Hegseth Fumbles Basic Question on Trump Deploying Marines to L.A.
Donald Trump ordered 700 Marines to Los Angeles, and the defense secretary can't explain what authority enabled him to do so.
In a terse exchange with Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin Wednesday, Pete Hegseth couldn't cite any portion of the Constitution that might allow the president to send troops to engage U.S. citizens.
'Just specifically, Mr. Secretary, what is the authority that the administration is using to deploy active-duty Marines to California neighborhoods? What authority?' Baldwin asked.
'Senator, the president has constitutional authority in order to support—' Hegseth began, before Baldwin interjected, asking for a specific 'provision of the Constitution' that gave Trump such power.
But Hegseth wasn't able to, instead asking Congress to offer their blind faith that the administration had pre-verified the constitutionality of such an action.
'I'd have to pull up the specific provision, but our Office of General Counsel, alongside our leadership, has reviewed and ensured in the order that we set out that it's completely constitutional for the president to use federal troops to defend federal law enforcement,' Hegseth said.
'I'd like to know the specific constitutional statutory authority,' Baldwin pressed. 'The president made it clear that he relied on Section 12406 of Title 10 with regard to the National Guard troops. I need to know the authority that he is relying upon in terms of active-duty Marines being deployed to California neighborhoods.'
Baldwin then asked Hegseth if he would follow up to provide the exact statute, to which he responded that there's 'plenty of precedent' in administering active duty troops to 'support law enforcement.'
'I'm not disputing that,' Baldwin said. 'I am just asking you to cite the authority under which the active duty Marines are being deployed to California.'
Hegseth insisted that the appropriate statute was cited in the executive order, and then promised to follow up with Baldwin's office.
Trump's decision to send hundreds of Marines to the City of Angels is expected to cost U.S. taxpayers $134 million, defense officials revealed Tuesday. Their presence—per the White House—is intended to support ICE agents as they conduct mass deportation raids of the city while thousands of locals protest the president's agenda.
But the order itself appears to violate the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law dating back to 1878 that forbids the government from using the military for law enforcement purposes. The White House could have bypassed the military doctrine by invoking the Insurrection Act, which allows the president to utilize the military during periods of rebellion or mass civil unrest, but had not done so by the time of the order. (Trump has openly discussed leveraging the nineteenth-century law to enact his agenda since his inauguration.)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
32 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
The gift Trump never meant to give: the spotlight to Democratic adversary Gavin Newsom
SACRAMENTO — President Trump craves attention and will stoop to any depth to grab it — even pour gasoline on a kindling fire in Los Angeles. But this time he unwittingly provided priceless attention for an adversary. Because Trump needlessly deployed National Guard troops and — more ridiculous, a Marine battalion to L.A. — California Gov. Gavin Newsom was granted a prime-time speaking slot on national cable television to respond. 'We honor their service. We honor their bravery,' Newsom said of the troops. 'But we do not want our streets militarized by our own armed forces. Not in L.A. Not in California. Not anywhere … . 'California may be first — but it clearly won't end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault right before our eyes. The moment we've feared has arrived.' I'm not sure the 'democracy is under assault' message has much traction, but keeping armed combat forces off our streets must be a salable pitch. Regardless, governors almost never get national TV time to deliver entire speeches, even as brief as Newsom's. You've practically got to be nominated for president. But the publicity-thirsty sitting president provided the cameras for California's governor. Newsom's strong address probably boosted his stock within the Democrat Party and revived dormant speculation about a 2028 presidential bid. No longer was the Democratic governor playing respectful nice guy and tempering criticism of the Republican president. Now he was standing up to the bully who loves to use California, Newsom and our progressive politics as a punching bag. Trump's red-state supporters love every swipe at this 'left coast' state. Newsom rose to the occasion, using his greatest asset: invaluable communication skills coupled with telegenic looks. He laid out his version of what happened to turn relatively peaceful protests against federal immigration raids into destructive street violence. And it's the correct version by objective accounts. On Saturday, Newsom said, federal immigration agents 'jumped out of an unmarked van' near a Home Depot parking lot and 'began grabbing people. A deliberate targeting of a heavily Latino suburb … . In response, everyday Angelenos' exercised their constitutional right to protest. Police were dispatched to keep the peace and mostly were successful, the governor continued. But then tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades were used — by federal agents, Newsom implied. Then Trump deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops 'illegally and for no reason,' the governor asserted. 'This brazen abuse of power by a sitting president inflamed a combustible situation … . Anxiety for families and friends ramped up. Protests started again … . Several dozen lawbreakers became violent and destructive.' Newsom warned: 'That kind of criminal behavior will not be tolerated. Full stop.' And hundreds have been arrested. But he emphasized: 'This situation was winding down and was concentrated in just a few square blocks downtown. But that's not what Donald Trump wanted … . He chose theatrics over public safety.' In Trump's twisted view, if he hadn't sent in the National Guard, 'Los Angeles would be completely obliterated.' Never mind that the violence was confined to a few downtown blocks, a fraction of a city that spreads over 500 square miles. 'We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free and clean again,' the president promised. Veteran Republican strategist Mike Murphy had it right, telling CNN: 'He's lighting the fire as an arsonist, then claiming to be the fireman.' It reminded me of President Lyndon B. Johnson's manufactured Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964 that Congress passed, enabling him to vastly escalate U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Johnson reported a North Vietnamese attack on U.S. destroyers that many experts later concluded never happened. But I think Trump mainly is obsessed with attracting attention. He knows he'll get it by being provocative. Never mind the accuracy of his words or the wisdom of his actions. Sending in the Marines certainly was an eye-opener. So is staging a military parade on his birthday — an abuse of troops for attention, personal glorification and exercise of his own power. He'll say anything provocative without thinking it through: Tariffs one day, suspended the next. He'll boast of sending San Joaquin Valley water to L.A. for fighting fires when it's physically impossible to deliver it. While Trump was playing politics with immigrants and L.A. turmoil, a poll finding was released that should have pleased him. Californians no longer support providing public healthcare for immigrants living here illegally, the independent Public Policy Institute of California reported. Adult state residents were opposed by 58% to 41% in a survey taken before the L.A. trouble erupted. By contrast, a PPIC poll in 2021 found that Californians favored providing state healthcare for undocumented immigrants by 66% to 31%. Polling director Mark Baldassare concluded the public opposition stems mostly from the view that California taxpayers can't afford the costly program — not that they agree with Trump's anti-immigrant demagoguery. In fact, Newson has proposed paring back the state's multibillion-dollar program of providing Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented immigrants because the state budget has been spewing red ink. Given all the rhetoric about the L.A. protests, the statement that particularly impressed me came from freshman Assemblyman Mark Gonzalez (D-Los Angeles), whose downtown district stretches from Koreatown to Chinatown. 'Rocks thrown at officers, CHP cars and Waymo vehicles set on fire, arson on the 101 freeway — have nothing to do with immigration, justice or the values of our communities,' he said in a statement Sunday. 'These are not protesters — they were agitators. Their actions are reckless, dangerous and playing into exactly what Trump wants.' Gonzalez is a liberal former chairman of the L.A. County Democratic Party who stuck to his point: Hoodlums can't be tolerated. And, thanks to Trump, Newsom was able to make a similar point about the president on national TV: His dangerous, self-serving actions can't be tolerated either.
New York Post
37 minutes ago
- New York Post
Federal judge questions constitutionality of Trump sending National Guard to LA riots: ‘President is, of course, limited'
WASHINGTON — A federal judge expressed skepticism Thursday about the constitutionality of President Trump's order to deploy thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell anti-ICE riots. Senior San Francisco US District Judge Charles Breyer heard arguments from attorneys for Trump's Justice Department and California Gov. Gavin Newsom after the Democrat had sued the feds over dispatching roughly 4,000 Guard members to protect officers carrying out immigration enforcement operations. 'We're talking about the president exercising his authority, and the president is, of course, limited,' Breyer, the younger brother of liberal former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, said at one point in the hearing. Advertisement 3 AP 'That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George.' Brett Shumate, the head of the DOJ's Civil Division, disputed Breyer's characterization of the president's order throughout the hour-long hearing, arguing that the commander-in-chief had 'delegated' the federalizing of the Guard through California's adjutant general, as legally required. Advertisement Shumate also claimed that Newsom was merely a 'conduit' for that order as it passed through the chain of command from Trump to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to the state Guard. 'There's no consultation requirement, pre-approval requirement,' he argued. 'There's one commander-in-chief of the armed forces.' The California attorney general's office countered that allowing Trump's action to stand implied there would be 'no guardrails' for further abuse by the executive branch. 3 Clashes have erupted in LA over the last several days sparked by ICE raids. Barbara Davidson/NYPost Advertisement 3 A demonstrator points his finger towards members of the California National Guard during a protest against federal immigration sweeps in downtown Los Angeles. REUTERS 'The president, by fiat, can federalize the National Guard and deploy it,' an attorney for Newsom said, 'whenever there is disobedience to an order.' While Breyer took issue with the deployment of the National Guard, he appeared more inclined to let stand Trump's order sending around 700 US Marines to the Golden State to assist with the federal immigration crackdown. 'I don't understand how I'm supposed to do anything with the Marines, to tell you the truth,' the judge responded, quibbling with Newsom's legal team over whether their involvement violated the Posse Comitatus Act. Advertisement Breyer did not immediately issue a ruling, but said he hoped to put one out 'very soon.' This is a developing story. Please check back for more information.
Miami Herald
44 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Is religious influence increasing in the US? What Americans said in survey
More Americans said they think the influence of religion is increasing in U.S. society compared to the previous year, a new poll found. Thirty-four percent of U.S. adults said they think religious influence is growing, up 14 percentage points from last year, according to a June 11 Gallup poll. However, a majority of respondents, 59%, still said religion is losing its influence in the country, according to the poll. 'The recent shifts represent a departure from the trend over the past 15 years that has generally seen larger percentages of Americans saying religious influence is decreasing rather than increasing,' researchers said. The survey of 1,003 U.S. adults was taken between May 1-18 and has a margin of error of 4 percentage points. Exact reasons behind the shift in opinions are unclear, but it could be 'a reaction to the Republican sweep of the federal government in last fall's election,' researchers said. President Donald Trump has repeatedly vowed to bring religion back to the country. In February, when Trump announced a new task force to investigate 'anti-Christian bias,' he urged Americans to 'bring religion back,' the Associated Press reported. During the White House Easter Egg Roll on April 21, he said: 'We're bringing religion back in America. We're bringing a lot of things back, but religion is coming back to America.' Researchers said a similar shift was recorded in 1994 when Republicans took over Congress for the first time in four decades, but there were no 'meaningful changes' after GOP victories in the 2000, 2010 and 2016 elections. Other notable shifts The highest recorded spike in Americans who said they think religious influence is increasing happened following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America, when the number jumped 32 percentage points to 71%, according to the poll. More recently, researchers saw a surge during the COVID-19 pandemic, when 38% of Americans said they saw more religious influence in society, up from 19% pre-pandemic, the poll found. Which groups think religion in America is increasing? More Democrats, 41%, said they think 'religion as a whole is increasing its influence on American life,' compared with 35% of Republicans and 31% of Independents who said the same thing, according to the poll. Individuals associated with no religion said they think religion is growing at slightly higher rates than Protestants and Catholics, 36% compared to 33% and 35%, respectively, the poll found. Younger adults, those between 18 and 29 years old, also said they believe religious influence is increasing at higher rates than the rest of Americans, according to the poll.
