Deseret News archives: Failed Bay of Pigs invasion began on this day in 1961
A look back at local, national and world events through Deseret News archives.
On April 17, 1961, some 1,400 CIA-trained Cuban exiles launched the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in an attempt to topple Fidel Castro, whose forces crushed the incursion within three days.
The invasion in 1961 was a failed attack launched by the CIA during the Kennedy administration to push Castro from power.
Since 1959, officials at the U.S. State Department and the CIA had attempted to remove him. Finally, on April 17, 1961, the CIA launched what its leaders believed would be the definitive strike: a full-scale invasion by American-trained Cubans who had fled their homes when Castro took over.
However, the invasion was doomed from the start. The invaders were badly outnumbered by Castro's troops, and many surrendered after less than 24 hours of fighting.
The Deseret News and most newspapers in the nation followed the daily updates with anticipation as Russia and the United States battled in words and bullets during the Cold War, with the island of Cuba serving as a battleground.
Here are some stories from Deseret News archives about the Bay of Pigs invasion and what has resulted from the failed attempt to drive Fidel Castro from power:
'The man who saw too much'
'Bay of Pigs conference ends with visit to infamous beach'
'Over 50 years, Bay of Pigs vets shaped Miami, U.S.'
'50 years later, Congress honors Bay of Pigs veterans'
'Opinion: The time is now to change U.S.-Cuba relations'
'A.F. secretary during the Bay of Pigs, missile crisis dies'
'Were Kennedys obsessed with Castro?'
'Suit seeks release of CIA report on Bay of Pigs'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump vows to "HIT" any protester who spits on police. He pardoned those who did far worse on Jan. 6
In one of his first acts of his second term as president, Donald Trumppardoned hundreds of people who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to try to keep him in office, including those who beat police officers. On Monday, Trump posted a warning on social media to those demonstrating in Los Angeles against his immigration crackdown and confronting police and members of the National Guard he had deployed: 'IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT, and I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before. Such disrespect will not be tolerated!' The discrepancy of Trump's response to the two disturbances — pardoning rioters who beat police on Jan. 6, which he called 'a beautiful day,' while condemning violence against law enforcement in Los Angeles — illustrates how the president expects his enemies to be held to different standards than his supporters. 'Trump's behavior makes clear that he only values the rule of law and the people who enforce it when it's to his political advantage,' said Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College. Trump pardoned more than 1,000 people who tried to halt the transfer of power on that day in 2021, when about 140 officers were injured. The former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Matthew Graves, called it 'likely the largest single day mass assault of law enforcement ' in American history. Trump's pardon covered people convicted of attacking police with flagpoles, a hockey stick and a crutch. Many of the assaults were captured on surveillance or body camera footage that showed rioters engaging in hand-to-hand combat with police as officers desperately fought to beat back the angry crowd. While some who were pardoned were convicted of nonviolent crimes, Trump pardoned at least 276 defendants who were convicted of assault charges, according to an Associated Press review of court records. Nearly 300 others had their pending charges dismissed as a result of Trump's sweeping act of clemency. Roughly 180 of the defendants were charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding law enforcement or obstructing officers during a civil disorder. 'They were extremely violent, and they have been treated as if their crimes were nothing, and now the president is trying to use the perception of violence by some protesters as an excuse to crack some heads,' said Mike Romano, who was a deputy chief of the section of the U.S. Attorney's office that prosecuted those involved in the Capitol siege. A White House spokesman, Harrison Fields, defended the president's response: 'President Trump was elected to secure the border, equip federal officials with the tools to execute this plan, and restore law and order.' Trump has long planned to use civil unrest as an opportunity to invoke broad presidential powers, and he seemed poised to do just that on Monday as he activated a battalion of U.S. Marines to support the presence of the National Guard. He mobilized the Guard on Saturday over the opposition of California's governor, Gavin Newsom, and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, both Democrats. The Guard was last sent to Los Angeles by a president during the Rodney King riots in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act. Those riots were significantly more violent and widespread than the current protests in Los Angeles, which were largely confined to a stretch of downtown, a relatively small patch in a city of 469 square miles and nearly 4 million people. The current demonstrations were sparked by a confrontation Saturday in the city of Paramount, southeast of downtown Los Angeles, where federal agents were staging at a Department of Homeland Security office. California officials, who are largely Democrats, argued that Trump is trying to create more chaos to expand his power. Newsom, whom Trump suggested should be arrested, called the president's acts 'authoritarian.' But even Rick Caruso, a prominent Los Angeles Republican and former mayoral candidate, posted on the social media site X that the president should not have called in the National Guard. Protests escalated after the Guard arrived, with demonstrators blockading a downtown freeway. Some some set multiple self-driving cars on fire and pelted Los Angeles police with debris and fireworks. Romano said he worried that Trump's double standard on how demonstrators should treat law enforcement will weaken the position of police in American society. He recalled that, during the Capitol attack, many rioters thought police should let them into the building because they had supported law enforcement's crackdown on anti-police demonstrations after George Floyd was murdered in 2020. That sort of 'transactional' approach Trump advocates is toxic, Romano said. 'We need to expect law enforcement are doing their jobs properly,' he said. Believing they just cater to the president 'is going to undermine public trust in law enforcement.' ___ Associated Press writers Michael Kunzleman and Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington contributed to this report.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: MAGA morphs into Make America Cruel Again
The horrifying weekend scenes in Los Angeles — National Guard on the streets, the governor of California threatening to sue the president of the United States for breaching state sovereignty, vehicles set on fire, attacks on law enforcement officers, ordinary people getting hurt, kids seeing all kinds of horrors from people they have been taught to trust — were deeply disturbing to the point where we wondered how on God's green earth this country can hold it together for three-and-a-half more years of this level of presidential overreach, this amount of hatred and division. But we do know this. We sure don't want to see any kind of repeat of those scenes in Chicago. Everyone had better pick their words carefully. Nobody can argue that Donald Trump, as president of the United States, does not have the authority to deport those who crossed the border without authorization and who have received due process in a court of law. Nobody can argue that he did not disclose his intention to do so during the presidential campaign. Nobody who believes in the rule of law can say that federal agents should be physically prevented from following their orders (withholding cooperation is something entirely different). And nobody can say that the Trump administration is the first to remove such people. But the brute nature of the methodology, the scale of the operation and the horrifying accompanying theatrics should shock every American, even those who consider themselves part of the MAGA movement. They supposedly signed up for American greatness, not abject cruelty. This is the danger of a fundamentally performative president, a leader for whom the political benefits of calling in the National Guard clearly outranks the far greater risks, which is that such a decision destabilizes a city and forces everyone into ever more extreme positions. The scorched earth rhetoric from federal officials has been like something out of dystopian fiction. Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, posted on social media that 'this is a fight to save civilization.' On the contrary, Mr. Miller. His ultimate boss, Trump, said 'a once great American City, Los Angeles, has been invaded and occupied by Illegal Aliens and Criminals,' which is so much balderdash, mere red-meat language designed for political purposes and not effective immigration policy, which requires disincentives, sure, but also nuance, complexity and a sense of the historical realities. There was a mandate from the American people for securing the border, deporting those who break or have broken the law and for fixing immigration. There was no mandate for brutality. We lay some of the blame for what happened in Los Angeles this weekend on both political parties, given that it is at least in part a consequence of their collective failure to pass any kind of comprehensive immigration reform that would have secured the borders, prevented overwhelming numbers of unauthorized folks entering and offered a fair and compassionate solution for the many people here without legal permission who have lived productive U.S. for years. That's on Democrats, who allowed the border to get out of control during the first part of the Biden administration, as well as Republicans. Many left-wing Democrats came to favor de facto open borders over the past several years, or at least no criminal-style enforcements of immigration violations, and Democrats knew they could not get that past a plurality of Americans in a general election. Rather than confront that internal division and reach a compromise, they punted for years. By the time Trump had total fealty from the Republican Party and could (and did) derail any such effort merely for his own political gain, it was too late. And now, with cruel, scorched-earth zealots in charge, we have the worst of all possible worlds for America's great cities and for many people whose only crime was trying to escape poverty and seeking out a better life. Anyone with even an ounce of common sense could see that Trump's apparent intention of deporting 12 million people in the country without legal permission, concentrated as they are in the core of America's biggest cities, is both unethical and impractical, given the above. The current rhetoric makes no distinction between recent arrivals and those who have lived here productively for years, and it paints otherwise law-abiding folks with the same brush as criminals, which is un-American. Leaders of blue cities and governors of blue states now find themselves caught somewhere between wanting to stop these deportations, over which they know they have no formal legal control, and their Welcoming Cities ordinances that forbid only cooperation with federal authorities. They, too, have political considerations to weigh. But they should not be the prime concern. Caught in the middle are local police departments, whose job is not to aid federal immigration officers but to maintain law and order. On the one hand, they have to deal with the tactics of an increasingly militarized ICE, as aided by the National Guard. They also have to deal with progressive politicians ready to accuse them of cooperation at every juncture. No, cops should not leave when protesters (or rioters, depending on your preferred politics) take to the streets. They have a different job to do, which is to keep our cities safe. So we are serving advance notice, Mr. President, that we don't want to see the National Guard, or the Marines, or any other branch of the U.S. military on the streets of Chicago. We urge you to dial down the rhetoric and the threats and we call on Democratic officials to do the same, which is not to say they should refrain from disagreeing with the manner of these actions. We urge those in your administration to negotiate with local officials, to treat everyone with dignity and respect, and to understand, for the love of God, that our children are watching and listening. Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr sacks entire US vaccine committee
US Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, a vaccine sceptic, has removed all 17 members of a committee that issues official government recommendations on immunisations. Announcing the move in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Kennedy said that conflicts of interest on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (Acip) were responsible for undermining trust in vaccinations. Kennedy said he wanted to "ensure the American people receive the safest vaccines possible." Doctors and health experts have criticised Kennedy's longstanding questioning of the safety and efficacy of a number of vaccines, although in his Senate confirmation hearing he said he is "not going to take them away." On Monday he said he was "retiring" all of the Acip panel members. Eight of the 17 panellists were appointed in January 2025, in the last days of President Biden's term. Most of the members are practicing doctors and experts attached to major university medical centres. Kennedy noted that if he did not remove the committee members, President Trump would not have been able to appoint a majority on the panel until 2028. "The committee has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest and has become little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine," Kennedy wrote. He claimed that health authorities and drug companies were responsible for a "crisis of public trust" that some try to explain "by blaming misinformation or antiscience attitudes." In the editorial, Kennedy cited examples from the 1990s and 2000s and alleged that conflicts of interest persist. "Most of ACIP's members have received substantial funding from pharmaceutical companies, including those marketing vaccines," he wrote in the Wall Street Journal. The move appears contrary to assurances Kennedy gave during his confirmation hearings. Bill Cassidy, a Republican Senator from Louisiana who is also a doctor, reported that he received commitments from the health secretary that Acip would be maintained "without changes." On Monday, Cassidy wrote on X: "Of course, now the fear is that the Acip will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion. "I've just spoken with Secretary Kennedy, and I'll continue to talk with him to ensure this is not the case." Acip members are required to disclose conflicts of interest, which are posted online, and to recuse themselves from voting on decisions where they may have a conflict. "The problem isn't necessarily that ACIP members are corrupt," Kennedy wrote. "Most likely aim to serve the public interest as they understand it. "The problem is their immersion in a system of industry-aligned incentives and paradigms that enforce a narrow pro-industry orthodoxy." Dr Bruce Scott, president of the American Medical Association, a professional organisation for American doctors, said mass sacking "upends a transparent process that has saved countless lives." "With an ongoing measles outbreak and routine child vaccination rates declining, this move will further fuel the spread of vaccine-preventable illnesses," Dr Scott said in a statement. Kennedy did not say who he would appoint to replace the board members. Acip has a meeting scheduled starting 25 June, at which members are scheduled to vote on recommendations for vaccines for Covid, flu, meningococcal disease, RSV and other illnesses. The BBC contacted the US Department of Health and Human Services and the Acip chair, Dr Helen Keipp Talbot, for comment. Fact-checking RFK Jr's views on health policy The two faces of Robert F Kennedy Jr
