Trump deploying thousands more National Guard, US Marines to protest-hit LA
WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump's administration said Monday it was sending 700 US Marines and thousands more National Guard troops to Los Angeles, sparking a furious response from California's governor over the "deranged" deployment.
Trump had already mobilised 2,000 National Guard members to the country's second most populous city on Saturday, with some 300 taking up positions protecting federal buildings and officers on Sunday.
On Monday – the fourth day of protests against immigration raids in the city that have seen some scuffles with law enforcement – the Trump administration announced the mobilisation of the 700 Marines as well as an "additional" 2,000 National Guard.
A senior administration official told AFP that "active-duty US Marines from Camp Pendleton will be deployed to Los Angeles to help protect federal agents and buildings."
The official first gave a figure of 500 Marines, but later updated the number to 700.
Deploying active duty military personnel like US Marines into a community of civilians within the United States is a highly unusual measure.
The US military separately confirmed the deployment of "approximately 700 Marines" from an infantry battalion following the unrest.
They would "seamlessly integrate" with National Guard forces that Trump deployed to Los Angeles on Saturday without the consent of California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom.
The deployment was meant to ensure there were "adequate numbers of forces," it added.
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell then announced the mobilisation of "an additional 2,000 California National Guard to be called into federal service to support ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) & to enable federal law-enforcement officers to safely conduct their duties."
It was not immediately clear if the "additional" 2,000 guardsmen were on top of the 2,000 that had already been mobilised, or only the 300 that were already in the streets of Los Angeles.
Newsom wasted little time accusing the president of sowing "chaos" in Los Angeles.
"Trump is trying to provoke chaos by sending 4,000 soldiers onto American soil," the governor posted on X.
Earlier, he slammed the "deranged" decision by "dictatorial" Trump to send in Marines.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
an hour ago
- New Straits Times
Trump flexes strongman instincts over Los Angeles protests
DONALD Trump likes to show off his strongman credentials at cage fights and military parades – and over the weekend, the US president did it by sending troops into Los Angeles. The move once again showed Trump pushing presidential power to its limits, at the start of a second term that has begun with what critics say is a distinctly authoritarian edge. Trump deployed the National Guard after clashes sparked by immigration raids, marking the first time since 1965 that a president has done so without a request by a state governor. His administration said Monday it was also sending 700 active-duty Marines to America's second largest city. The Republican has warned that troops could be sent "everywhere" – sparking fears that he will send the military out into the streets across America to crack down on protests and dissent. "It's a slippery slope," William Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University, told AFP. "If the president tries to do more, he's cutting against the grain in the United States of a long history of leaving law enforcement to civilians." The protests in Los Angeles are in many ways the showdown that Trump has been waiting for. Trump has been spoiling for a fight against California's Democratic governor Gavin Newsom, and he is now doing so on his signature issue of immigration. Newsom has bitterly accused the "dictatorial" president of manufacturing the crisis for political gain – while Trump suggested the governor, a potential 2028 presidential contender, could be arrested. Democratic California senator Alex Padilla slammed what he called "the behaviour of an authoritarian government." Rights groups have also opposed it. Hina Shamsi of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said in a statement that Trump's response was "unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power." Trump said Monday that he does not "want a civil war" – but the situation is a golden opportunity to appear tough to his base. Indeed, Trump has long cultivated a strongman image and has previously expressed admiration for authoritarian leaders like Russia's Vladimir Putin and China's Xi Jinping. This weekend, Trump will spend his 79th birthday watching tanks rumble through Washington at a parade to mark the 250th anniversary of the US army. And the order to send the National Guard into Los Angeles came shortly before Trump attended a UFC fight in New Jersey – a sport he has used frequently to appeal to macho voters. Critics however fear that Trump's actions in Los Angeles are not just for show. Since returning to office, Trump has repeatedly pushed the boundaries of presidential power to target the US bureaucracy, universities, law firms, cultural institutions and anywhere else he believes liberal ideologies linger. Trump seemed to hint at what could come next when he pinned the blame for the Los Angeles unrest – without evidence – on "insurrectionists." It appeared to be a clear reference to the Insurrection Act, which would allow the military to be used as a domestic police force. "Trump is pretty free and loose when it comes to the use of force," Todd Belt, a political science professor at George Washington University, told AFP. "He knows it is popular with his base, and he always likes to look strong in their eyes." Trump has talked for years about using the military against protests. Although he did not do so during his first term, his former defence secretary Mark Esper said Trump asked why Black Lives Matter protesters could not be shot in the legs. Conversely, Trump made no move to bring in the military when his own supporters attacked the US Capitol in a bid to overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. Trump would not say if he would invoke the Insurrection Act when asked by reporters on Monday, but he and his advisors have been framing the issue in increasingly apocalyptic terms. His top migration advisor Stephen Miller has explicitly framed the Los Angeles protests as a battle for the future of Western civilisation against an "invasion" of migrants. "The 'war' and 'invasion' framing have helped the administration make the case for the domestic use of these laws that are normally used to put down rebellions or invasions," said Belt.
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Two Chinese aircraft carriers seen in Pacific for first time: Tokyo
TOKYO: Japan said Tuesday (June 10) that two Chinese aircraft carriers had been seen operating in the Pacific for the first time as Beijing boosts its military capability in far-flung areas. On Monday (June 9), China's Shandong carrier and four other vessels, including a missile destroyer, sailed inside the Japanese economic waters surrounding the remote Pacific atoll of Okinotori, Tokyo's defence ministry said. Its fighter jets and helicopters conducted take-offs and landings there, the ministry said. The fleet of five warships was also seen sailing on Saturday 550km southeast of Miyako Island near Taiwan, it added. China's other operational aircraft carrier Liaoning (pic) and its fleet entered Japan's exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Pacific over the weekend, before exiting to conduct drills involving fighter jets, Tokyo previously said. "This is the first time two Chinese aircraft carriers were spotted operating in the Pacific at the same time," a defence ministry spokesman told AFP on Tuesday. "We believe the Chinese military's purpose is to improve its operational capability and ability to conduct operations in distant areas," he said. China's use of naval and air assets to press its territorial claims has rattled the United States and its allies in the Asia-Pacific region. Japanese and US defence officials say China wants to push the American military out of the so-called "first island chain" from Japan down through the Philippines. Eventually, its strategy is to dominate areas west of the "second island chain" in the Pacific between Japan's remote Ogasawara Islands and the US territory of Guam, they say. The Liaoning's recent cruise eastwards marked the first time the Japanese defence ministry has said a Chinese aircraft carrier had crossed the second island chain. In September, the warship sailed between two Japanese islands near Taiwan and entered Japan's contiguous waters, an area up to 24 nautical miles from its coast. At the time, Tokyo called that move "unacceptable" and expressed "serious concerns" to Beijing. Under international law, a state has rights to the management of natural resources and other economic activities within its EEZ, which is within 200 nautical miles (370km) of its coastline. - AFP
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
YouTube loosens rules guiding the moderation of videos
SAN FRANCISCO: For years, YouTube has removed videos with derogatory slurs, misinformation about Covid-19 vaccines and election falsehoods, saying the content violated the platform's rules. But since US President Donald Trump's return to the White House, YouTube has encouraged its content moderators to leave up videos with content that may break the platform's rules rather than remove them, as long as the videos are considered to be in the public interest. Those would include discussions of political, social and cultural issues. The policy shift, which hasn't been publicly disclosed, made YouTube the latest social media platform to back off efforts to police online speech in the wake of Republican pressure to stop moderating content. In January, Meta made a similar move, ending a fact-checking program on social media posts. Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, followed in the footsteps of X, Elon Musk's social platform, and turned responsibility for policing content over to users. But unlike Meta and X, YouTube has not made public statements about relaxing its content moderation. The online video service introduced its new policy in mid-December in training material that was reviewed by The New York Times . For videos considered to be in the public interest, YouTube raised the threshold for the amount of offending content permitted to half a video, from a quarter of a video. The platform also encouraged moderators to leave up those videos, which would include City Council meetings, campaign rallies and political conversations. The policy distances the platform from some of its pandemic practices, such as when it removed videos of local council meetings and a discussion between Florida's governor, Ron DeSantis, and a panel of scientists, citing medical misinformation. The expanded exemptions could benefit political commentators whose lengthy videos blend news coverage with opinions and claims on a variety of topics, particularly as YouTube takes on a more prominent role as a leading distributor of podcasts. The policy also helps the video platform avoid attacks by politicians and activists frustrated by its treatment of content about the origins of Covid, the 2020 election and Hunter Biden, former President Joe Biden's son. YouTube continuously updates its guidance for content moderators on topics surfacing in the public discourse, said Nicole Bell, a company spokesperson. It retires policies that no longer make sense, as it did in 2023 for some Covid misinformation, and strengthens policies when warranted, as it did this year to prohibit content directing people to gambling websites, according to Bell. In the first three months of this year, YouTube removed 192,586 videos because of hateful and abusive content, a 22% increase from a year earlier. 'Recognising that the definition of 'public interest' is always evolving, we update our guidance for these exceptions to reflect the new types of discussion we see on the platform today,' Bell said in a statement. She added, 'Our goal remains the same: to protect free expression on YouTube while mitigating egregious harm.' Critics say the changes by social media platforms have contributed to the rapid spread of false assertions and have the potential to increase digital hate speech. Last year on X, a post inaccurately said, 'Welfare offices in 49 states are handing out voter registration applications to illegal aliens,' according to the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which studies misinformation and hate speech. The post, which would have been removed before recent policy changes, was seen 74.8 million times. For years, Meta has removed about 277 million pieces of content annually, but under the new policies, much of that content could stay up, including comments like 'Black people are more violent than whites,' said Imran Ahmed, the center's CEO. 'What we're seeing is a rapid race to the bottom,' he said. The changes benefit the companies by reducing the costs of content moderation, while keeping more content online for user engagement, he added. 'This is not about free speech. It's about advertising, amplification and ultimately profits.' YouTube has in the past put a priority on policing content to keep the platform safe for advertisers. It has long forbidden nudity, graphic violence and hate speech. But the company has always given itself latitude for interpreting the rules. The policies allow videos that violate YouTube's rules, generally a small set, to remain on the platform if there is sufficient educational, documentary, scientific or artistic merit. The new policies, which were outlined in the training materials, are an expansion of YouTube's exceptions. They build on changes made before the 2024 election, when the company began permitting clips of electoral candidates on the platform even if the candidates violated its policies, the training material said. Previously, YouTube removed a so-called public interest video if a quarter of the content broke the platform's rules. As of Dec. 18, YouTube's trust and safety officials told content moderators that half a video could break YouTube's rules and stay online. Other content that mentions political, social and cultural issues has also been exempted from YouTube's usual content guidelines. The platform determined that videos are in the public interest if creators discuss or debate elections, ideologies, movements, race, gender, sexuality, abortion, immigration, censorship and other issues. Megan A. Brown, a doctoral student at the University of Michigan who researches the online information ecosystem, said YouTube's looser policies were a reversal from a time when it and other platforms 'decided people could share political speech but they would maintain some decorum'. She fears that YouTube's new policy 'is not a way to achieve that'. During training on the new policy, the trust and safety team said content moderators should err against restricting content when 'freedom of expression value may outweigh harm risk.' If employees had doubts about a video's suitability, they were encouraged to take it to their superiors rather than remove it. YouTube employees were presented with real examples of how the new policies had already been applied. The platform gave a pass to a user-created video titled, 'RFK Jr. Delivers SLEDGEHAMMER Blows to Gene-Altering JABS,' which violated YouTube's policy against medical misinformation by incorrectly claiming that Covid vaccines alter people's genes. The company's trust and safety team decided the video shouldn't be removed because public interest in the video 'outweighs the harm risk,' the training material said. The video was deemed newsworthy because it presented contemporary news coverage of recent actions on Covid vaccines by the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The video also mentioned political figures such as Vice President JD Vance, Elon Musk and Megyn Kelly, boosting its 'newsworthiness.' The video's creator also discussed a university medical study and presented news headlines about people experiencing adverse effects from Covid vaccines, 'signaling this is a highly debated topic (and a sensitive political topic),' according to the materials. Because the creator didn't explicitly recommend against vaccination, YouTube decided that the video had a low risk of harm. Currently, the video is no longer available on YouTube. It is unclear why. Another video shared with the staff contained a slur about a transgender person. YouTube's trust and safety team said the 43-minute video, which discussed hearings for Trump administration Cabinet appointees, should stay online because the description had only a single violation of the platform's harassment rule forbidding a 'malicious expression against an identifiable individual.' A video from South Korea featured two commentators talking about the country's former President Yoon Suk Yeol. About halfway through the more-than-three-hour video, one of the commentators said he imagined seeing Yoon turned upside down in a guillotine so that the politician 'can see the knife is going down.' The video was approved because most of it discussed Yoon's impeachment and arrest. In its training material, YouTube said it had also considered the risk for harm low because 'the wish for execution by guillotine is not feasible.' – ©2025 The New York Times Company This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
