Trump's LA intervention sets the stage for a bigger political showdown
Mr Trump's obsession with immigration has dominated his 2024 presidential campaign and US politics for the past decade. PHOTO: AFP
LONDON - The clashes between rioters and federal and California National Guards troops now unfolding in Los Angeles have played out in typical American fashion, with exaggerated claims and disputes about the interpretation of supposedly grand constitutional principles.
US President Donald Trump claims that, had he not deployed a total of around 5,000 troops, Los Angeles 'would be burning'.
But Ms Karen Bass, Los Angeles' mayor, argues that law and order was never truly threatened in her city, and that the solution to the violence is simple: the 'administration needs to stop the raids'.
Meanwhile, Mr Gavin Newsom, California's Governor, is suing the Trump administration , alleging that the President's actions violate the US Constitution, and particularly the 10th Amendment that says that any power not expressly granted to the US federal government in the Constitution goes to the states.
But in reality, both the confrontation and the surrounding spectacle are proxy battles in preparation not only for next year's mid-term Congressional elections, but also for the much more significant political landmark of 2027, when the two parties will pick their following presidential candidates.
The illegal immigrants and soldiers are merely actors in this political tussle.
What both sides got wrong on immigration
Mr Trump's obsession with immigration has dominated his 2024 presidential campaign and US politics for the past decade.
As they went to the ballots in November 2024, almost two-thirds of US voters saw immigration as a priority for them in the election.
Democratic party bosses now readily acknowledge that their inability to provide convincing answers to the immigration dilemma and the perception that the borders between the US and Mexico were wide open to illegal migrants cost them dearly.
Worries about illegal immigration were not confined to white Americans, as some Democratic politicians like to claim. A large number of Black US citizens also voted for Mr Trump because they felt threatened by influxes of illegal immigrants.
The idea that Latino voters in the US are in solidarity with Spanish-speakers arriving from various parts of Central and South America is also an urban political myth: there is little in common between the sons and daughters of refugees from Cuba who are key players in states such as Florida, and the Hispanic migrants who are predominant in states such as New Mexico or California.
From the moment Mr Trump was sworn into the White House, it was clear that clamping down on immigration would remain one of the President's key policy objectives.
Still, most of Mr Trump's statistics on question of immigration have been plucked out of thin air.
The President claims, for instance, that 'over 22 million' illegal migrants entered the US under Mr Joe Biden, his White House predecessor.
However, the Department of Homeland Security suggests that only 11 million 'unauthorised immigrants' lived in the country in 2022, the last year for which complete figures were released.
Mr Trump is also wrong to pretend that his Democratic predecessors 'did nothing' to deport illegal migrants.
The administration of President Joe Biden carried out 1.5 million deportations in its four years in power, not much fewer than the total deported from the US during Mr Trump's first term.
And during Mr Barack Obama's presidency, up to a total of 2.9 million illegal immigrants were removed, a record that Mr Trump still struggles to break.
The new battlelines
Where the Trump administration is correct, however, is that immigration questions are federal, rather than state matters, and that the White House retains a very wide latitude on who gets admitted to the US, or who gets deported from it.
The total number of illegal migrants residing in California is disputed. Yet there is broad agreement that up to a quarter of all illegal migrants in the US are in this state.
California legislators have granted illegal immigrants privileges they cannot get in most other states, including driver's licences, healthcare, college tuition and some financial aid.
It was, therefore, only a question of time before officers of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) started arresting alleged illegal migrants in California.
Most Republican voters also see California as a bastion of America's most left-wing political establishment. There is no question that, in ordering the ICE raids, the Trump administration knew it was igniting a major political clash.
Californian politicians claim that Mr Trump's decision to take control of the state's National Guard – which is usually under the command of the state's governor - and deploy additional US federal military in Los Angeles are an abuse of powers.
Such powers should only be used in an extreme emergency of a complete breakdown of law and order, which was clearly not the case in Los Angeles.
In his filings before the courts, California Attorney-General Rob Bonta called the deployment an 'inflammatory escalation unsupported by conditions on the ground' and one which 'exceeds the federal government's authority'.
However, this glosses over the fact that the last time US presidents used such powers was during the 1960s, to quell riots against the abolition of racial segregation in schools.
These were more violent affairs than what happened in Los Angeles over the past week. Still, they hardly amounted to the complete breakdown of law and order.
Yet those 1960s deployments are now accepted by most Americans as entirely justified, even though they did not come in response to extreme violence, despite flaming passions at that time.
Furthermore, California passed laws banning the state's police forces and other law enforcement agencies from helping with detention and deportation cases unless these involve illegal migrants suspected of committing a serious crime.
So, the Trump administration can justifiably claim that although the demonstrations against the ICE arrests in Los Angeles were initially small, local police could not be relied upon to quell them, and federal intervention was, therefore, required.
Who wins?
The courts will debate the question for many months to come. And it will probably end up in the US Supreme Court, where judges are more likely to side with the administration, not because a majority of the Court's judges were appointed by Republicans, but more because the Supreme Court is traditionally reluctant to restrict the US president's discretion in deciding on what are national emergencies.
Mr Trump has already invoked obscure laws dating back to America's independence more than two centuries ago to seal the border with Mexico, without encountering serious objections.
What is clear, however, is that the protests against harsh immigration policies in Los Angeles are propelling California Governor Gavin Newsom into his favourite political role: that of chief Democratic opponent to President Trump.
The confrontation with Mr Trump could now determine whether California's governor has what it takes to play his long-coveted role: that of US president.
Jonathan Eyal is based in London and Brussels and writes on global political and security matters.
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
39 minutes ago
- CNA
Shares stumble after Trump's latest trade threat
HONG KONG: Investors were rattled on Thursday (Jun 12) after Donald Trump said he would impose unilateral tariffs on partners in the next two weeks, reigniting trade war fears soon after reaching a deal with China to dial down tensions between the superpowers. The mood was also shaded by geopolitical concerns after the US president said personnel were being moved from the Middle East as nuclear talks with Iran faltered and fears of a regional conflict grew. The equity losses snapped a recent rally fuelled by talks between Beijing and Washington in London that saw them hammer out a framework agreement to move towards a pact to reduce levies. Investors have been on edge since Trump's "Liberation Day" tariff blitz on Apr 2 that sent shockwaves through stock and bond markets and stoked global recession fears. Days later, he announced a pause in those measures until Jul 9 to allow for countries to cut deals with the White House, sparking relief rallies that have pushed some markets towards all-time highs. However, he once again shook confidence by saying on Wednesday that he intended to send letters telling governments what levies Washington would be imposing. "We're going to be sending letters out in about a week and a half, two weeks, to countries, telling them what the deal is," he told reporters. "At a certain point, we're just going to send letters out. And I think you understand that, saying this is the deal, you can take it or leave it."
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Japan should allow nuclear arms on its soil for effective deterrence: Retired military officers
As the world's only country to have suffered atomic bombings, Japan vowed to never possess, produce and permit the introduction of nuclear weapons onto its territory. PHOTO: AFP Japan should allow nuclear arms on its soil for effective deterrence: Retired military officers – The volatile security environment facing Japan today has led its military experts to moot an idea that has long been taboo: that its Three Non-Nuclear Principles dating to 1967 should be reviewed. As the world's only country to have suffered atomic bombings, Japan vowed to never possess, produce and permit the introduction of nuclear weapons onto its territory. But retired Self-Defence Forces (SDF) officers have lamented an unofficial fourth principle – never discuss – as they fret over Japan's military preparedness with the country being surrounded by the nuclear-armed states of China, Russia and North Korea, and with the region becoming more turbulent. Japan enjoys the protection of the nuclear umbrella of its security ally the United States. Yet in what has been described as 'perverse logic', the third principle of never permitting nuclear arms on Japanese territory bars the US from bringing such weapons onto Japanese soil and its nuclear-equipped vessels and bombers from travelling through its waters and airspace. These retired officers said that Japan risks hamstringing itself with its antiquated policies. South Korea, another regional US ally, in 2023 resumed allowing American nuclear submarines to make port calls, having previously halted permission in 1981. The most recent call was in February, when the USS Alexandria docked in Busan. 'Both the Japanese government and its people have stopped thinking about the operational aspects of how Japan itself can make the US nuclear umbrella effective,' said a June 2 report released by the Sasakawa Peace Foundation think-tank. Its contributors included retired general Koji Yamazaki, a former Chief of Staff of the Joint Staff of the Japanese military. 'In case of a Taiwan contingency, nuclear-equipped US land, sea, and air forces capable of striking China cannot be deployed or ported in Japan, which undermines our national security interests and reduces the effectiveness of the US extended nuclear deterrence,' the report said. It was referring to the possibility of China attacking the self-ruled island that Beijing claims as its own. 'The principle should be revised to say, 'Do not let (the enemy) strike Japan with nuclear weapons'. The original wording, 'Do not allow nuclear weapons into Japan' is perverse as a security logic,' the report added. Another report in March by eight retired SDF officers, including retired general Ryoichi Oriki, also a former Chief of Staff of the Joint Staff, called for the creation of strategic guidelines on nuclear issues, and the clarification of how Japan can simultaneously pursue the contradictory goals of nuclear deterrence and nuclear disarmament. 'The time has come to fundamentally and comprehensively review our country's nuclear weapon policy,' the report said. These retired officers are planting the seeds for policy change as Tokyo is spooked by developments in its neighbourhood. China, which may possess 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030, and has in recent years increased its military drills near Taiwan and its grey zone activity against it, could well wage a nuclear war in its bid to reunify the island. North Korea's ballistic missile development continues apace, while Russia has threatened to use its strategic nuclear forces on Ukraine. Events in Asia and beyond have led the US-based Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to set its Doomsday Clock, which symbolises how close humanity is to its own destruction, at 89 seconds to midnight in January 2025 during its annual review, from the previous 90 seconds. This is the shortest it has ever been. Yet any broaching of the subject of nuclear weapons is taboo to the Japanese public – and would likely amount to political suicide for any politician who does. Security hawks such as the late former prime minister Shinzo Abe had considered revising the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, but eventually backed down. But Japan has refused to sign the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons that bans nuclear arms totally and goes further than two older treaties to which it is a signatory. It is undeniable that Japan is at a crossroads of its nuclear policy, 80 years after the US dropped Little Boy and Fat Man on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively. And this is worrisome for the region. On June 6, Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan raised the spectre of North-east Asia being home to five nuclear powers – Russia, China, North Korea, South Korea and Japan – during a discussion at the Hudson Institute think-tank during his working visit to Washington. 'A North-east Asia with five nuclear powers – which in fact has become more, not less likely – is actually a very dangerous circumstance,' he said during a fireside chat with Hudson's Asia-Pacific security chair Patrick Cronin, noting that the weight of Japan's wartime history could be inflammatory. However, he noted that the discussions have been triggered by the turbulence wrought by US President Donald Trump, which has caused allies to reassess the robustness of their security relationships. 'For 80 years, the American security umbrella in North-east Asia in fact has been a key stabiliser for the relationships in a complicated part of the world,' he said. 'One adverse effect of the turbulence, uncertainty in rules, security arrangements, and trust, is that, I fear, other leaders will be having unthinkable thoughts.' Such 'unthinkable thoughts' might include a push towards manufacturing nuclear weapons. Japan is said to own enough stockpiles of plutonium, generated from spent nuclear plant fuel, to quickly produce 7,000 atomic bombs by some estimates. Cabinet Office statistics show that Japan held 44.5 tonnes of plutonium as at December 2023, with 8.6 tonnes stored within the country and 35.8 tonnes kept overseas. Experts, however, see this step as unlikely given that Japan does not have the delivery platforms, which would take decades to either acquire or build. 'Japan needs deterrence to be credible, all of which needs to be developed beyond simply building a warhead,' Professor Heng Yee Kuang of The University of Tokyo's Graduate School of Public Policy told The Straits Times. 'Doctrine would also require attention. This will open an additional can of worms. Will the US help? How might regional partners react, beyond domestic opinion?' he said, noting the worst-case scenario of a destabilising nuclear arms race. The introduction of nuclear weapons, however, is necessary for effective extended deterrence by the US-Japan alliance, the retired SDF officers argue. 'A Taiwan contingency has also been called a Japan contingency or a Japan-US contingency, and this possibility has been increasing,' Gen (Ret) Yamazaki told a Sasakawa Peace Foundation webinar on June 2. 'If China attempts to unify Taiwan by force, it could easily alienate Japan and the US by using tactical nuclear weapons,' he said, adding that the US would clearly be hampered in its deterrence if it did not have nuclear weapons in the neighbourhood. Furthermore, SDF personnel must be trained to deepen their understanding and operational capabilities of nuclear weapons, said retired Lieutenant-General Sadamasa Oue, who was formerly commander of the Air Materiel Command of the Japan Air Self-Defence Force. 'The SDF should be proactive in supporting the US military in their use of nuclear weapons,' he said. 'This will strengthen trust between the two allies.' Walter Sim is Japan correspondent at The Straits Times. Based in Tokyo, he writes about political, economic and socio-cultural issues. Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
Most G7 members ready to lower Russian oil price cap without US
FILE PHOTO: Russian flag with stock graph and an oil pump jack miniature model are seen in this illustration taken October 9, 2023. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File photo BRUSSELS/PARIS - Most countries in the Group of Seven nations are prepared to go it alone and lower the G7 price cap on Russian oil even if U.S. President Donald Trump decides to opt out, four sources familiar with the matter said. G7 country leaders are due to meet on June 15-17 in Canada where they will discuss the price cap first agreed in late 2022. The cap was designed to allow Russian oil to be sold to third countries using Western insurance services provided the price was no more than $60 a barrel. The European Union and Britain have been pushing to lower the price for weeks after a fall in global oil prices made the current $60 cap nearly irrelevant. The sources, who declined to be named, said the EU and Britain are ready to lead the charge and go it alone, backed by the other European G7 countries and Canada. They said it is still unclear what the U.S. will decide, though the Europeans are pushing for a united decision at the meeting. Japan's position also remains uncertain, they said. "There is a push among European countries to reduce the oil price cap to $45 from $60. There are positive signals from Canada, Britain and possibly the Japanese. We will use the G7 to try to get the U.S. on board," one of the sources said. The White House had no immediate comment. During the G7 finance ministers meeting in the Canadian Rockies last month, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent remained unconvinced there was a need to lower the cap, according to sources. However some U.S. Senators may endorse the idea, including Lindsay Graham, who in recent weeks told reporters he supports lowering the cap. Graham is pushing a hard-hitting new set of Russia sanctions that could impose steep tariffs on buyers of Russian oil. The Canadian foreign ministry was not immediately available for comment. The EU has proposed lowering the price to $45 a barrel in its latest 18th package of sanctions. The package must have unanimity from member states in order for it to be adopted, which could take several weeks. Russia's largest export grade, Urals, trades at around a $10 a barrel discount to the Dated Brent benchmark out of Baltic ports. Brent futures have been trading below $70 a barrel since early April. Sources said Washington's buy-in was not essential to lower the cap owing to Britain's dominance in global shipping insurance, and the EU's influence on the Western rules-abiding tanker fleet. The U.S., however, does matter when it comes to dollar-denominated payments for oil and its banking system. The EU and its Western allies have been progressively cracking down on Russia's shadow fleet of tankers and related actors, which work to circumvent the cap. The pressure has started to hurt Moscow's revenues and Western allies hope this will push more of the oil trade back under the cap. Russia's state-owned oil producer Rosneft reported a 14.4% slump in profits last year. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
