised concerns in Australia, but every government is entitled to review policies made by its predecessors to consider whether there is a particular purpose. The UK has launched a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS too, so it's not actually unreasonable for the US to do the same. There is a degree of nervousness in Australia as to what the implications are because Australia understandably has the biggest stake in this. But we need to consider what Colby has articulated in the past. In his book, 'The Strategy of Denial: American Defence in the Nature of Great Power Conflict', he made the case the US could 'prepare to win a war with China it cannot afford to lose – in order to deter it from happening.' So, with a deterrent mindset, he sees the need for the US to muscle up militarily. He's spoken about the alliance with Australia in very positive terms on a couple of occasions. And he has called himself an 'AUKUS agnostic', though he has expressed deep concern about the ability of the submarine industrial base in the US to manufacture the ships quickly enough. And that leads to the fear that the US Navy would not have enough submarines for itself if Washington is also sending them to Australia. As part of the deal, Australia would eventually be able to contribute to accelerating the production line. That involves Australian companies contributing to the manufacture of certain widgets and components that are needed to build the subs. Australia has already made a nearly A$800 million (US$500 million) down payment on expanding the US industrial capacity as part of the deal to ensure we get some subs in a reasonable time frame. There have also been significant legislative and industrial reforms in the US, Australia and UK to help facilitate Australian defence-related industries unplug the bottleneck of submarine production. There is no question that there is a need to speed up production. But we are already seeing significant signs of an uptick in the production rate, thanks in part to the Australian down payment. And it's anticipated that the rate will significantly increase in the next 12–18 months. Even still, projects like this often slide in terms of timelines. The leaders of the three nations announced details of the submarine deal in San Diego in 2023. Photo: Etienne Laurent / EPA via The Conversation I'm reasonably optimistic that, on balance, the Trump administration will come down on the side of proceeding with the deal. There are a few key reasons for this: 1) We're several years down the track already. 2) We have more than 100 Australian sailors already operating in the US system. 3) Industrially, we're on the cusp of making a significant additional contribution to the US submarine production line. And finally, most people don't fully appreciate that the submarine base just outside Perth is an incredibly consequential piece of real estate for US security calculations. Colby has made very clear the US needs to muscle up to push back and deter China's potential aggression in the region. In that equation, submarines are crucial, as is a substantial submarine base in the Indian Ocean. China is acutely mindful of what we call the 'Malacca dilemma.' Overwhelmingly, China's trade of goods and fossil fuels comes through the Malacca Strait between Malaysia and Indonesia's island of Sumatra. The Chinese know this supply line could be disrupted in a war. And the submarines operating out of Perth contribute to this fear. This is a crucial deterrent effect the US and its allies have been seeking to maintain. And it has largely endured. Given that nobody can predict the future, we all want to prevent a war over Taiwan and we all want to maintain the status quo. As such, the considered view has been that Australia will continue to support the US to bolster its deterrent effect to prevent such a scenario. As part of the US review of the deal, we could see talk of a potential slowdown in the delivery rate of the submarines. The Trump administration could also put additional pressure on Australia to deliver more for the US. This includes the amount Australia spends on defence, a subject of considerable debate in Canberra. Taking Australia's overall interests into account, the Albanese government may well decide increasing defense spending is an appropriate thing to do. There's a delicate dance to be had here between the Trump administration, the Australian government, and in particular, their respective defence departments, about how to achieve the most effective outcome. It's highly likely that whatever decision the US government makes will be portrayed as the Trump administration 'doing a deal'. In the grand scheme of things, that's not a bad thing. This is what countries do. We talk a lot about the Trump administration's transactional approach to international relations. But it's actually not that different from previous US administrations with which Canberra has had to deal. So I'm reasonably sanguine about the AUKUS review and any possible negotiations over it. I believe the Trump administration will come to the conclusion it does not want to spike the Australia relationship. Australia has been on the US side since federation. Given this, the US government will likely make sure this deal goes ahead. The Trump administration may try to squeeze more concessions out of Australia as part of 'the art of the deal,' but it won't sink the pact. However, many people will undoubtedly say this is the moment Australia should break with AUKUS. But then what? What would Australia do instead to ensure its security in this world of heightened great power competition in which Australia's interests are increasingly challenged? Walking away now would leave Australia more vulnerable than ever. I think that would be a great mistake. John Blaxland is professor, Strategic and Defense Studies Center, Australian National University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
