Is Trump trying to normalise troops on US streets?
Karen Bass, LA Mayor: I have declared a local emergency and issued a curfew for downtown Los Angeles.
News report: Thousands of National Guard troops and Marines deployed by President Trump are on the ground in LA in response to the protests. An overnight curfew in the city will remain in place indefinitely.
News report: As Los Angeles enters its sixth day of protests against the policy, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, announced it was deploying tactical agents to Seattle, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York and Northern Virginia.
Protester: I want to say to each and every one of you, you are not alone. The world is watching Los Angeles.
Sam Hawley: Ilya, it's a week since these protests in LA first began, but it's been an extraordinary week, not so much because of the protests, but because of the US President's reaction to them.
Ilya Somin: Yes, that's right. The protests themselves are not that extraordinary, nor is the level of violence that has occurred, which is so far at least pretty modest in scope. Rather, it's the domestic use of the military and the attempt to assert federal control over National Guard, which if not completely unprecedented, certainly is unusual and certainly in modern times has not been done without much more substantial reason than exists here.
Sam Hawley: And I would have thought it's pretty ironic, Ilya, that Donald Trump pardons almost everyone involved in the January 6th riots and then sends in the military for these protests.
Ilya Somin: So I would say it's more than an irony. It's pretty obvious and blatant hypocrisy. What happened in 2021 was a genuine insurrection and a genuine attempt to overthrow the government effectively to keep in power a person who had no legal claim to it. On the other hand, what is going on now is fairly small-scale violence and property destruction. I condemn it. The people who do it should be prosecuted, but it's not anywhere near the level of what happened on January 6th. In many cases, Trump's immigration policies and the activities of ICE themselves, as well as trying to deport people without due process, seizing people when they're going to immigration hearings, sending people to imprisonment in El Salvador, which is lawless on many levels and which several courts have ruled against. So I think it is Trump's law breaking which precipitated this crisis and he and his policies are principally to blame for it. That doesn't justify people reacting with violence that harms innocent people in response. That's wrong and I condemn it, but it is also the case when the government itself acts lawlessly, they can't rightly count on the cooperation of citizens that normally they might come to expect.
Sam Hawley: Some of these protesters have been flying the Mexican flag. That plays into Donald Trump's hands, doesn't it? That's what he wants.
Ilya Somin: Maybe. If I were organising a protest, and I'm no political activist, but if I was, I probably would not wave Mexican flags, but that people have a first amendment right to wave whatever flags they want, whether I approve of them or not.
Sam Hawley: All right, so, Ilya, we're going to unpack with you the significance of Donald Trump's intervention in these protests. To do that, I just wondered if you could first take us to Fort Bragg. That's a military base in North Carolina. Donald Trump addressed troops there during the week, didn't he?
Donald Trump, US President: It's a beautiful sight to be with you in a place called Fort Bragg.
Sam Hawley: What was he actually telling them?
Ilya Somin: As I understand it, you know, he was telling them that the US had been invaded and that he would use force to prevent it in Los Angeles.
Donald Trump, US President: What you're witnessing in California is a full-blown assault on peace, on public order, and a national sovereignty carried out by rioters bearing foreign flags with the aim of continuing a foreign invasion of our country. We're not going to let that happen.
Ilya Somin: And he was at least strongly implying he would use force even against peaceful protesters, and he got the troops to cheer.
Donald Trump, US President: Time and again, our enemies have learned that if you dare to threaten the American people, American soldier will chase you down, crush you, and cast you into oblivion. That's what happens, unfortunately. In Los Angeles, the governor of California, the mayor of Los Angeles, they're incompetent.
Ilya Somin: From what I have read, what they did is troops who seemed inclined not to be supportive of Trump, they had the right to just not appear at that speech. And so the people who were there were sort of self-selected to be his supporters. The bottom line, though, is it's unusual and a violation of political norms, at the very least, for the president to openly advocate the use of force domestically and to use troops as a backdrop for what is obviously a blatantly partisan political speech, at the very least. It may not be illegal to do that, but it's certainly a violation of political norms, though in fairness, over the last decade, we've seen a lot of norms be violated, and this will be far from the first.
Sam Hawley: All right. And he told these troops that he'd liberate LA.
Donald Trump, US President: Very simply, we will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean and safe again. It's happening very quickly.
Sam Hawley: And he called the protesters animals and the foreign enemy. Quite extraordinary.
Ilya Somin: Yes. I think that language speaks for itself and you don't really need me to say much more, except that it's both wildly inaccurate and to say the least, hugely inappropriate.
Sam Hawley: Yeah. All right. Well, let's just talk a bit more about his decision to send in the US Marines and the National Guard to LA, even though the local authorities, the police insist they were being brought under control. It's hardly surprising he acts in this manner, is it? I mean, he has form.
Ilya Somin: In one sense, it's not surprising because it seems like he wanted to do this even in his first term during the much larger actually protests and riots that occurred after the death of George Floyd. And at that time he was prevented by his secretary of defence and by military officials. This time around, he has sort of more cooperative loyalists or one might say, toadies who are less willing to counter his worst impulses. So while it's not surprising that this individual wanted to do it, it is, I think, at the very least, a major breach of norms and at least arguably a violation of law as well.
Sam Hawley: But just explain for me how that relates to now and what Donald Trump is doing now.
Ilya Somin: So I think in two ways. One is he clearly did want to use the military back then, and he clearly has sort of these authoritarian instincts going way back. At one point, even years before he was president, he praised the Chinese government for their crackdown in Tiananmen Square, which a massacre that killed hundreds or even thousands of protesters.
Donald Trump, US President: I was not endorsing it. I said that is a strong, powerful government that put it down... they kept down the riot. It was a horrible thing. It doesn't mean at all I was endorsing it.
Ilya Somin: And so he has these instincts going way back, but also his frustration over what happened in 2020 may make it even more likely that he would want to do things differently now.
Sam Hawley: So you seem to be suggesting that sending in the National Guard and the Marines could be somewhat sinister in a way.
Ilya Somin: I think at the very least, it's quite possible, given that the actual legal and policy argument for doing so is extremely weak. So either at best is just a very poorly thought out initiative by the administration, but at worst, it is indeed sinister, as you suggest.
Sam Hawley: But to what end? What's the aim?
Ilya Somin: So one possible aim could simply just be to look strong or to satisfy his instincts to be strong and tough. Another possibility is that they want to normalise the idea that you can use troops domestically so that they have this in their toolkit going forward. And that obviously would be extremely sinister, as you suggested.
Sam Hawley: What, so it's a practice run for the future?
Ilya Somin: Yeah. If you normalise something and you succeed in getting people to accept it, and obviously those are two big ifs, then it's easier to do it the second or third or fourth time around.
Sam Hawley: All right. Well, Ilya, Trump's deployed the Marines to LA and the National Guard, but there are limits, aren't there, on what those forces can do? Just explain that.
Ilya Somin: So under the current set of statutes that he's invoked, it seems like the limits are that they can only sort of protect federal facilities and perhaps federal personnel. And from what I've read and heard they actually haven't been doing very much other than sort of being in the streets and guarding certain federal facilities. But if he were to invoke the Insurrection Act, a law he hasn't invoked yet, then at least it's possible that they would have much broader law enforcement authority to just enforce ordinary laws and could then act much more aggressively. And there's also the issue of even if he doesn't invoke the Insurrection Act, whether he could simply just order them to do things which are illegal, but on the hopes that nobody would stop him from doing it, even if it is illegal under the letter of the law.
Sam Hawley: Right. And just to point out that Insurrection Act, it's not used very often. We haven't seen it used much in American history, right?
Ilya Somin: Not much. The last time, if I recall correctly, was with respect to the LA riots of 1992, which really was much larger scale violence than anything going on right now. But certainly it was the case that there was large scale riots. The LA police at that time were just not able to control them. They were taken by surprise. Whereas right now, from what I've heard, things are sort of calming down. There has been some destruction of property and some relatively low level violence, but nothing like what happened in LA in 1992 or at some other notorious riots in American history.
Sam Hawley: All right. Well, Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, in a televised address said that Donald Trump is destroying democracy, that California may be the first, but it won't be the last.
Gavin Newsom, California Governor: When Donald Trump sought blanket authority to commandeer the National Guard, he made that order apply to every state in this nation. This is about all of us. This is about you. California may be first, but it clearly will not end here. Other states are next.
Sam Hawley: Now, we should point out, of course, that he is a Democrat and could potentially be a presidential nominee in the future. But what do you make of his comments?
Ilya Somin: I think his concerns are at least plausible and well taken. We don't know whether the administration has a plan to make use of this precedent in the future, but I think the risk is great enough that this is the kind of thing that, if at all possible, you want to cut off before we go down that road and take more risk.
Sam Hawley: All right. Well, Ilya, Donald Trump's next big scheduled event is this military parade in Washington over the weekend. The president says any protests there would be met with a very big force.
Donald Trump, US President: For those people that want to protest, they're going to be met with very big force. You know, this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force.
Ilya Somin: I don't know what force he has in mind or whether he even plans to carry out that threat in any way or not. But obviously, if he does use force, even against peaceful protesters, that would both be a violation of the First Amendment and I would argue a crime as well.
Sam Hawley: But Ilya, if the LA riots are the start of something bigger for Trump, what legally can be done to stop him? I note the California governor is taking action in the court to halt the troop deployment, but does that achieve anything?
Ilya Somin: So it depends to some extent on whether he wins the action, if so, whether Trump would obey the decision. So we'll have to see what happens in court on that. And if there is a decision by the court against Trump, whether they would obey the injunction or not. You know, if troops commit crimes or shoot people illegally or whatnot, criminal liability can result there. There would also be civil liability as well. But it all depends on exactly what is done and under what circumstances. And if the Insurrection Act is invoked, then there could be litigation about that. And, you know, there would be questions that I think in modern times, there's little, if any, judicial precedent on.
Sam Hawley: We see headlines suggesting it could be the start of a civil war. That's going a bit far, I would think at this point. But there is a concern about that.
Ilya Somin: So I think a civil war, to my mind, is still unlikely. But obviously, the very fact that we're talking about that is itself not a great sign.
Sam Hawley: Ilya Somin is a law professor at the George Mason University in Virginia, and the B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, which is a libertarian think tank. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead. Audio production by Adair Sheppard. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. ABC News Daily will be back again on Monday. Thanks for listening.

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

Sydney Morning Herald
40 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
‘Excessive': Trump rejoices as $700m New York fraud fine tossed out
New York: A Manhattan appeals court struck down a roughly $US500 million ($780 million) fraud penalty against US President Donald Trump and his company, even as it upheld the finding that he broke the law by inflating the value of assets such as Mar-a-Lago. A five-judge panel on Thursday, New York time, agreed with Trump that the size of the fine was unconstitutionally 'excessive'. The long-awaited ruling by New York's intermediate appeals court is a major victory for Trump over New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office brought the case, though other aspects of the April 2024 judgment remain intact. On top of the financial penalty, Trump and his sons faced a temporary ban on serving as corporate officers in New York. The company was also ordered to submit its financial records for review by an independent monitor. Those sanctions stand, though they remain on hold for possible further appeal by Trump. In a statement, James said her office would challenge the ruling at the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. She also stressed that 'yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law'. Still, the massive fine had been the heart of Justice Arthur Engoron's judgment. The judge had ordered Trump last year to pay $US355 million in penalties after finding that he flagrantly padded financial statements provided to lenders and insurers. With interest, the sum has topped $US515 million. Additional penalties for executives at his company, the Trump Organisation, including sons Eric and Donald Trump jnr, have brought the total to $US527 million with interest. The elimination of the fine adds to the list of Trump's legal woes that have essentially melted away since he won re-election as president. The Justice Department dropped two federal criminal cases agaist him, citing a longstanding policy against prosecuting a sitting president. Though he was convicted of falsifying business records to conceal hush-money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels, he was sentenced to no jail time.

The Age
40 minutes ago
- The Age
‘Excessive': Trump rejoices as $700m New York fraud fine tossed out
New York: A Manhattan appeals court struck down a roughly $US500 million ($780 million) fraud penalty against US President Donald Trump and his company, even as it upheld the finding that he broke the law by inflating the value of assets such as Mar-a-Lago. A five-judge panel on Thursday, New York time, agreed with Trump that the size of the fine was unconstitutionally 'excessive'. The long-awaited ruling by New York's intermediate appeals court is a major victory for Trump over New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office brought the case, though other aspects of the April 2024 judgment remain intact. On top of the financial penalty, Trump and his sons faced a temporary ban on serving as corporate officers in New York. The company was also ordered to submit its financial records for review by an independent monitor. Those sanctions stand, though they remain on hold for possible further appeal by Trump. In a statement, James said her office would challenge the ruling at the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. She also stressed that 'yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law'. Still, the massive fine had been the heart of Justice Arthur Engoron's judgment. The judge had ordered Trump last year to pay $US355 million in penalties after finding that he flagrantly padded financial statements provided to lenders and insurers. With interest, the sum has topped $US515 million. Additional penalties for executives at his company, the Trump Organisation, including sons Eric and Donald Trump jnr, have brought the total to $US527 million with interest. The elimination of the fine adds to the list of Trump's legal woes that have essentially melted away since he won re-election as president. The Justice Department dropped two federal criminal cases agaist him, citing a longstanding policy against prosecuting a sitting president. Though he was convicted of falsifying business records to conceal hush-money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels, he was sentenced to no jail time.

Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Donald Trump says Ukraine must take the fight to Russia to survive, as Zelensky prepares for possible Putin meeting
US President Donald Trump has said Ukraine must start launching direct strikes inside Russia if it has any hope of winning the war, warning that Kyiv's hands have been tied by weak Western leadership. 'It is very hard, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking an invader's country,' Mr Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. 'It's like a great team in sports that has a fantastic defence, but is not allowed to play offence. There is no chance of winning! It is like that with Ukraine and Russia.' The president accompanied his message with two photos - one showing him pointing at Russian President Vladimir Putin during their meeting in Alaska last week, and another of Richard Nixon confronting Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. Mr Trump again placed blame on his predecessor Joe Biden for allowing the conflict to erupt, saying the former president 'would not let Ukraine FIGHT BACK, only DEFEND'. Asked to clarify Mr Trump's position, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said: 'The president is making an observation, which happens to be true.' Mr Trump's comments follow a shift among Western allies, with the US, UK and Germany recently lifting restrictions on Ukraine using Western weapons to strike targets inside Russia. However, Washington has so far withheld advanced weaponry such as Tomahawk missiles. The remarks come as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said he is prepared to meet Vladimir Putin, but only after Western powers commit to concrete security guarantees to protect Ukraine from future aggression. 'We want to have an understanding of the security guarantees architecture within seven to 10 days,' Mr Zelensky said in comments released on Thursday. 'We need to understand which country will be ready to do what at each specific moment.' He said any such summit with Mr Putin must take place in a neutral European country, ruling out Moscow as a venue. Mr Zelensky also rejected any role for China, citing Beijing's support for Moscow throughout the war. Ukraine has also announced the successful test of a new long-range missile called Flamingo, capable of striking targets up to 3000 kilometres away. 'The missile has undergone successful tests. It is currently our most successful missile,' Mr Zelensky told reporters. But while diplomacy is underway, the conflict on the ground is escalating. Russia launched its largest barrage of missiles and drones since mid-July, killing at least one person in the western city of Lviv and injuring dozens more. Ukrainian officials also said a US-owned industrial complex in the town of Mukachevo was directly targeted. Nineteen people were wounded in that strike, according to Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko, who posted on social media. France condemned the missile strikes, calling them the most intense assault in a month and proof that Moscow has no genuine interest in pursuing peace. A separate Russian shelling of Kherson later in the day killed one person and wounded more than a dozen. On the battlefield, Russia claimed to have captured the village of Oleksandro-Shultyne in Donetsk, a region that has seen some of the fiercest fighting of the war. The village lies just eight kilometres from Kostiantynivka, a heavily fortified Ukrainian town. Ukrainian forces said Russia is continuing to build up troops along the southern front in the Zaporizhzhia region, one of five areas Moscow claims to have annexed. Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused Ukraine of making unrealistic demands over the proposed post-war security guarantees, warning that any deployment of European troops in Ukraine would be 'absolutely unacceptable'. 'The rhetoric of the Ukrainian officials was directly showing that they are not interested in a sustainable, fair, long-term settlement,' Mr Lavrov said. Despite his repeated calls for a peace deal, Mr Trump has made no secret of his belief that Ukraine must take a harder military stance if it wants to survive. Mr Zelensky has said the war can only end through direct dialogue with the Russian leader, and that he wants Mr Trump present when that meeting happens. But Moscow has so far shown little enthusiasm for a summit with the Ukrainian president.