logo
Why the Greenpeace trial is a lesson for us all

Why the Greenpeace trial is a lesson for us all

Yahoo09-05-2025

Winona LaDuke Barn Raiser
The preamble for the next war over water is here. Aggressive corporations are coming after the few remaining pristine places on Mother Earth—mainly on the land of Indigenous people. Nowadays, it's not just Native people being targeted, it's our allies.Last month, two separate court decisions highlighted the repression being leveled on our Water Protector allies.
On June 28, 2018 in St. Paul, Minnesota, author Winona LaDuke speaks out against the Enbridge Energy Line 3. (Richard Tsong-Taatarii, Star Tribune via AP Photo)
On March 19, a jury in Mandan, North Dakota, in Morton County, leveled a blistering $660 million verdict against Greenpeace for its part in the Standing Rock resistance against the Dakota Access Pipeline. Anyone who was at Standing Rock knows that Greenpeace was barely there, but they have a name, and Energy Transfer, the pipeline's owner, made an example out of them. I was in the courtroom when the verdict came in. It was sickening.
On March 10, Marian Moore, a Water Protector who had participated at a gathering to pray for healing, had her charges reversed by a Minnesota Court of Appeals. Her story: Marian, 67, a long-human rights advocate and environmentalist, was the daughter of Paul Moore Jr., the Episcopal bishop of New York from 1972 to 1989 who had walked with Martin Luther King Jr. during the Civil Rights Movement. In this century, Marian had been active in opposing Enbridge's Line 3 pipeline, which crosses northern Minnesota, on its way from Calgary, Alberta, to Superior, Wisconsin, on lands that are subject to Native treaty rights and through waters full of wild rice, an essential food to the Anishinaabe.
On January 9, 2021, Moore was among the more than 100 Water Protectors who gathered on state Highway 169 for a prayer ceremony near a Line 3 construction site in Aitkin County. For that, she caught three charges, including trespass on critical infrastructure (a gross misdemeanor), unlawful assembly and, rather redundantly, presence at an unlawful assembly (both misdemeanors). I was a witness in her defense.
In November, 2023, an Aitkin County jury found her guilty of gross misdemeanors and sentenced her to six months in county jail, but with a stay of execution for nine months, allowing her to appeal. 'I had to not trespass on any Enbridge property and be law-abiding, or I would be in Aitkin County jail for six months,' she explains to me.
Six months seems like a long time for someone who stood on a state highway to pray, looked at a construction site and left once a dispersal order was given. 'I think they targeted me because I was friends with Indigenous people and [was] bringing money to the movement against the pipeline,' says Marian.
Meanwhile out in Morton County, Greenpeace is getting socked with that ridiculous verdict. $660 million is a lot of money for some folks who were barely at Standing Rock. Aitkin County, Minnesota, and Morton County, North Dakota, are trying to teach a lesson; or, more appropriately, through these cases, corporations are trying to stifle resistance and discourage allies.
Welcome to the New Order, the one where corporations are now considered legal 'persons,' protected by law enforcement and the judicial system as they press the law's boundaries and extract precious resources.
The entire trial against Greenpeace was shameful.
Here's how it went: The law firm Gibson Dunn carefully picked Mandan in Morton County, an oil-friendly jurisdiction where Judge James Gion denied most important motions made by Greenpeace. Four motions to change the venue from Mandan were denied. Gion would not let Greenpeace tell the jury of Energy Transfer's terrible safety record. According to a report by Greenpeace and Waterkeeper Alliance, the Pipeline Hazardous and Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued 106 safety violations to Energy Transfer and Sunoco between 2002 and 2018, including failures to conduct corrosion inspections, to maintain pipeline integrity and to repair unsafe pipelines in a timely manner within five years.
Greenpeace was not allowed to tell the jury that Energy Transfer's identical federal lawsuit against Greenpeace was dismissed by a federal judge. The judge effectively limited defense evidence.
Gion would not allow live streaming, so if you wanted to 'see justice' you had to go to Mandan. It's said that justice is blind, and, in North Dakota, justice is literally blind and asleep. I saw jurors asleep while on duty in the court room.
'Greenpeace did not manipulate Standing Rock, but Energy Transfer has manipulated Morton County,' Janet Alkire, Chairwoman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, said in a statement shortly after the verdict.
As I drove toward Bismark from my own reservation, White Earth, a verse from the Rolling Stones' 'You Can't Always Get What You Want' stuck in my head: I went down to the County Courthouse to get my share of abuse. At least that's how I sing it. I've had my share. That's what it's like being on trial in the Deep North, especially if you're a Water Protector.
The chances for a Native person to get justice in North Dakota or northern Minnesota are probably pretty small. Native people represent a third of the people in jail in Becker, Hubbard and Aitkin counties. Yet, we represent only 5.2% of the population.
Standing Rock Tribal Chairwoman Alkire was appalled at the state of justice in Mandan:
I take offense to the jury verdict. … We expect more from North Dakota judges and members of the jury from our neighboring communities. … Neither Greenpeace nor anyone else paid or persuaded Standing Rock to oppose DAPL. … Energy Transfer's false and self-serving narrative that Greenpeace manipulated Standing Rock into protesting DAPL is patronizing and disrespectful to our people. We understand that many Morton County residents support the oil industry. … But we are your neighbors, and you should not be fooled that easily.
The lawsuit against Greenpeace is called a SLAPP suit, or Strategic Litigation against Public Participation. It is intended to silence opposition. There are anti-SLAPP laws in 35 states, including Minnesota. Fundamentally, this is a question of free speech. When Energy Transfer sues people for so-called defamation, they send a clear message: If you stand up, you will be punished in a lawsuit.
'To me, this is a freedom of speech case and freedom of association case,' attorney Sarah Vogel, twice-elected former North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner, told the North Dakota Monitor before the case went to trial. Vogel, who grew up in Mandan, said, 'As residents of a small state without a whole lot of power, we'd better be able to speak up. Who knows? I mean, this time, it's Greenpeace, but who will it be next time?'
The case in Aitkin County was a little different but had some of the same premises. The idea that 'outside agitators' came and did not do nice things was a theme. Greenpeace fits that narrative for Energy Transfer, and Marian Moore, who is a striking six feet two inches tall, does not quite look like a local gal.
Trey Cox is Energy Transfer's lead attorney from Gibson Dunn (the same law firm that brought us the Chevron Donziger verdict). Cox kept referring to Water Protectors as outsiders and paid protesters. One might wonder, where Energy Transfer is from? Certainly not from Mandan. They are from Texas. Where was TigerSwan, the private security company hired by Energy Transfer from? North Carolina. And where was Frost Kennels, the company whose employees unleashed dogs on Water Protectors, from? Ohio. In other words, mercenaries.
In Minnesota, remember that Enbridge is a foreign corporation from Canada, with big swaths of pipeline networks across our north country, including aging pipes and the dirtiest oil in the world that poses a major threat to the Great Lakes, repository of a fifth of the world's freshwater. Yet, Enbridge received priority policy protection in Minnesota during the Covid-19 pandemic and was allowed to bring in 4,300 people to build Line 3 as a part of 'essential industry' in the state.
These companies also want to censure and erase any mentions of their abysmal safety records. Energy Transfer has a multitude of fines for spills, and Enbridge has the two largest oil spills on the U.S. mainland to its name. In the North Dakota trial, Greenpeace could not bring up Energy Transfer's safety record, while in Aitkin County, the judge did not allow Marian Moore to say 'treaty rights' or allude to the Minnesota case where Anishinaabe Water Protectors' charges were dismissed in September 2023, based on the treaty and cultural beliefs, and 'in the interests of justice.'
The Trump administration intends to further criminalize Water Protectors, and certainly protests in general. That much is clear. This is on top of the more than 300 anti-protest bills introduced in state legislatures since 2017, according to the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, 54 of which have been enacted and currently undermine the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and assembly.
Moreover, over the past half-century, a dangerous doctrine of 'qualified immunity' has been hatched up, underwritten by the Supreme Court, to limit the ability of individuals to hold police officers accountable for violating their constitutional rights. Qualified immunity basically gives officers expanding impunity to injure, or even kill, civilians like Water Protectors.
In April 2024, North Dakota Federal Judge Daniel Traynor dismissed Sophia Wilansky's case against North Dakota law enforcement on the grounds that law enforcement had 'qualified immunity.'
A blast from an 'explosive munition' was leveled at her in the early hours of November 21, 2016. Law enforcement had constructed a barricade across Backwater Bridge on North Dakota Highway 1806 to prevent unarmed Water Protectors, including Wilansky, from using the road. Morton County Deputy Jonathon Moll, had positioned himself on the turret of a Humvee and fired a flashbang grenade from his 12-gauge shotgun, hitting Wilansky, nearly severing her hand and destroying almost all of the arteries, skin, tissue, muscles, nerves, tendons and bone in her left forearm. 'At 21-years-old, I lost the use of my arm because a police officer shot me from a gun turret with an exploding grenade at a protest. My life will never be the same, but I will also not be scared away from fighting for what is right,' Wilansky said in a Civil Liberties Defense Center media release on April 6, 2024. An additional statement read: 'The doctrine of Qualified Immunity is repulsive in that it allows police officers to … shoot protestors with anything they want without repercussions.'
Yes, there will be appeals. Marian Moore won on appeal. And a Greenpeace spokesperson told Barn Raiser the nonprofit will appeal the verdict, but the timing and process of the appeal has yet to be determined.
But what's so sad is that the North Dakota jury couldn't even stand up for the water, the land and the people. Instead, that jury gave a Texas oil pipeline company, founded by Trump-supporting billionaire Kelcy Warren, everything it wanted and then some. That was shameful. And, without that appeals court, an Aitkin County jury would have been content to let Marian Moore sit in the slammer.
Marty Garbus is a trial attorney who has represented, among others, Nelson Mandela, Leonard Peltier, Daniel Ellsberg, Lenny Bruce, Elie Wiesel, Cesar Chavez and Vaclav Havel. Garbus is also a member of the Energy Transfer v. Greenpeace Trial Monitoring Committee, a group that followed the trial day in and day out. Here is what he said when the jury returned its shameful verdict:
In my six decades of legal practice, I have never witnessed a trial as unfair as the one against Greenpeace that just ended in the courts of North Dakota. This is one of the most important cases in American history. The law that can come down in this case can affect any demonstration, religious or political. It's far bigger than the environmental movement. Yet the court in North Dakota abdicated its sacred duty to conduct a fair and public trial and instead let Energy Transfer run roughshod over the rule of law.
Greenpeace has very strong case on appeal. I believe there is a good chance it ultimately will win both in court and in the court of public opinion.
What to do? Stand our ground. Make the solutions. And keep working together.
In Minnesota, we call ourselves the Home Team, and we are many colors. Marion and thousands of others told their stories and faced a lot of police for the sake of protecting water. I, for one, am grateful to them, and the new work underway by groups like Rise and Repair in Minnesota that does multi-racial organizing work around climate justice.
Weweg bi azhe giiwewag. The snow geese return.
There is greatness in the flocks of birds returning to these lands of water. Each year, they return and remind us of the life that is here, a life which needs water. I am reminded that's who I work for. Greenpeace was inspired by a story called the Rainbow Warrior, where people of all colors would come together to protect Mother Earth. Critics say the story wasn't a real prophecy, but I see it happening today. People of all colors coming together to protect Mother Earth is a good story for epic times. Thank you, allies.
Update: On April 23, in a long-awaited decision, a federal judge ordered the U.S. government to pay North Dakota $28 million in damages for expenses the state made on police in response to the Standing Rock demonstrations.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Factbox-Breakdown of U.S. tariffs on China since Trump's first term
Factbox-Breakdown of U.S. tariffs on China since Trump's first term

Yahoo

time13 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Factbox-Breakdown of U.S. tariffs on China since Trump's first term

BEIJING (Reuters) -Billions of dollars of Chinese goods have been impacted by additional U.S. tariffs since 2018, initially under the first Donald Trump presidency and later under the Biden administration. Returning to the White House this year, Trump has imposed even more duties on China. The U.S. tariffs range from those imposed under Section 301 of its trade act due to what Washington claims are unfair Chinese trade practices, to duties under Section 232 levied for national security reasons. This year, Trump has imposed another 20% levies on all Chinese goods, saying Beijing has not done enough to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States. So-called reciprocal tariffs, under which the U.S. will match duties imposed by other countries, have also been levied in a bid to rebalance trade flows. Below are the U.S. tariffs on China effective as of June 12, 2025: Tariff Rate Products Effective date Reciprocal 10% All Paused for 90 days until Aug 10, 2025 Fentanyl 20% All Mar 4, 2025 Section Up to List 1: Pharmaceuticals, July 6, 2018 301 25% iron and steel, aluminium, vehicles and aircraft, medical or surgical instruments and apparatus and more. List 2: Vehicles, Aug 23, 2018 railway or tramway locomotives, aircraft and their parts, medical or surgical instruments and apparatus and more. List 3: Prepared May 10, 2019 foodstuffs, beverages, mineral products, fertilizers, wood products, textiles, precious and base metals, vehicles, aircraft, vessels, machinery and mechanical appliances and more. List 4A: Prepared Feb 14, 2020 foodstuffs, beverages, mineral products, fertilizers, footwear, wood products, ceramic products, glass, textiles, precious and base metals, machinery and mechanical appliances, vehicles, aircraft, vessels, art, antiques and more. In September 2019, the U.S. imposed 15% tariffs on more than $120 billion of Chinese goods under Section 301, which it then halved to 7.5% less than six months later. The 25% U.S. tariffs on $250 billion of Chinese goods under the earlier List 1-3 remain unchanged. In September 2024, the U.S. Trade Representative under the Biden administration announced additional tariffs of 25-100% on 14 product groups following a four-year review of the Section 301 tariff actions. The levies were imposed on strategic Chinese sectors or sectors where the United States has made significant domestic investments. Additional tariffs on goods under Section 301: Effective date EVs 100% Sep 27, 2024 Solar cells, syringes and 50% needles Non-lithium-ion battery parts, 25% lithium-ion electrical vehicle batteries, other critical minerals, ship-to-shore cranes, steel and aluminium products, facemasks Semiconductors 50% Jan 1, 2025 Lithium-ion non-electrical 25% Jan 1, 2026 vehicle batteries, medical gloves, natural graphite, permanent magnets In addition to the above duties, the first Trump administration in 2018 imposed a range of tariffs under Section 232 aimed at restricting goods deemed a threat to national security, including all aluminium and steel imports, shutting most Chinese suppliers out of the U.S. market. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

CaaStle Meltdown: P180 Sues ‘The Hunsicker Enterprise' for Conspiracy
CaaStle Meltdown: P180 Sues ‘The Hunsicker Enterprise' for Conspiracy

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

CaaStle Meltdown: P180 Sues ‘The Hunsicker Enterprise' for Conspiracy

It took Christine Hunsicker 14 years to build CaaStle up into what looked like a pioneering fashion rental service with hundreds of thousands of subscribers and a $1.4 billion valuation. But it took almost no time at all for the start-up case study to move from helping to buy fashion brands to devolving almost entirely into scandal. More from WWD Vince Sees Q4 Sales and Profitability Gains, but Projects Q1 Declines Amid Macro Uncertainties Fashion's Enron? P180 Blasts CaaStle's Christine Hunsicker in Fraud Lawsuit CaaStle Gets $2.75M Bridge Loan to Plan Chapter 11 Filing and Weigh Strategic Transactions Hunsicker was working with Brendan Hoffman's P180 to buy control of Vince Holding Corp. in late January and just two months later was out as CaaStle's chief executive officer, accused of doctoring financial statements, racking up losses of more than $510 million and more. The narrative is flipping again, from business breakdown to legal fallout. Already law enforcement was said to be investigating. Now P180 — which was cofounded by Hoffman and Hunsicker and minority-owned by CaaStle — is arguing in a new federal lawsuit that Hunsicker is more than a solitary bad actor, but the 'ringleader of a conspiracy' that violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. 'This case is a tale of lies, betrayal and cover up,' said the P180 suit, which was filed May 27 and also names Jaswinder Pal Singh, George Goldenberg, Scott Callon and Chirag Jain as defendants. They are all tied to CaaStle. A spokesperson for the rental service did not immediately address WWD questions regarding the company or the suit on Tuesday. Hunsicker could not be reached. The federal case follows similar lines as a New York state suit that P180 filed against CaaStle, but adds more details and implicates more players. It is still Hunsicker at the center, though. Hoffman had worked with her before, during his first stint as CEO of Vince, when he dabbled in rental. But it was later, after he left the top job at Wolverine Worldwide in 2023, that Hunsicker made him a real rental believer. According to the suit, Hoffman came to believe that, 'Apparel retailers could reclaim — and perhaps even multiply — their valuation by increasing their marginal gains on discounted merchandise. For years, valuation of apparel companies had declined to be just pennies per dollar of revenue. Hunsicker promised e-commerce scale — specifically, technology and logistics that would enable regular clothing shipments to customers on a massive level — that would allow apparel companies to increase their margin on what otherwise would be discounted merchandise.' In a nutshell, the premise was that renting out instead of discounting goods that don't sell at full price would boost margins. It was a revelation profound enough that Hoffman created P180, marrying his expertise and relationships with Hunsicker's 'self-proclaimed technological and e-commerce prowess,' the suit said. 'What Hoffman did not know — but which eventually has become clear — is that Hunsicker is a world-class fraudster ranking alongside the likes of Bernie Madoff and Elizabeth Holmes,' the suit claimed. 'She lied to the world to make it appear that CaaStle was a success, lied specifically to Hoffman about CaaStle and hid CaaStle's financial data from Hoffman. She presented herself as a skillful and successful entrepreneur who built a robust e-commerce business, raised hundreds of millions of dollars for it and commanded a board of notable leaders in corporate governance. 'Hunsicker, though, did not act alone. She had co-conspirators…with whom she created her house of cards. Hunsicker and her co-conspirators repeatedly stated or implied that CaaStle had a large scale, a huge subscriber base and spectacular financials.' Instead of 'hundreds of thousands of subscribers and hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, CaaStle itself had just a fraction of those subscribers, barely had any revenue, had supposedly spent hundreds of millions of dollars it received from investors, and had no viable business,' the suit said. 'The whole thing was a sham perpetuated by a pattern of persistent lying, obfuscation and, eventually, cover-up.' The suit repeatedly refers to the alleged conspiracy as 'The Hunsicker Enterprise.' Susan Scafidi, founder and director of the Fashion Law Institute at Fordham Law School, said the complaint 'recasts' the scandal, replacing a single mastermind with a conspiracy. 'It appears intended not only to get ahead of a government investigation but also to distribute the blame — and thus the potential financial liability — for alleged extreme financial misrepresentations, and also to tap into the enhanced damages available under RICO,' Scafidi said. 'If, as JFK noted, success has many fathers but failure is an orphan, this lawsuit aims to bring in as many key CaaStle players as possible for paternity tests — and the discovery process is likely to be in-depth and painful. 'The concept behind CaaStle was very compelling, and from a social perspective it's a pity that the circular and sharing economies of fashion seem so hard to monetize. But the big winners here may be the legal teams working to unravel the plot twists,' she said. There will be plenty to work with. P180's suit claims that 'The Hunsicker Enterprise' induced it to take self-dealing loans and had money 'fraudulently transferred out' of its bank account to both CaaStle and personal accounts. The alleged conspirators also overstated CaaStle's capabilities while P180 lined up investments in Vince and Altuzarra. Separately, CaaStle denied allegations in two cases filed against it in state court, one by a company that owns the name Express over use of the name Express Style Trial and the other by P180. CaaStle tried to get the state court suit by P180 thrown out, claiming it doesn't have standing to bring the case. But a P180 spokesperson said, 'CaaStle filed a motion to dismiss on a technicality that will soon be remedied and will not prevent the case from moving forward.' Best of WWD The Biggest Legal Battles Shaping the Fashion Industry Today PETA Asks Lululemon About Slaughterhouse Practices China's Livestreaming Star Viya Fined $210 Million for Tax Evasion

Why Trump's move toward using the military on US soil is so fraught
Why Trump's move toward using the military on US soil is so fraught

CNN

time32 minutes ago

  • CNN

Why Trump's move toward using the military on US soil is so fraught

The country hangs on a hugely significant precipice, as President Donald Trump moves toward making good on his long-running suggestions of an extraordinary step: deploying the military on US soil. About 700 Marines have now been mobilized to join the National Guard in Los Angeles to deal with demonstrations over federal immigration raids, CNN reports. The Marines were previously on 'ready to deploy' status. (It is still unclear what their specific task will be once in Los Angeles, sources told CNN. And like the National Guard troops, they are prohibited from conducting law enforcement activity such as making arrests unless Trump invokes the Insurrection Act.) But to hear the White House tell it, this show of force is not just the right thing to do but also a political winner. Responding to a poll showing 54% of Americans approved of Trump's deportation program, White House spokesman Steven Cheung wrote on X Sunday, 'And the approval number will be even higher after the national guard was sent to LA to beat back the violence this weekend.' But whether the American people actually want this military activation isn't nearly so clear. In fact, they've rejected such things in the past. The administration may be making a huge gamble on the American people's tolerance for a heavy-handed federal response. And while Americans might not have much sympathy for the demonstrators in Los Angeles who engage in violence or for undocumented immigrants, recent surveys have shown they often say Trump goes too far in his attempts to address such problems. There is something of an analog for the current situation. It came in 2020 when federal law enforcement suddenly moved to clear Lafayette Square, near the White House, of racial justice demonstrators, resulting in violent scenes. This wasn't the military, but it was controversial – in part because Trump then walked across the square with military leaders for a photo-op. (Then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper also resisted Trump's suggestions of using active-duty military at the time.) The American people did not like what they saw. A USA Today/Ipsos poll conducted a week later showed 63% of Americans opposed the use of rubber bullets and tear gas that day. It also showed Americans opposed deploying military forces in other states by 10 points, 51-41%. Similarly a CNN poll conducted by SSRS at the time asked a broader question – whether it would be appropriate for a president to 'deploy the U.S. military in response to protests in the United States.' Americans said this would be 'inappropriate' by a wide margin, 60-36%. All of which suggest Americans are predisposed to viewing such actions skeptically. These numbers come with caveats, though. The CNN poll question is a great window into how this could be received. But it's possible people's views have shifted or could shift with circumstances, including the role the Marines end up playing in Los Angeles. Back in 2020, the racial justice protests were relatively popular, and people didn't view them as particularly violent. Americans sympathized with the cause, believing George Floyd had been murdered by police. It's too early to tell how people view the demonstrators in Los Angeles. And the plight of the undocumented immigrants whom the administration is trying to deport is probably less sympathetic than the racial justice protesters' cause. (Clear majorities generally support deporting undocumented immigrants, who are in this country without authorization.) But when it comes to the administration's immigration crackdown, Americans have also expressed nuanced feelings. And the poll the White House cited this weekend is a case in point. In the CBS News/YouGov survey, which was conducted before Saturday's protests broke out in Los Angeles, Americans said they approved of Trump's deportation program, 54-46%. They also liked its 'goals,' 55-45%. But that's not quite the same as saying they approved of the administration's actions, full stop. The same poll asked whether people liked 'the way you think [Trump] is going about' the deportations. And there, Americans actually disliked his approach by double-digits, 56-44%. While independents were about evenly split on Trump's deportation program, they disliked how he's gone about it by 30 points , 65-35%. This is a dichotomy we see in lots of polling of Trump's deportation actions. Americans like the idea of mass deportation, but not so much the implementation. They like the president a lot on securing the border. But they like him significantly less on 'immigration,' and they like him even less when 'deportation,' specifically, is invoked in the question. One possible reason: Americans see the administration moving haphazardly. That could most notably be the case with things like deporting the wrong people and actions that have been halted by the courts, including ones in which judges have said people haven't been given enough due process. It's possible that people could come to sympathize with the cause of the Los Angeles protesters – if not the violent ones – at least to some degree. While Americans generally favor mass deportation, those numbers decline significantly when you mention the prospect of deporting otherwise-law-abiding people with jobs and those who have been in this country for a long time. (For example, a recent Pew Research Center poll showed Americans opposed deporting undocumented immigrants who have jobs, 56-41%, and they opposed deporting the parents of US citizen children 60-37%.) But the raids that set off the protests have been directed at workplaces generally – not necessarily at criminals or gang members. The Department of Homeland Security has claimed at least five of the people arrested during Sunday immigration sweeps in Los Angeles had criminal convictions or were accused of crimes. Through it all, the administration has made a rather Machiavellian political calculation: that however much people dislike the means, their support for the ends will carry the day. Maybe people say they don't like the lack of due process the administration has provided – or the wrong people getting sent to a brutal Salvadoran prison – but how much do they really care if the end result is lots of deportations? Similarly, the administration could be making the calculation that scenes of violence in Los Angeles could marshal support for a previously unthinkable step of deploying the military domestically against protesters – something Americans opposed by 24 points just five years ago. So much depends on what the Marines end up doing in Los Angeles and whether Trump invokes the Insurrection Act to allow them to engage in policing activities. But the Trump administration has clearly gone too far for people before as part of their deportation efforts. And the one big crackdown on protesters we have seen in the Trump era didn't go well. This would appear pretty fraught – not just practically, but politically.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store