
US Marines arrive in LA amid immigration protests
Hundreds of US Marines have arrived in Los Angeles under orders from President Donald Trump, who has also activated 4000 National Guard troops to quell protests in the city despite objections from California Governor Gavin Newsom that the deployments are politically motivated.
The city has seen five days of public protests since the Trump administration launched a series of immigration raids on Friday. State officials said Trump's response was an extreme overreaction to mostly peaceful demonstrations.
About 700 Marines were in a staging area awaiting deployment to specific locations, a US official said.
The Marines do not have arrest authority and will protect federal property and personnel, according to military officials.
There were approximately 2100 Guard troops in greater Los Angeles on Tuesday, with more on the way, the official said.
The troop deployments are estimated to cost about $US134 million ($A206 million), a senior Pentagon official said on Tuesday.
Bryn MacDonnell, who is performing comptroller duties at the Pentagon, told lawmakers the cost included travel, housing and food for troops.
"Think of how much veteran nutrition assistance and housing (the Trump administration) could be providing instead of dishonouring these troops using them as pawns," Newsom wrote on X.
Trump's Marine deployment escalated his confrontation with Newsom, who filed a lawsuit on Monday asserting that Trump's activation of Guard troops without the governor's consent was illegal. The Guard deployment was the first time in decades that a president did so without a request from a sitting governor.
The use of active military to respond to civil disturbances is extremely rare.
"This isn't about public safety," Newsom wrote on X on Monday. "It's about stroking a dangerous President's ego."
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass emphasised the unrest has been limited to a few downtown blocks.
She drew a distinction between the majority of demonstrators protesting peacefully in support of immigrants and a smaller number of agitators she blamed for violence and looting. Bass said the agitators would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Trump has justified his decision to deploy troops by describing the protests as a violent occupation, a characterisation that Newsom and Bass have said is grossly exaggerated.
Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, the president said LA would be "burning right now" if not for the deployments, and that Guard troops would remain until there is no danger.
Trump left open the possibility of invoking the centuries-old Insurrection Act, which would allow the military to take part directly in civilian law enforcement, saying one could argue that parts of the city were already seeing an insurrection.
The protests since Friday have been largely peaceful, but there have been scattered clashes, with some demonstrators throwing rocks and other objects at officers, blocking an interstate highway and setting cars ablaze. Police have responded by firing projectiles such as pepper balls, as well as flash-bang grenades and tear gas.
The Los Angeles Police Department said it arrested more than 100 people on Monday, including 14 for looting. In all, state and local police have arrested more than 180 people since Saturday on charges including assaulting an officer and attempted murder with a Molotov cocktail.
Business owners in the Little Tokyo neighbourhood - where some of the most intense clashes between police and protesters occurred late on Monday - were washing graffiti off storefront windows and sweeping up litter on Tuesday.
A store owner who did not want to give her name, fearing reprisals, said it was frustrating that the neighbourhood full of immigrants was paying the price of the protests against federal immigration agents.
US Marines are trained for conflicts around the world - from the Middle East to Africa - and are also used for rapid deployments in case of emergencies, such as threats to US embassies.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

The Age
32 minutes ago
- The Age
Netanyahu knew the lethal risk of striking Iran. But he did it anyway
The attack without warning by Israel against a range of targets across Iran is unprecedented, even by the new standards of behaviour established since the April 2024 Iranian strike against Israel. That attack, in turn, was carried out in response to Israel's strike against Iranian military personnel in Iran's diplomatic compound in Damascus. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has characterised it as a necessary action to forestall the existential threat posed to his country by Iran's desire to weaponise its stockpiles of enriched uranium. Yet only a few months earlier, US President Donald Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified before the Senate intelligence committee that the intelligence community assessed Iran was not actively pursuing nuclear weapons and nor had its supreme leader allowed such a program to be commenced. If they weren't reacting to an imminent threat, then why choose to bomb Iranian targets now? The answer is because they could. Or more particularly because the environment that would allow them to do so would not be any better in the future. They had long wanted to conduct such an attack, but the political and military conditions have not allowed them to. That has changed. To begin with, Iran's air defences were significantly degraded as a result of Israel's October 2024 air attack. It takes some time to rebuild such a capability, and the longer Israel waited, the more likely it would be that Iran could mount some sort of air defence against an attack. In addition, Tehran's 'Axis of Resistance' had been significantly degraded over the past 18 months – in particular, Lebanese Hezbollah has suffered leadership decapitation and significant personnel and materiel losses. Its resupply routes through Syria have also been significantly compromised with the fall of the Assad regime. In the past, such an attack by Israel could be expected to elicit a robust response from Hezbollah against northern Israel; today the group is both able to respond but also must determine whether its priority is to rebuild domestically or to support its Iranian ideological and financial sponsor. And for all its public signalling, there are many in the Trump administration who support the attack against Iran. Trump has cast himself as the master dealmaker and as someone who wants to avoid war. He has described the Iranians as tough negotiators and claimed they were close to a deal. But Netanyahu accused the Iranians of stalling and dragging out the talks with no prospect of acceding to Washington's non-negotiable demand to stop processing any uranium. Loading Trump denied any US involvement in the attack, but Netanyahu was quick to praise him in his televised address following the attack. Trump is playing coy. While the next round of talks with Iran were to be held on Sunday, there is virtually no chance of them going on while Iran is being attacked. Diplomacy is a slow process, and there is a feeling that the diplomatic track had by no means been exhausted.

Sydney Morning Herald
33 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Netanyahu knew the lethal risk of striking Iran. But he did it anyway
The attack without warning by Israel against a range of targets across Iran is unprecedented, even by the new standards of behaviour established since the April 2024 Iranian strike against Israel. That attack, in turn, was carried out in response to Israel's strike against Iranian military personnel in Iran's diplomatic compound in Damascus. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has characterised it as a necessary action to forestall the existential threat posed to his country by Iran's desire to weaponise its stockpiles of enriched uranium. Yet only a few months earlier, US President Donald Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified before the Senate intelligence committee that the intelligence community assessed Iran was not actively pursuing nuclear weapons and nor had its supreme leader allowed such a program to be commenced. If they weren't reacting to an imminent threat, then why choose to bomb Iranian targets now? The answer is because they could. Or more particularly because the environment that would allow them to do so would not be any better in the future. They had long wanted to conduct such an attack, but the political and military conditions have not allowed them to. That has changed. To begin with, Iran's air defences were significantly degraded as a result of Israel's October 2024 air attack. It takes some time to rebuild such a capability, and the longer Israel waited, the more likely it would be that Iran could mount some sort of air defence against an attack. In addition, Tehran's 'Axis of Resistance' had been significantly degraded over the past 18 months – in particular, Lebanese Hezbollah has suffered leadership decapitation and significant personnel and materiel losses. Its resupply routes through Syria have also been significantly compromised with the fall of the Assad regime. In the past, such an attack by Israel could be expected to elicit a robust response from Hezbollah against northern Israel; today the group is both able to respond but also must determine whether its priority is to rebuild domestically or to support its Iranian ideological and financial sponsor. And for all its public signalling, there are many in the Trump administration who support the attack against Iran. Trump has cast himself as the master dealmaker and as someone who wants to avoid war. He has described the Iranians as tough negotiators and claimed they were close to a deal. But Netanyahu accused the Iranians of stalling and dragging out the talks with no prospect of acceding to Washington's non-negotiable demand to stop processing any uranium. Loading Trump denied any US involvement in the attack, but Netanyahu was quick to praise him in his televised address following the attack. Trump is playing coy. While the next round of talks with Iran were to be held on Sunday, there is virtually no chance of them going on while Iran is being attacked. Diplomacy is a slow process, and there is a feeling that the diplomatic track had by no means been exhausted.

AU Financial Review
38 minutes ago
- AU Financial Review
Investors are piling back into the momentum trade, hoping for records
Investors are increasingly shrugging off the months-long sharemarket volatility sparked by the Trump administration's aggressive trade policies and have become hopeful that, with the worst of the tariff shocks over, Australian stocks will keep breaking records over the next six months. While the S&P/ASX 200 pulled back from its all-time high on Friday amid news of Israeli missile and drone strikes on Iran, the benchmark index has still jumped 19 per cent since its April low. That puts it on the cusp of a technical bull market, or a 20 per cent climb from its recent trough.