What's happening in LA could be a template for the Trump administration
Editor's note (June 9th 2025): This article has been updated.
IS THE UNREST in Los Angeles a one-off? Or is it the beginning of a summer of unrest, and of crackdowns by President Donald Trump, who has no patience for protesters in Democratic cities?
So far the protests in Los Angeles are small compared with the city's previous conflagrations. More than 12,000 people were arrested during the Rodney King riots in 1992. In the past two days the total runs to only 60 or so. But things could get worse. As Angelenos pray for calm and for troops to retreat from their streets, America finds itself at a dangerous moment.
At the core of the country's dilemma is that the president was elected with a mandate to deal with illegal immigration. Yet some of his supporters take that to mean doing things which could be unconstitutional and are clearly impossible and unwise. Mr Trump himself seems keen on using soldiers to shut down protests against his policies. 'We're gonna have troops everywhere,' he said when asked about the situation in Los Angeles.
The president and his advisers think that the politics of imposing the National Guard on California are on their side. The template is as follows: announce an immigration crackdown on a city whose leadership does not want it, wait for protests, then call in the troops to put down the protesters. Cracking heads serves as a warning to other cities that might resist. It is also a signal to MAGA loyalists that Mr Trump is doing what they elected him for.
With the notable exception of the women's marches in 2017, recent mass political protests in American cities have tended to be tinged with violence. In the past 72 hours LA has suffered property crime and police have had fireworks launched at them. This could make calling in the National Guard a self-justifying act: because the troops may come to be seen as a solution to the tension their presence seems designed to inflame.
One question is whether Mr Trump had the legal authority to deploy the National Guard without the involvement of California's governor, Gavin Newsom. Mr Newsom says the police were coping fine on their own and that he is suing the administration. Mr Trump has cited a provision of the US Code on Armed Services that permits the deployment of troops to deal with the threat of rebellion.
Whatever the courts rule—and they are often loth to second-guess the president on what counts as a threat—Mr Trump's immigration-enforcement policy is impractical. Undocumented migrants in America number somewhere between 11m (the estimate from surveys) and 20m (the number the administration uses). Even with the huge planned increase in spending on detention centres, Mr Trump has nowhere to put even a fraction of that number before they are expelled. Yet opposing the policy, as California does, puts the mayor of LA and the governor on the side of rule-breaking foreigners, which is where Mr Trump wants them.
Negative reinforcement
The president shows no signs of trying to lower the temperature in Los Angeles. On June 9th the Pentagon announced the deployment of hundreds of Marines to the city to backstop the National Guard. That is unwise. Marines are not experienced in law enforcement. As the defence secretary likes to point out, soldiers are trained to kill. Of all the fights Mr Trump has picked—with courts, universities and law firms—a war with American cities, their voters and mayors has the greatest potential for violence.
It is hard not to believe that Mr Trump's motives for this showdown go beyond the desire to deport immigrants efficiently. He won just over 30% of the vote in LA County last year. Only two of America's largest cities, Dallas and Fort Worth, have Republican mayors. Amid the partisan hatred roiling America today, the president can use this tactic to infuriate the other side's voters and thrill his own. In this tribal warfare, charges of hypocrisy melt away. On the contrary, when the president who pardoned his own Capitol-charging insurrectionists sends in troops to take on Democrat-supporting Angelenos, his loyalists are more likely to put aside their worries about the economy or the fuss surrounding the ex-DOGE boss, Elon Musk. The danger is that Mr Trump tries this tactic in other Democratic strongholds, too.
From the riots of the 1960s, which helped to elect Richard Nixon, to the Black Lives Matter unrest, which seemed to hurt Mr Trump before it helped him, the cycle of protest, violence and repression often benefits the political right, even when the unrest is fanned by the government itself. In Los Angeles neither the local police department, nor the mayor or the governor thought the presence of the National Guard would help restore order. But to point that out is to misunderstand why Mr Trump ordered troops in. That was to create confrontation.
Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
15 minutes ago
- Mint
Donald Trump wants to deport foreign students merely for what they say
'EVERY TIME I find one of these lunatics I take away their visa." That is how Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, last month described the Trump administration's push to deport foreign university students who had participated in campus activism. Mr Rubio initially suggested that his department had cancelled at least 300 visas. That number increasingly looks out of date as the deportation campaign has spread beyond elite east-coast schools and for conduct beyond protest and speech. More than 100 students in California alone have had their visas yanked—some of them seemingly for infractions as minor as a speeding ticket. The crackdown combines two of President Donald Trump's campaign promises: to carry out mass deportations and to expel students involved in campus protests that erupted in response to Israel's invasion of Gaza, following the brutal attacks of October 7th 2023. Deportation is no longer just a way to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in America and deter more from coming, but a means of punishing those whose beliefs differ from the federal government's. The arrests and visa revocations have created widespread anxiety on campuses already reeling from upheavals. Lawsuits ask whether the government can deport non-citizens in good legal standing merely for their speech. How is the State Department deciding who to target? Officials are reportedly using AI to scour students' social-media accounts for evidence that they have participated in pro-Palestinian campus protests. Betar, an activist group, says it is feeding names to the government. (It is unclear whether immigration officials are working off of such tips.) Locating these students is fairly easy. 'International students are the most tracked of all non-immigrants," explains Fanta Aw of NAFSA, an association that promotes student exchanges. A system created in the 1990s that keeps tabs on foreign students was expanded following the September 11th attacks. When university administrators check the system, called SEVIS, they find that students' permissions have been terminated by the government without warning, leaving them vulnerable to deportation. An early and prominent case involving the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian graduate student at Columbia University, illuminates the legal arguments the Trump administration is making as it tries to deport protesters. On March 8th Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents hustled Mr Khalil away from his very pregnant wife while saying that his visa had been revoked. (According to court documents they seemed to be unaware he had a green card, which confers permanent residency.) He remains detained in Louisiana while a petition challenging his imprisonment moves through federal court in New Jersey, where he was previously held. On Truth Social, Mr Trump alleged that Mr Khalil is a 'Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student" and that student protesters are 'terrorist sympathisers". Mr Khalil's allies see such presidential targeting of individuals as a throwback to dark chapters of American history. 'We haven't seen a threat to free speech like this since the Red Scare" of the 1950s, says Esha Bhandari, one of his lawyers. The Trump administration is targeting a broad group of foreigners by making aggressive use of a 1952 immigration law. Under it, the secretary of state can decree someone 'inadmissible" whose presence in the country 'would have potentially serious adverse foreign-policy consequences". Further, the government suggests that the courts can't second-guess what constitutes a serious foreign-policy consequence, nor ask for specific evidence of wrongdoing. They are arguing that 'it's a blank cheque to the administration to declare anything contrary to our foreign policy, and then revoke people's visas and deport them", says David Cole, who argued a similar case on behalf of Palestinian protesters that was litigated over two decades. The law has rarely been used in this way. In a court brief, 150 legal scholars reported that the foreign-policy provision had been invoked in just 15 deportation cases since 1990, resulting in only four removals. If its use of the 1952 law fails, the government has also argued that Mr Khalil is deportable for withholding information on his green-card application. For precedent, the government's lawyers cite several cases from the 1950s when the perceived threats from communism often won out over First Amendment concerns. Yet since then, in large part as a reaction to the trampling of rights during that Red Scare, the courts and Congress have strengthened free-speech protections for non-citizens. The same law Mr Rubio is invoking to deport Mr Khalil was amended in 1990 to prevent deportation based on an immigrant's beliefs, unless the secretary of state tells Congress that there is a compelling reason for deportation. It is unclear whether Mr Rubio has done so, though he asserts that Mr Khalil's presence undermines America's policy of 'combating antisemitism across the globe". In a report explaining these changes at the time, lawmakers expressed hope that 'this authority would be used sparingly and not merely because there is a likelihood that an alien will make critical remarks about the United States or its policies". The First Amendment makes no distinction between non-citizens and citizens. But the Supreme Court has tended to defer to the executive where immigration is concerned. 'For generations, there have been people on both the left and the right who have argued that the ordinary rules that apply in constitutional law generally don't apply when immigration policies are at stake", says Adam Cox of New York University. For example, during Mr Trump's first term the court upheld the third iteration of the administration's travel ban on people from several muslim-majority countries, despite the ban's constitutionally questionable discrimination. There are also doubts about whether the foreign-policy provision is too vague to be enforced. How can an immigrant stay on the right side of the law when they don't know what might get them deported? In a soap-opera-style twist, that was the conclusion of Mr Trump's late sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, then a district-court judge, when she ruled in 1996 that the measure was void because of its vagueness. Her decision was overturned for procedural reasons. But if Mr Khalil's case makes it to the Supreme Court, the justices could rely on her reasoning and avoid confronting the question of whether executive power over immigration takes precedence over the free-speech rights of non-citizens. While Mr Khalil's litigation plays out, Mr Rubio will no doubt continue revoking student visas. Ms Aw says she expects to see students decide that studying in America isn't worth the stress. Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important political news, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.
Time of India
18 minutes ago
- Time of India
Innovation takes a backseat at small companies as tariffs become a full-time preoccupation
Toy robots that teach children to code. Sneakers made in America. Mold-resistant kitchen gadgets. The three items are among new products that have gotten stuck in the pipeline due to President Donald Trump 's unpredictable trade policies, according to the brand founders behind the stalled items. They say that instead of fostering U.S. innovation, Trump's tariffs are stifling it with extra costs and unexpected work. At Learning Resources in Vernon Hills, Illinois, Made Plus in Annapolis, Maryland, and Dorai Home in Salt Lake City, research and development have taken a backseat to recalculating budgets, negotiating with vendors and tracking shipments in the shifting tariff environment. "If we don't have enough cash to cover just the restocks of the things that we know we need, do we want to take a risk on this new thing when we don't know how well it will sell yet?" Dorai Home founder Kelsey O'Callaghan said. O'Callaghan started the eco-friendly home goods company with a stone bath mat and now offers about 50 kitchen and bathroom accessories, which are made in China with a non-toxic material that dries quickly. New launches are critical to increasing sales and attracting customers, she said. As Trump increased the tariff on Chinese goods to 20% and as high as 145% before reducing the import tax rate to 30% for 90 days, Dorai Home postponed introducing new merchandise. O'Callaghan said she had to lay off the CEO as well as the head of product development, who helped the company jump on new trends. "I haven't really put the time or the emphasis on (innovation) because I'm covering too many other people's roles," she said. The company paused shipments from China in early April but resumed some on a staggered basis after the president's rate reduction. On Wednesday, Trump touted progress in U.S.-China trade talks. With details still sketchy and a deal not finalized, entrepreneurs interviewed by The Associated Press said they viewed the tariffs war as an ongoing threat. Tariffs and American innovation The potential stunting of innovation follows an economic slowdown during the coronavirus pandemic, when companies also had to put projects on hold. Some experts think the on-again-off again tariffs may have more enduring consequences because they rewire markets and upend business strategies. "When executive attention shifts from innovation to regulatory compliance, the innovation pipeline suffers. Companies end up optimizing for the political landscape rather than technological advancement," economists J. Bradford Jensen, a nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics , and Scott J. Wallsten, president of the Technology Policy Institute think tank, wrote in an April blog post. Trump has argued that curtailing foreign imports with tariffs would help revive the nation's diminished manufacturing base. Analysts and various trade groups have warned that fractured trade ties and supply chains may depress R&D activity of U.S. tech and health care companies that rely on international partnerships or foreign suppliers. Small companies, which often drive the innovations that create jobs and economic growth, already are under strain. With fewer people on staff and tighter budgets compared to large corporations, entrepreneurs say they are spending more time on cutting costs, suspending or arranging orders, and deciding how much of their tariff-related costs to charge customers. That means they're spending less time thinking of their next big ideas. Schylling Inc., a Massachusetts company that produces modern versions of Lava lamps, Sea-Monkeys, My Little Pony and other nostalgic toys, has its products made in China. As part of its strategy to account for tariffs, the company put a group of employees on temporary unpaid leave last month to reduce expenses. Beth Muehlenkamp, who was marketing director at the company, was one of them, but now she and several others who were furloughed, were permanently laid off early this month. She noted that she and other staff members typically would have been planning products for the final months of 2026. But Schylling isn't focusing on designing new products given the unstable trade outlook. "It's really hard to focus on innovation and creativity when you're consumed with this day-to-day of how we're just going to balance the books and deal with the changing rates," Muehlenkamp said. An uneven product pipeline Even some companies that do their manufacturing in the U.S. are scaling back investments in new products. Made Plus, a Maryland company that makes athletic shoes at a small factory in the state capital, put a planned golf line on hold because two key components - a foam insole and the tread for the bottom of the shoe - currently are made in China, founder Alan Guyan said. The company customizes its shoes on demand and charges $145 to $200 a pair. The footwear is made from recycled plastic bottles with advanced knitting, 3D printing and computerized stitching techniques. It's looking into getting components from Vietnam instead of China. Embracing new technology is essential to restoring manufacturing capability in the U.S. and competing with Asia, Guyan said. But given ongoing trade frictions, he said he does not want to invest time or money evaluating the latest embroidery and knitting machines, which come from Germany, Italy, China and the U.S. "We're just battening down the hatches a little bit and just hoping that there's enough influence in the community of footwear that it will somewhat change and get resolved and we can move forward," he said of the tariff roller coaster. In contrast, many big companies are forging on. Google parent Alphabet confirmed late last month that it still planned to spend $75 billion on capital expenditures this year, with most of the money going toward artificial intelligence technology. What's next for R&D? Sonia Lapinsky, a managing director at consulting firm AlixPartners, has advised her clients to limit tariff discussions to a small group of executives and to keep their product creation cycles in motion. Businesses have an even greater imperative to come up with attention-grabbing innovations when consumers may be reluctant to open their wallets, she said. Yet smaller companies may struggle to wall off tariff discussions from the rest of the business. Learning Resources CEO Rick Woldenberg said that roughly 25% to 30% of the 350 employees at the educational toy company's headquarters, including product developers, are working at least part-time on tariff-related tasks. The company usually develops 250 different products a year and expects to get half that many off the drawing board for 2026, Woldenberg said. While exploring factories in countries besides China, he said, Learning Resources is delaying the next generation of its interactive robots that help children develop computer programming skills through games and other activities. The family-run business and Woldenberg's other toy business, hand2Mind, are locked in a legal battle with the Trump administration. The jointly owned companies filed a lawsuit accusing the president of exceeding his authority by invoking an emergency powers law to impose tariffs. A federal judge ruled in favor of the two companies last month, and the administration has appealed the decision. Woldenberg said he's ready to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court . "It's a win at the Supreme Court that we need," he said. "And so until then, there will be no certainty. Even then, if the government is bound and determined to keep us in an uncertain situation, they'll be able to do that."
NDTV
24 minutes ago
- NDTV
Trump To Attend Security Meeting On Friday After Israeli Strikes On Iran
U.S. President Donald Trump will attend a National Security Council meeting on Friday morning, the White House said late on Thursday after Israeli strikes on Iran that have put the Middle East on edge. The meeting will be held at 11 am ET (1500 GMT) on Friday, the White House said. WHY IT'S IMPORTANT Israel said early on Friday Middle East time and late Thursday U.S. time that it had struck Iran to block Tehran from developing atomic weapons, and Iranian media and witnesses reported explosions including at the country's main uranium enrichment facility. U.S. top diplomat Marco Rubio called Israel's strikes against Iran a "unilateral action" and said Washington was not involved while also urging Tehran not to target U.S. interests or personnel in the region. The U.S. State Department said late on Thursday that the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem has directed all U.S. government employees and their family members to shelter in place until further notice. CONTEXT Trump had been seeking a new nuclear deal to place limits on Iran's disputed uranium enrichment activities but the talks have appeared to be deadlocked. Trump said earlier on Thursday an Israeli strike on Iran "could very well happen" but reiterated hopes for a peaceful resolution. The U.S. military is planning for the full range of contingencies in the Middle East, including the possibility that it might have to help evacuate American civilians, a U.S. official told Reuters. SECURITY ALERT BY U.S. EMBASSY A security alert by the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem said the security environment was complex and could change quickly. In response to security incidents and without advance notice, the U.S. embassy may further restrict or prohibit U.S. government employees and their family members from travelling to certain areas of Israel and the Israeli-occupied West Bank, the State Department said.
