National Guards in LA Spent Most of Their Time 'Playing Video Games'—Bass
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass criticized the federal deployment of National Guard troops in her city during an interview appearance on CBS News' Face the Nation on Sunday, stating that most of the soldiers were left with little to do other than "playing video games" and guarding empty federal buildings.
Around 4,000 guardsmen were deployed by President Donald Trump to Los Angeles early last month, against the wishes of state and city officials, in response to protests, some of which turned violent, against immigration enforcement actions across the city.
According to Bass, only 200 of those deployed were actually utilized, leaving the rest idling in "complete boredom."
Newsweek has reached out to the Defense Department for comment via email outside of regular working hours.
Why It Matters
Last month, Trump sent 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in response to reported violence against law enforcement, specifically ICE agents carrying out deportation raids in the city.
While the raids are following a legal directive from federal authorities, protests erupted amid reports that detainees were being held in the basement of a federal building. ICE denied the allegations, with a spokesperson previously telling Newsweek the agency "categorically refutes the assertions made by immigration activists in Los Angeles."
The clashes highlighted deepening conflicts between sanctuary jurisdictions and federal immigration policy, as Trump has implemented sweeping changes through executive orders and utilized the wartime Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expand deportation authority.
What To Know
Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom have been highly critical of the Trump's administration's decision to deploy the National Guard against their wishes, arguing it was overreach and unnecessary.
On Sunday, Bass told CBS News' Margaret Brennan that the thousands of National Guard troops had been largely confined to protecting two federal buildings and rarely engaged in protest management or local law enforcement actions.
"My understanding is most of their time has been spent in complete boredom playing video games and essentially waiting around because again, 4,000 deployed, and about 200 actually used," the Democratic mayor said.
Bass added that the immigration raid protests had remained mostly peaceful and were largely managed by local law enforcement, not federal troops.
"Our police department and our sheriff's department are the ones that brought the protests when it devolved into violence under control. We never needed the National Guard in the first place. This is a political stunt, a terrible misuse of taxpayers' dollars," she said.
On Tuesday, nearly six weeks after their initial deployment, the Pentagon announced that half of the National Guard soldiers would be released from duty. That still leaves around 2,000 guardsmen and a number of Marines left in the city.
Meanwhile, the original deployment order, set for 60 days, continues to be challenged in federal court.
Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court ruled last month that the federal mobilization exceeded presidential authority and violated the 10th Amendment. However, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has since paused the ruling, allowing the deployment to continue while the court case proceeds.
California National Guard are positioned at the Federal Building on June 10 in downtown Los Angeles.
California National Guard are positioned at the Federal Building on June 10 in downtown Los Angeles.
Eric Thayer/AP
What People Are Saying
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said on Face the Nation on Sunday: "This is just such an incredible misuse of not only taxpayer's money, but of the young people who are in the National Guard, who have had to leave their families, their jobs and their education for this deployment that is completely unnecessary."
Governor Gavin Newsom wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Tuesday after half the troops were released: "For more than a month, @realDonaldTrump has been exploiting @TheCalGuard as his political pawns. Thousands of members are still federalized in Los Angeles for no reason and unable to carry out their critical duties across the state. End this theater and send everyone home."
One National Guard soldier, who was not named, told The New York Times on Wednesday: "The moral injuries of this operation, I think, will be enduring. This is not what the military of our country was designed to do, at all."
A White House memo from last month reads: "Numerous incidents of violence and disorder have recently occurred and threaten to continue in response to the enforcement of federal law by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other United States government personnel who are performing federal functions and supporting the faithful execution of federal immigration laws. In addition, violent protests threaten the security of and significant damage to federal immigration detention facilities and other federal property."
What Happens Next?
With half of the deployed National Guard troops sent home and legal challenges ongoing regarding presidential authority, the future of federal intervention in Los Angeles and other U.S. cities remains uncertain.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How California draws congressional districts, and why it might change in a proxy war with Trump
The potential redrawing of California's congressional district lines could upend the balance of power in Washington, D.C., in next year's midterm congressional election. The unusual and unexpected redistricting may take place in coming months because of sparring among President Trump, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Redrawing these maps — known as redistricting — is an esoteric practice that many voters tune out, but one that has an outsized impact on political power and policy in the United States. Here is a breakdown about why a process that typically occurs once every decade is currently receiving so much attention — and the potential ramifications. What is redistricting? There are 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, each of whom is supposed to represent roughly the same number of constituents. Every decade, after the U.S. Census counts the population across the nation, the allocation of congressional representatives for each state can change. For example, after the 2020 census, California's share of congressional districts was reduced by one for the first time in state history. Read more: California to lose a congressional seat, according to new census data After the decennial census, states redraw district lines for congressional and legislative districts based on population shifts, protections for minority voters required by the federal Voting Rights Act and other factors. For much of the nation's history, such maps were created by state legislators and moneyed interests in smoke-filled backrooms. Many districts were grossly gerrymandered — contorted — to benefit political parties and incumbents, such as California's infamous 'Ribbon of Shame,' a congressional district that stretched in a reed-thin line 200 miles along the California coast from Oxnard to the Monterey County line. But in recent decades, political-reform organizations and some elected officials, notably former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, called for independent drawing of district lines. In 2010, the state's voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure requiring California congressional maps to be drawn by a bipartisan commission, which it did in 2011 and 2021. Read more: Latino political power is a big winner in California's new congressional map Why are we talking about this? President Trump recently urged Texas lawmakers to redraw its congressional districts to increase the number of GOP members of the House in next year's midterm election. Congress is closely divided, and the party that does not control the White House traditionally loses seats in the body two years after the presidential election. Trump has been able to enact his agenda — from deporting undocumented immigrants to extending tax breaks that largely benefit the wealthy to closing some Planned Parenthood clinics — because the GOP controls the White House, the Senate and the House. But if Democrats flip Congress, Trump's agenda will likely be stymied and he faces the prospect of being a lame duck during his last two years in office. What is Texas doing? Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called his state's Legislature into special session last week to discuss the disastrous floods that killed more than 130 people as well as redistricting before the 2026 election. Trump and his administration urged Abbott to redraw his state's congressional lines with the hope of picking up five seats. Read more: Texas Republicans aim to redraw House districts at Trump's urging, but there's a risk Abbott has said that his decision to include redistricting in the special session was prompted by a court decision last year that said the state no longer has to draw 'coalition districts' that are made up of multiple minority communities. New district lines would give Texans greater opportunity to vote for politicians who best represent them, the governor said in interviews. Democrats in the Lone Star state's Legislature met with Newsom in Sacramento on Friday to discuss the ramifications of mid-decade redistricting and accused Trump of trying to rig next year's midterm election to hold onto power. Republicans 'play by a different set of rules and we could sit back and act as if we have some moral authority and watch this 249-, 250-year-old experiment be washed away,' Newsom said of the nation's history. 'We are not going to allow that to happen.' Democratic lawmakers in Texas have previously fled the state to not allow the Legislature to have a quorum, such as in 2021 during a battle over voting rights. But with the deadly flooding, this is an unlikely prospect this year. Why is California in the mix? The Golden State's congressional districts are drawn by an independent commission focused on logical geography, shared interests, representation for minority communities and other facets. If the state reverts to partisan map drawing, redistricting experts on both sides of the aisle agree that several GOP incumbents in the 52-member delegation would be vulnerable, either because of more Democratic voters being placed in their districts, or being forced into face-offs with fellow Republican members of Congress. There are currently nine Republican members of the delegation, a number that could shrink to three or four, according to political statisticians. Read more: California Democrats may target GOP congressional districts to counter Texas Strange bedfellows These dizzying developments have created agreement among rivals while dividing former allies. Sara Sadhwani, a member of the 2021 redistricting commission and longtime supporter of independent map drawing, said she supports Democratic efforts to change California's congressional districts before the midterm election. "I stand by the work of the commission of course. We drew fair and competitive maps that fully abided by federal laws around the Voting Rights Act to ensure communities of color have an equal opportunity at the ballot box," said Sadhwani, a politics professor at Pomona College. "That being said, especially when it comes to Congress, most certainly California playing fair puts Democrats at a disadvantage nationally." She said the best policy would be for all 50 states to embrace independent redistricting. But in the meantime, she supports Democratic efforts in California to temporarily redraw the districts given the stakes. "I think it's patriotic to fight against what appears to be our democracy falling into what appears to be authoritarian rule," Sadhwani said. Charles Munger Jr., the son of a late billionaire who was Warren Buffet's right-hand man, spent more than $12 million to support the ballot measure that created the independent redistricting commission and is invested in making sure that it is not weakened. "He's very much committed to making sure the commission is preserved," said someone close to Munger who requested anonymity to speak candidly. Munger believes "this is ultimately political quicksand and a redistricting war at the end of day is a loss to American voters." Munger, who was the state GOP's biggest donor at one point, is actively involved in the California fight and is researching other efforts to fight gerrymandering nationwide, this person said. The state Democratic and Republican parties, which rarely agree on anything, agreed in 2010 when they opposed the ballot measure. Now, Democrats, who would likely gain seats if the districts are redrawn by state lawmakers, support a mid-decade redistricting, while the state GOP, which would likely lose seats, says the state should continue having lines drawn by the independent commission once every decade. "It's a shame that Governor Newsom and the radical Left in Sacramento are willing to spend $200 million on a statewide special election, while running a deficit of $20 billion, in order to silence the opposition in our state," the GOP congressional delegation said in a statement on Friday. "As a Delegation we will fight any attempt to disenfranchise California voters by whatever means necessary to ensure the will of the people continues to be reflected in redistricting and in our elections." What happens next? If Democrats in California move forward with their proposal, which is dependent on what Texas lawmakers do during their special legislative session that began last week, they have two options: State lawmakers could vote to put the measure before voters in a special election that would likely be held in November — a costly prospect. The last statewide special election — the unsuccessful effort to recall Newsom in 2021 — cost more than $200 million, according to the secretary of state's office. The Legislature could also vote to redraw the maps, but this option would likely be more vulnerable to legal challenge. Either scenario is expected to be voted on as an urgency item, which requires a 2/3 vote but would insulate the action from being the subject of a referendum later put in front of voters that would delay enactment. The Legislature is out of session until mid-August. Times staff writer Taryn Luna in Sacramento contributed to this report. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
USA Today
12 minutes ago
- USA Today
Ebooks are on the line as Congress considers future of library funding
Like checking out library ebooks? Congress, Trump could make it harder by cutting federal funding for libraries. CROFTON, Maryland ‒ Claire Holahan, 34, takes her toddler to the library once or twice a week for story time, so she can play with other children and the library's toys. It's not until after bedtime that she has time to click open her own ebook, downloaded from the library. "I don't want to have a collection (of paper books). It seems kind of wasteful … I'd rather just take it out from the library and then somebody else borrows it and gets to enjoy it," she said. Holahan is among millions of Americans who could lose ebook access from their local library under the budget bill the House is currently considering. At Trump's request, it eliminates federal funding for libraries and museums, which is often used to fund ebooks among other services. Without ebooks through the local library "I would have a hard time reading as many books as I do," Holahan said. States' libraries to lose as much as half their funding The Institute for Museum and Library Services, a tiny, little known federal agency, provides grants to states, accounting for between 30% and 50% of state library budgets, according to the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies. For decades it has distributed hundreds of millions of dollars in congressionally approved funds through grants to state libraries in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. and to library, museum and archives programs. It serves 35,000 museums and 123,000 libraries across the country, according to its website. The impact of losing the money will be different in each state because each one spends its portion of the funding differently. Some will have to fire staff and end tutoring and summer reading programs. Others will cut access to electronic databases, end intra-library loans or reduce access to books for the deaf and blind. Many will have to stop providing internet service for rural libraries or ebook access statewide. With the expectation that Congress won't buck Trump and fund the IMLS, the future of these backbone "compassionate" library services is now under discussion across the nation, said John Chrastka, founder of EveryLibrary, a nonprofit that organizes grassroot campaigns for library funding and blocking book bans. It isn't clear whether states will be able to fill the gap left if federal funding ends, especially with other responsibilities the Trump administration is passing off to the states, like requiring them to pick up a larger share of Medicaid costs and a percentage of food assistance benefits for the first time, along with changing education and disaster funding. 'We cannot possibly at the State Library save our way out of an $8 million hole,' said California State Librarian Greg Lucas. 'The state's budget isn't in real great shape on its own and so the badness is compounded by these actions by the federal government. It's kind of: OK, where are we going to go? There aren't any easy answers to this.' The institute 'shall be eliminated' On March 14 Trump issued an executive order eliminating the Institute of Museum and Library Services 'to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.' The order states that the Institute must be reduced to its "statutory functions.' It also requires that 'non-statutory components and functions … shall be eliminated.' The proposed budget would cut federal funding for libraries and museums from nearly $300 million to $5.5 million. The agency's budget justification says the remaining money is for "sunsetting" or ending the agency. Requests for comment about the cuts sent to an IMLS spokesperson and to the Labor Department where acting IMLS Director Keith Sonderling is Deputy Secretary of Labor were not answered. After the majority of IMLS staff were laid off in late March, state libraries in California, Connecticut and Washington were abruptly told that their state grants had been canceled and received almost no other information. Panicked, Mississippi temporarily halted ebook lending so it wouldn't be accountable for the cost while the future of funding was in doubt. The state grants for California, Connecticut and Washington were restored May 5. Then came another letter from IMLS telling states that they were only getting 50% of their allocated funding. To get the rest, they needed to fill out a questionnaire about how the libraries were complying with Trump's executive orders on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, how they were supporting American's education needs and America's 250th anniversary. On April 4, 21 states sued in federal court saying that Trump can't end the agency without permission from Congress. The judge ordered IMLS to reinstate grants and staff until the case is heard. Congress, which must approve the agency's shutdown, had been scheduled to discuss its funding in late July, but pushed it off until after their summer recess ends in September. Struggling to afford ebooks, despite 'huge appetite from the public' Losing the money for ebooks would be particularly hard for states, Hoboken (New Jersey) Public Library Director Jennie Pu told USA TODAY. Interest in ebooks spiked during the pandemic, she said, but digital copies of books cost far more than paper and licensing agreements come with strings. Libraries pay three to five times as much for an ebook than what they cost in a private sale. Anecdotally, Pu said, some cost $70 per title. Some major publishers lease ebooks to libraries for two years, with the limit that only one patron can check out each digital copy at a time. Other licensing agreements expire after a set number of checkouts or are a mix of the two methods. 'We're spending more and more money in our budgets towards ebooks. There is a huge appetite from the public,' said Pu, adding that her library saw a 20% increase in ebook usage this year. 'We are so committed to meeting that need from the public and our challenge is we don't have an unlimited source of funds." In May, the Connecticut legislature passed a law aimed at reducing the cost of ebooks to libraries. New Jersey and other states have introduced similar legislation. California hopes to spend as much of its remaining federal funding as possible putting more ebooks into its 300,000-item statewide catalog, Lucas, the state librarian, said. The goal is to make sure that the 8,700 people in Modoc County, one of the least populous places in the state, have access to the same ebooks and audio books that are available to the 9.6 million people in Los Angeles County ‒ home to the second largest library system in the country, Lucas said. Part of what the State Library still needs to do is figure out how to pay the yearly $146,000 in platform fees to keep providing access to the ebooks and audiobooks it has. And, it's hoping to save some of the other services normally funded by the federal grant, like the California Revealed program, which digitizes audio, video, photos and newspapers to preserve state history, Lucas said. Because federal money is distributed based on population, his state has the most to lose ‒ roughly $15 million, according to Lucas. 'We're operating under the assumption there'll be no federal money to support us," he said. 'Always on his Kindle' At the Crofton Community Library in Maryland, patrons are greeted by boxes of free fresh vegetables. Dozens of house plants decorate the shelves and window sills, absorbing the light from windows that run from the tops of bookshelves to the ceiling. A buzz fills the room from kids working on an art activity for the summer reading program, which Maryland's State Library helps fund with its federal grant. Adult patrons talk with the librarians or with one another at broad wooden tables. Amanda Kelly, 30, of Crofton told USA TODAY that every time her family moves to a new Air Force station she immediately finds the local library to begin building their new community. Her children played in a garden outside as they waited for a summer reading event to start. Her husband is "always on his Kindle" reading library eBooks, she said, while she prefers paper copies. "I don't agree with cutting funding for libraries at all, never," she said. "That stinks." Other patrons said they check out audio books for friends, use the library for its social aspects or attend classes there, ranging from chair yoga to how to avoid online scams. Only one of the dozen people who spoke to USA TODAY knew that the federal library funding might be cut. Marquita Graham, 42, of Upper Marlboro told USA TODAY she often brings a group of children, including several with special needs, to the Crofton library for story time, as well as to use the computers and read-along audio books. "I'm shocked," she said. Ending library services "would be sad." We want to hear from people affected by or who have knowledge of the Trump administration's efforts to reshape the government, including actions by DOGE. Know something others should? Reach out at swire@ or Signal at sarahdwire.71
Los Angeles Times
12 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Ending LGBTQ+ health research will leave science in the dark
In recent months, the Trump administration has terminated thousands of federally funded medical research grants, gutting $9.5 billion in critical health science efforts. More than half of those cuts — 1,246 grants worth $5.5 billion — targeted studies focused on LGBTQ+ health. These cuts don't just reflect shifting policy priorities. They also risk limiting the scientific insights that inform clinical care and support the health of all Americans. Beginning in February, thousands of scientists received abrupt notices terminating funding for vital research involving LGBTQ+ populations. The justification? Their research was deemed 'based primarily on artificial and nonscientific categories, including amorphous equity objectives.' One letter even claimed that 'research programs based on gender identity are often unscientific, have little identifiable return on investment, and do nothing to enhance the health of many Americans.' The grants that were terminated underwent stringent peer review prior to funding and covered a wide range of important issues — from Alzheimer's disease and breast cancer to caregiver well-being and school safety. In many cases, the common factor cited in their termination was simply the inclusion of LGBTQ+ populations within the research scope. When groups of people are excluded from research, it sends a message about whose health is prioritized. The disproportionate elimination of LGBTQ-focused research is more than a policy decision or political maneuver. It weakens the foundation of evidence-based care. Research is essential to understanding health risks, evaluating treatments and improving care for people who need it most. When research funding is withdrawn, medical care falls behind, and collectively we all suffer. LGBTQ+ people make up nearly 10% of the U.S. population, and long-standing research shows they face significant health disparities. Many of these gaps remain poorly understood because of limited studies. For example, lesbian, gay and bisexual populations experience higher rates of substance use disorders, often beginning in adolescence. LGBTQ+ adults are three to six times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual, cisgender counterparts. The incidence of several cancers is also higher, but we don't have a comprehensive understanding of why. Crucial studies investigating possible causes and risk factors were among those recently terminated. We've seen the consequences of neglecting health disparities before. For decades, medical problems unique to Black Americans were understudied and unsolved. For example, the false assumptions that hypertension can be managed the same across racial groups delayed important insights and limited the development of tailored treatment. These delays resulted in worse cardiovascular outcomes for Black patients compared with their white counterparts. Another historical example of the dangers of excluding subpopulations from research is the Food and Drug Administration's 1977 decision to ban women of childbearing age from clinical drug trials. This guideline created a selection bias against women across the research world and slowed progress in understanding their unique health needs. Though the ban was lifted 16 years later, we remain behind in our understanding of cardiovascular disease management in women, and closing that gap will require decades of focused research. And now the Trump administration is repeating this pattern by deliberately excluding a subgroup of the population from research. The neglect of health disparities among LGBTQ+ patients will continue, to their great detriment. The withdrawal of grant funding specific to this group risks condemning millions of people to dangerous health disadvantages for years to come. This move diminishes the pool of researchers dedicated to solving health problems that affect the LGBTQ+ community, as they are forced to follow other funding lines. Lack of research attention to communities with unique needs, such as the LGBTQ+ population, risks increased marginalization and exacerbates stigma. Stigma has long shaped how public health crises are recognized and addressed. In 1981, U.S. health officials became aware of an emerging disease they called Gay-Related Immune Deficiency. Contracting this disease came with both a death sentence and the stigma of having the 'gay plague.' The condition was eventually understood to be a serious public health issue affecting a broad range of people and was renamed HIV/AIDS. Yet it took nearly five years before President Reagan made major funding available for HIV/AIDS research. Delays in funding, in part because of stigma, slowed scientific progress and contributed to the spread of the epidemic. To ignore the issues facing any one population is to risk potential harm to all of society. All people deserve quality, evidence-based healthcare that addresses their unique physical, psychological and social needs. That is precisely why medical research is a foundational pillar of a functioning healthcare system. Without it, our understanding of diseases and treatments is dependent on outdated, extrapolated or incomplete evidence — which causes harm. By withholding funding for research that includes LGBTQ+ participants, the Trump administration is sending a message that the health of nearly 32 million Americans simply isn't worth the investment of federal dollars. The cost of that decision will be measured in suffering, inequity and lives lost — not just within the LGBTQ+ community, but across the entire healthcare system. Haley Stepp is the research program manager at the George Washington University School of Nursing. Kathleen Griffith is a professor at the George Washington University School of Nursing and School of Medicine and Health Sciences.
