Clashes escalate in Los Angeles after Trump sends in National Guard
Listen to article
Tensions escalated in downtown Los Angeles after US President Donald Trump deployed National Guard troops to confront demonstrators protesting against sweeping immigration raids.
Security forces fired tear gas, flash bangs, and rubber bullets near the Edward R Roybal Federal Building, the Metropolitan Detention Centre, and the 101 Freeway.
The clashes marked the third consecutive day of unrest following the administration's intensified immigration crackdown, which has seen dozens of undocumented migrants detained across the city.
One demonstrator was seen waving a Mexican flag as smoke billowed from a burning Waymo self-driving vehicle, and another nearby was heavily vandalised. Protesters also blocked traffic along the 101, a major artery through downtown, while some clashed directly with mounted LAPD officers.
The move sparked immediate backlash from California's Democratic leadership. Governor Gavin Newsom condemned the deployment as unconstitutional and vowed legal action after the White House rejected his formal request to rescind the order.
Despite protests already being managed by @LAPDHQ, President Trump is escalating the situation by threatening to deploy roughly 500 active-duty Marines to the streets of Los Angeles.
Los Angeles: Remain peaceful. Don't fall into the trap that extremists are hoping for. — Governor Gavin Newsom (@CAgovernor) June 9, 2025
'These are the acts of a dictator, not a president,' Newsom said in an MSNBC interview, accusing Trump of "manufacturing a crisis" and violating state sovereignty.
Australian journalist among those injured
Amid the chaos, Australian reporter Lauren Tomasi of Nine News was struck by a rubber bullet while filming a live report. The incident, captured on video, showed an officer firing directly in the direction of Tomasi and her crew as police advanced on protesters.
'You just fucking shot the reporter!' a bystander can be heard shouting, as Tomasi grabbed her leg in pain. Despite the injury, she later confirmed she was not seriously hurt, saying, 'I'm good.'
Over 100 arrested across California
In addition to the arrests made in Los Angeles—where police said at least 10 people were detained Sunday—San Francisco saw further unrest. Authorities there declared an unlawful assembly and arrested around 60 people after some demonstrators turned violent, allegedly assaulting officers and damaging property.
Protests were sparked by aggressive Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sweeps reportedly targeting up to 3,000 migrants per day under a new federal directive. Critics, including immigrant rights groups and local leaders, say legal residents and permanent visa holders have also been caught up in the detentions.
Vanessa Cárdenas, head of America's Voice, accused the administration of 'deliberately stoking confrontation' and using immigration enforcement as a political weapon.
Legal questions over deployment
Trump's justification for the National Guard deployment rests on Title 10 of the US Code, which allows federal activation in cases of rebellion or federal threats. But legal experts point out that Title 10 also requires orders to be issued through state governors—something Newsom did not authorise.
So far, US Northern Command has confirmed that 300 Guard members are active at three sites in Los Angeles, with a further 500 Marines on standby at Camp Pendleton. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the Pentagon was prepared to escalate if violence continues.
Mexico condemns US actions
The raids and resulting violence also drew condemnation from Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, who said immigration challenges 'cannot be resolved through force.'
'The phenomenon will not be addressed with raids or violence,' Sheinbaum said. 'It will be by sitting down and working on comprehensive reform.'
Despite growing pressure at home and abroad, President Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, a move that would allow him to deploy active-duty military forces. Asked on Sunday whether he was considering that step, Trump replied, 'It depends on whether or not there's an insurrection.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
US mediation offer
Listen to article The Kashmir dispute is not a regional fault line. It is a global flashpoint — one that demands more than sterile diplomatic statements and historical posturing. The recent military flare-up between Pakistan and India, the most serious between the two in decades, brought the subcontinent dangerously close to open conflict. A ceasefire was achieved, but not through bilateral diplomacy — it was the intervention from none other than the President of the United States of America that helped defuse the escalation that threatened what is called mutually agreed destruction. This begs the question: can the Kashmir dispute be resolved without the active involvement of a major world power? For far too long, India has been averse to third-party mediation, insisting that Kashmir is a bilateral matter in line with the Shimla Agreement of 1972. This rigid stance has, in effect, blocked any meaningful dialogue while allowing the conflict to fester. But the latest developments suggest a subtle shift. New Delhi and Islamabad, while not openly inviting mediation, allowed space for President Donald Trump to intervene — a notable departure from past rejections of third-party involvement. Just yesterday, the US Department of State reiterated Trump's willingness to help resolve the Kashmir issue, stating that "each step that he takes is made to solve generational differences between countries". This statement, while significant, should be viewed with cautious optimism considering the chequered US history. The stakes are too high to leave the longstanding Kashmir issue to empty slogans or rigid bilateralism. And as long as it remains unresolved, it will continue to poison relations between the two nuclear-armed neighbours and destabilise an already fragile region. Whether it is Trump or any other global leader, only a credible and powerful mediator can help break the deadlock. Currently, the US — which enjoys leverage over both Islamabad and New Delhi — remains best placed to lead that effort.
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Migration crisis: what really matters?
Listen to article When President Donald Trump signed an executive order back in January banning refugee resettlement, citing national security and the need to "protect the homeland", it wasn't just a policy shift but a declaration of how the modern world views displacement. Refugees are increasingly seen not as victims of circumstance, but as potential threats, burdens or political pawns. The tough reality that emerges with increasingly strong borders and inflammatory people-powered politics is: in the world at large, is it borders or bodies that weigh more? The United States, long a symbol of refuge, has been retreating from its commitments. Under Trump's previous administration, the refugee cap reached historic lows, and entire populations were blocked entry on the basis of religion and nationality. Now, the familiar language of fear is back, cloaked in sovereignty, but rooted in exclusion. And this is not a uniquely American phenomenon. Across Europe, the narrative echoes. The UK's attempts to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, Italy's criminalisation of migrant rescue ships and Greece's illegal pushbacks in the Aegean all signal a global trend: the securitisation of human movement. Refugees are treated less like people in need and more like liabilities to be managed, repelled or offloaded. But in today's world, the category of the "refugee" itself is expanding — or at least, should be. While the 1951 Geneva Convention defines a refugee as someone fleeing persecution due to race, religion, nationality or political opinion, this framework fails to accommodate the new and growing class of displaced persons: climate migrants. Many people are made homeless each year by floods, droughts, fires and flooding waters. Entire nations on islands are in peril and at the same time, changing weather in South Asia and Africa leads to conflicts and destroys people's livelihoods. These people do not receive the same status as refugees, according to international rules. No one is protecting them and there is no form of recognition set aside for them. This lack of rules further highlights a weakness in how the world is run. The rules in war do not update as the world shifts. Refugee institutions made after World War II do not keep up with the issues caused by today's displacement. Although the Geneva Convention is admired, it no longer works well. It cannot address the blurred lines between conflict and climate, between persecution and poverty, between war and weather. As a result, these grey zones are overlooked by the international community as rich nations stop accepting refugees but claim to follow humanitarian principles. This raises a fundamental moral dilemma: What are borders actually protecting? If the answer is sovereignty, then sovereignty itself becomes a justification for indifference. Hannah Arendt once warned of the danger faced by those who lose the "right to have rights". Today, millions roam the world with no state to speak for them, no law to defend them and no border willing to welcome them. Their existence is a daily negotiation with rejection. The debate is not just about who crosses borders; it's about how the global order prioritises state security over human security; it's about whether IR will keep being just about power or if it will become something fairer and more open. We can no longer afford to treat migration as a temporary crisis or a political inconvenience. Climate displacement, economic collapse and civil conflict are not going away; they are the future. And that future demands new definitions, new protections and, above all, new compassion. If we continue to worship borders and ignore the bodies knocking on them, then we must also accept what that reveals about our values. If the world is set up to protect the few at the expense of the disadvantaged, it will not be a true just society. And in the end, the lines we draw on maps will mean little if they come at the cost of our shared humanity.
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Twilight of the Empire
US President Donald Trump gestures, as he departs for Pennsylvania, on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC, U.S., May 30, 2025. Photo: Reuters Listen to article As a series of trends and shocks cumulatively strain the old order, US President Donald Trump, even his critics must admit, possesses the fatal gift of locating the aching pulse of the nation, only to inflame it further with self-destructive measures while eroding Washington's global credibility. He sees the symptoms of American decline clearly: deindustrialisation, a brittle middle class, bloated trade deficits, and the political cost of endless wars. But he metabolises crisis into spectacle, grievance into doctrine, and interdependence into betrayal. For decades, the US has functioned as the imperial core of a global capital-recycling apparatus. The system has depended on the continuous inflow of surplus capital from export-heavy economies, including China and Germany, to America's debt-saturated financial architecture. The US trade deficit reached an eye-watering $1.1 trillion in 2023, a figure that dwarfs those of other peripheral or semi-peripheral economies like India. In this light, Trump's populist howl against the 'indignity' of the American people, dispossessed in the very belly of global wealth, is not entirely misplaced. His instinct that endless wars serve as spectacles to obscure the real mechanism of American hegemony – the global dollar-debt regime – is accurate in a crude, pre-theoretical sense. Since the late 1960s, when America ceased being a surplus nation, its geopolitical muscle has rested not on production but on its control of the dollar as the global reserve currency. The military-industrial complex is merely the theatrical wing of a deeper financial imperialism. However, Trump is radically mistaken in his belief that punitive tariffs and protectionist swagger will resurrect 'Middle America.' Tariffs, in the late neoliberal stage, cannot revive industrial capacity gutted by decades of offshoring and rentier capitalism. Instead, they risk destabilising the very mechanism whereby America's status as a debtor empire is transformed into an asset: the recycling of dollar-denominated debt into US capital markets. If that circuit is broken, the paper wealth of Wall Street and the speculative empires of Trump's own class will collapse. To materially uplift the working and lower-middle classes that fuelled his electoral resurgence, Trump would have to declare war not on China or Brussels, but on Manhattan and Malibu, hedge funds, private equity, and speculative real estate. 'Asymmetric interdependence' For much of the post-World War II period, what was marketed as 'globalisation' was, in fact, an imperial project cloaked in liberal universals. It was the projection of American state-capitalist hegemony through a scaffold of multilateral institutions – the IMF, World Bank, WTO, NATO – and the sacrosanct status of the dollar as the planetary currency-signifier. These were not neutral frameworks but instruments of asymmetric interdependence: the United States exported capital, debt, and ideology, while importing dependence, discipline, and surplus labour from the periphery and semi-periphery. The so-called "Washington Consensus" was never a consensus but a diktat. The system also functioned through a deeper ideological fantasy that free markets and global rule-based order were apolitical, universal, and benign. However, even most liberal-internationalist critiques warn the fantasy is fraying. The very interdependence that sustained US primacy is in retreat. Firms and governments worldwide need American consumers, capital markets, and alliances, giving Washington soft coercive power. Trump's tactics have upended that balance. By 'assailing interdependence,' the administration is chipping away at the very basis of American advantage. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye argue that order depends on stable power balances, shared norms, and sustaining institutions. Trump has shaken all three. What follows is a deeper drift into disorder, one that won't resolve until Washington either reorients itself or is overtaken by a new dispensation. The plunge may already be underway. 'In his erratic and misguided effort to make the United States even more powerful, Trump may bring its period of dominance—what the American publisher Henry Luce first called 'the American century'—to an unceremonious end,' they write in a Foreign Affairs essay. The weaponisation of the global economy hollows out the very symbolic order the US once used to legitimate its rule. By shrinking its adversaries' strategic space, Washington also corrodes the interconnected lattice that once lent credibility and allure to its empire. A tariff here, a blacklist there, and the freezing of foreign bank reserves – each may win tactical advantage, but at the cost of eroding the trust that underpinned the liberal international order. After all, what merchant or government would dare anchor long-term plans to a system where every node can be severed by a presidential signature? Trump's disruption is risky for the US precisely because new economic blocs are emerging from the wreckage of Western hegemony. Many leaders of the Global South remember colonialism and feel the 21st century liberates them from Western diktats. Where the US once posed as the sole path to progress, China's tech power and Russia's security reach now appear less like threats and more like counterweights. On soft power's front, when natural disasters strike or epidemics spread, Western-style NGOs and media have lost some of their framing power, as Chinese and Russian aid convoys now appear on television alongside those from the Red Cross. The velvet-glove diplomacy of the Cold War years – teddy bears over bombers – has been largely replaced by quarantine diplomacy, vaccine pledges, and once-dominant American development agencies playing second fiddle to Belt-and-Road contracts. In May, a major Democracy Perception Index reported that majorities of people worldwide now see the US negatively. The pollster noted that after Trump's return to the White House, America's reputation 'took a particularly massive hit in EU countries' and fell sharply everywhere. Even NATO founder Anders Fogh Rasmussen sighed that the US' standing was 'unloved' across most of the world. By contrast, China's image is improving globally, even overtaking the US in overall favourability in most regions. At home, the US is cannibalising its future. Budget cuts to core research agencies like the NSF and NIH are hollowing out the very ecosystem that once drove American innovation. Labs shrink, fellowships vanish, and global talent turns to Beijing, Singapore, or the UAE – where funding flows and visas follow. Meanwhile, China invests aggressively in semiconductors, AI, and green tech, eroding the US edge. As Oxford's Carl Benedikt Frey puts it, Trump's agenda risks dismantling the pillars of US innovation. Technological leadership is not a birthright but is built. And Washington is letting it rot. Trump's move to turn tariff-penalties and export bans into blunt instruments has worried many that he was abandoning existing rules and undermining the soft power that Washington has spent decades building. Analysts argue that American power rests on a blend of hard force and attraction, even though this very soft power has enabled hard power interventions. Interdependence with trading partners and multilateral institutions generates US leverage, while global admiration for 'American culture and ideals' makes allies pliant, they argue. Trump's assault on trade pacts and international agencies undercuts the foundation of American power and accelerates the erosion of the postwar order. In principle, if American power were absolute, it could force partners into line indefinitely. In practice, aggressive trade measures are sowing resentments. Many countries have been party to US-led trade deals expecting mutual benefit – now they wonder if Washington will simply upend their exports to punish political stances. The WTO and other legal venues, for a long time arenas where small states could begrudge larger ones, are being largely sidelined. Without clear enforcement, the most vulnerable economies will look for alternative blocs or simply bribe each other to stay out of the US orbit. The cruellest irony is that by inflicting pain on others – or threatening to – the US is undermining the very goodwill and partnerships that underpinned its postwar hegemony. The writer is a Lahore-based senior journalist
