Trump ordered National Guard from 'top down'
STORY: :: June 8, 2025
:: Los Angeles, California
:: LA police chief says his team would not have deployed the National Guard; Trump ordered it from the 'top down'
:: Jim McDonnell, Police Chief, Los Angeles
'We could handle this. I believe that we would have gone through a number of steps before we'd have deployed the National Guard or requested deployment of the National Guard. We would normally go to 50 percent deployment to handle radio calls and to do the business of policing. And everybody else would be focused on the initial problem. Beyond that, then we would request through the sheriff mutual aid, and that would bring in members of the 44 other police departments in LA County, as well as the sheriff's office. And so that didn't occur in this case because it wasn't done through the sheriff or through the… up through the normal chain. It was done from the top down, from the president (U.S. President Donald Trump) directing that that happened. And then the National Guard was federalized. So, they're working for the U.S. Army, not for the California State National Guard.'
'This violence that I've seen is disgusting. It's escalated now since the beginning of this incident. What we saw the first night was bad. What we've seen subsequent to that is getting increasingly worse and more violent. Tonight, we had individuals out there shooting commercial grade fireworks at our officers, that can kill you. And we have adapted our tactics to be able to have a chance to be able to take these people into custody and to be able to hold them accountable.'
California National Guard troops were deployed to the streets of Los Angeles on Sunday to help quell a third day of protests over Trump's immigration enforcement, a step the state's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, called unlawful.
'They're working for the U.S. Army, not for the California State National Guard,' said police chief Jim McDonnell, speaking to the media in a briefing, adding that the police would have 'gone through a number of steps' before turning to federal troops.
McDonnell highlighted that violence around the protests was escalating.
"What we saw the first night was bad. What we've seen subsequent to that is getting increasingly worse and more violent. Tonight, we had individuals out there shooting commercial grade fireworks at our officers, that can kill you. And we have adapted our tactics to be able to have a chance to be able to take these people into custody and to be able to hold them accountable.'
National Guard troops guarded federal government buildings on Sunday, as police and protesters clashed in separate demonstrations over federal immigration raids in Los Angeles.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Intercept
7 minutes ago
- The Intercept
Did Israel Just 'Blow Up' Trump's Bid For an Iran Nuke Deal?
A firefighter calls out his colleagues at the scene of an explosion in a residence compound in northern Tehran, Iran, on June 13, 2025. Photo: Vahid Salemi/AP The attack had been predicted for weeks, but over the last few days, the chatter was taken seriously enough that the U.S. ordered non-essential diplomatic personnel to evacuate the region. By the time the Israeli military finally struck Iran on Thursday evening — early Friday morning in Tehran — the U.S. and Iran were just three days out from a sixth round of scheduled nuclear talks in Muscat, Oman. With the bombs dropped, questions hung in the air. How fierce would Iran's promised response be? Did Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu aim to scuttle the nuclear talks? President Donald Trump had been pursuing hard-nosed diplomacy with Iran, but did he even try to stop Israel? In what it deemed a 'preemptive strike,' the Israeli military claimed to target Iran's nuclear sites, like the one in Natanz, its ballistic missile program, nuclear scientists, and senior military officials. Among them was armed forces Chief of Staff Mohammad Bagheri, who was initially rumored to be dead but is apparently safe. Given that Iran had neither shown any preparations for an attack on Israel nor made any military threats against it, the preemptive strike was certainly illegal under international law—not that Netanyahu has shown any particular concern for such niceties. Netanyahu said the operation will continue. That, presumably, means war. Whatever damage Iran sustained in the overnight attack, Netanyahu stated in a speech that the operation targeting Iran's nuclear program will continue until he is satisfied that the threat it presents is eliminated. That, presumably, means war — one that will be increasingly difficult for the U.S. to stay out of, especially when it comes to defending Israel in the face of Iranian retaliation. At this early hour exact casualty numbers from the strikes are not known, but images coming out of Tehran show multiple residential buildings damaged and explosions across the capitol city. Several prominent figures in Iranian military, nuclear, and academic circles have been confirmed killed. The chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hossein Salami, was among them, as were Azad University president Mohammad Tehranchi, a theoretical physicist; Fereydoon Abbasi, a politician and former head of the Atomic Energy Organization; and Gen. Gholamali Rashid, commander of Khatam-al Anbiya Central Headquarters, Iran's unified military command. Ahead of the attack, Israel telegraphed its plans through leaks to the media — and Trump faced questions from a reporter on Thursday about the possibility. The president suggested a strike could happen at any time, though he maintained that he preferred diplomacy. It seems clear enough from Trump's response that, while the U.S. may not have given Netanyahu a green light to attack, it didn't demand that it refrain from doing so. Tellingly, in his answer to the reporter, Trump said that an attack by Israel could 'blow up' the scheduled talks between U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, but added that an attack may also be helpful. Presumably, Trump thought an attack might give the U.S. more leverage over a weakened and chastened Iran. It's impossible to know if Trump came up with the notion himself, or if it came out of the meeting on the Iran nuclear issue he held with his foreign policy team at Camp David on Sunday. Regardless, if meant seriously, the idea showed a fundamental misunderstanding of Iran, which is even less likely to compromise on its nuclear program than it might have been before the attack. Netanyahu may just have a better grasp on the Iranians than the Trump administration. It seems likely that the Israeli leader chose to attack Iran not to give Trump and Witkoff more leverage, but to put an end to the talks once and for all. Taken aback by Trump's announcement earlier this year that the U.S. would begin direct talks with Iran, Netanyahu has seemed determined since then to scupper the possibility of a new nuclear agreement. Netanyahu, echoed by Israel's staunchest supporters in Congress, demanded the talks result in a complete dismantling of Iran's nuclear program — which he is well aware was a non-starter for Iran — or threatening military action if the talks didn't accomplish his goal. The Israeli strike, in the end, could have more far-reaching consequences, scuttling not just the talks themselves, but any chance of an entente between the U.S. and Iran. In that sense, Netanyahu has succeeded. Even if talks continue, the idea Trump once had for a 'successful' Iran — at peace and integrated into the world economy — is today certainly blown up.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration blocked from deploying National Guard to LA
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration's deployment of California's National Guard to Los Angeles and called the move illegal. The judge's order to return control of the troops to California Governor Gavin Newsom will not go into effect immediately and the administration has filed an appeal. The state sued President Donald Trump on Monday over his order to deploy the troops without Newsom's consent. Trump said he was sending the troops - who are typically under the governor's authority - to stop LA from "burning down" in protests against his immigration crackdown. Local authorities have argued they have the situation in hand and do not need troops. US District Judge Charles Breyer said the question presented by California's request was whether Trump followed the law set by Congress on the deployment of a state's National Guard. "He did not," the judge wrote in his decision. "His actions were illegal... He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith." But the judge stayed the order until Friday afternoon to give the Trump administration time to appeal against it. The administration did so almost immediately after the order was issued. Newsom posted on social media on Thursday afternoon that "the court just confirmed what we all know — the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets". The Trump administration has said it took over California's National Guard to restore order and to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents as they swept up people in Los Angeles who were believed to be in the country illegally. Despite Newsom's objections, Trump ordered a total of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to help quell the unrest. Some of the Guard troops are now authorised to detain people until police can arrest them. A president last deployed the National Guard without a governor's consent more than 50 years ago - during the civil rights era. It is more common for a governor to activate troops to deal with natural disasters and other emergencies, and then ask for federal assistance. Before a packed courtroom on Thursday, a justice department attorney told Judge Breyer that Newsom did not need to be consulted when Trump issued his order. "Governor Newsom was fully aware of this order…he objected to it," Attorney Brett Shumate said. "There is one commander-in-chief of the US armed forces." "No," Judge Breyer, the younger brother of former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, responded. "The president isn't the commander -in-chief of the National Guard," he said but added there were times and situations where the president could become the head of the troops. Breyer, who had donned a light blue bowtie, invoked the Constitution multiple times during the hearing, holding up a booklet copy of the document at one point. "We're talking about the president exercising his authority. And the president is, of course, limited in his authority," he said. "That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George.". The Trump administration used a law that allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when a "rebellion" is happening. But California said in its lawsuit that the protests that have spanned nearly a week in LA - and included more than 300 arrests and the shutting down of a major freeway - did not rise to that level. "At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection. Nor have these protests risen to the level of protests or riots that Los Angeles and other major cities have seen at points in the past, including in recent years," the lawsuit read. Additional reporting by Ana Faguy in Washington, DC Trump has long called for using the military to quash protests. Los Angeles gave him an opening Newsom v Trump holds promise and peril for California governor Downtown LA under curfew for second night after days of protests
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fears over the safety of US government bonds have been put to rest — for now
Concerns over what Trump's tax bill will do to the federal deficit have rattled the Treasury market. Nerves were soothed somewhat on Thursday after strong demand at a 30-year auction. Both near- and long-dated bonds rallied, pushing yields lower. The bond market just cleared a key hurdle and put investors at ease about the state of government borrowing — at least for now. The Treasury Department saw solid demand for its anxiously awaited auction of 30-year government bonds on Thursday. It comes a day after a 10-year offering saw similarly strong demand. The Treasury market has been destabilized in recent weeks by concerns over the impact President Donald Trump's tax bill will have on an already-swollen federal deficit. It was those same worries that led to tepid demand at a 20-year auction a few weeks ago, and led to the fixation on this week's offerings. Recent volatility in the 30-year has led some to speculate that the bond — historically considered to be one of the safest investments in existence — was losing it its luster as a safe haven. Despite continued calls for investors to continuing "selling America," US government bonds look fine for the time being. This embedded content is not available in your region. In the end, the government sold $22 billion worth of 30-year bonds on Thursday at a yield of 4.84%. That's 8 basis points below what the 30-year US Treasury yield traded around at the time the auction closed, implying strong demand. Demand was also solid at the 10-year US Treasury auction on Tuesday, when the government sold $39 billion worth of 10-year bonds at a 4.42% yield, which was also lower than expected. Bonds were mired in a sell-off for most of April and May as concerns swirled around mounting debt levels, the impact of tariffs on the US economy, and the GOP tax bill, which is expected to add trillions to the budget deficit over the coming decade. Treasury bonds are thought of as an ultra-safe corner of US financial market. Soft demand is a sign investors may be too skittish about the US macro picture to pick up government debt — something that would be unusual and reflect extreme fear about the macro outlook. Read the original article on Business Insider Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
