Tom Cotton pressed on 'language' used in 'send in the troops' op-ed, National Guard presence
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., doubled down on Sunday when pressed by CBS host Margaret Brennan on whether he wanted to use the language he did in his call for President Donald Trump to send in troops to help quell the rioting in Los Angeles.
"You wrote an op-ed supporting President Trump's decision to send in federalized national guard troops and active-duty marines to California. You referred to it as the threat from the radical left, a show of force to end the right and talked about communities being terrorized. Given the amount of tension in the country right now, is that really the language to use?"
Cotton wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, a parallel to his infamous 2020 guest essay in the New York Times, saying, "At the risk of again sending liberals to their fainting couches, it may indeed be time to send in the troops."
"Yes. When you see left-wing militias throwing bricks and frozen water bottles at police officers and shooting them with fireworks. And unfortunately, you have mayors and governors in some places that won't allow police to maintain order," Cotton responded to the CBS host.
"If the governor won't call in the national guard, then the president has to federalize them. We always hope the local police are allowed to do their job and have sufficient numbers to do their job to maintain order and protect innocent life and property. If they can't, or they are not allowed to, the National Guard has to be on scene to restore civil order," Cotton added.
Cotton's op-ed came as Trump's decision to send in the National Guard and eventually a group of U.S. Marines was met with pushback from Democrats.
Read On The Fox News App
The Arkansas Republican wrote in support of Trump's deployment of National Guard and Marine soldiers to Los Angeles over the weekend after anti-ICE riots escalated beyond local police control. His comments echoed similar arguments he made in the wake of the Black Lives Matter riots plaguing major cities in the summer of 2020.
Brennan pushed back and said the Los Angeles Police chief insisted they had the rioting under control, as Cotton argued that the chief said last weekend they were stretched thin.
Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And Culture
Cotton wrote that he was also planning on introducing new legislation that would "stiffen penalties for rioters who attack law enforcement" and "make riot-related crimes a deportable offense."
He added the current Republican budget bill provides additional funding for immigration authorities to deport criminal illegal immigrants.
"These ideas are basic common sense, but as was the case five years ago, the Democrats haven't learned. It isn't 'inflammatory,' as [California Gov. Gavin] Newsom claimed, to enforce federal law, stand with law enforcement and protect civilians. It's necessary to keep the peace." Cotton wrote.
Fox News' Lindsay Kornick contributed to this report.Original article source: Tom Cotton pressed on 'language' used in 'send in the troops' op-ed, National Guard presence
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
30 minutes ago
- CNBC
How Trump went from opposing Israel's strikes on Iran to reluctant support
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump had opposed Israeli military action against Iran, favoring negotiations over bombing. But in the days before the strikes began, he became convinced that Israel's heightened anxiety over Iran's nuclear enrichment capabilities was warranted. After a pivotal briefing from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, on Israel's plans and U.S. options for supporting its operation, he gave tacit approval to Israel to have at it and decided to provide limited U.S. backing. When Caine briefed him on June 8, Trump was increasingly frustrated with Iran for not responding to the latest proposal for a nuclear deal. He still remained hopeful that his Middle East peace negotiator, Steve Witkoff, who had been scheduled to conduct another round of peace talks in the region Sunday, could soon get an agreement over the line. Trump was also facing private pressure from longtime allies who advocate more isolationist policies and wanted him to stop Israel from taking military action or at least withhold U.S. support for any such operation. This account of Trump's thinking leading up to the Israeli operation is based on interviews with five current U.S. officials and two Middle Eastern officials, as well as two people with knowledge of the deliberations, two former U.S officials familiar with the deliberations and a Trump ally. The White House didn't immediately comment, and the Defense Department didn't respond to a request for comment. In recent weeks, Israel grew more convinced that the threat posed by Tehran was getting increasingly serious and urgent. And while he had already decided not to stand in Israel's way, on Thursday, only hours before the strikes began, Trump remained at least publicly hopeful that diplomacy would win the day. "I don't want them going in, because I think it would blow it — might help it actually, but it also could blow it, but we've had very good discussions with Iran," Trump told reporters at a bill signing ceremony. "I prefer the more friendly path." Behind the scenes, the Israelis had already laid much of the groundwork for Trump's measured change. Trump had hoped Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could be persuaded not to mount an attack. But over the past week, he came to accept that Israel was determined to neutralize Iran's nuclear capabilities and that the United States would have to lend some military support for defensive purposes, as well as some intelligence support. After the strikes began Thursday evening, the administration took pains to say it had provided no military assistance to Israel, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is also the national security adviser, pointedly omitted any mention of U.S. support for Israel's operations in a statement. But the administration's public statements the next day did leave the door open to the United States' having provided some of the kind of intelligence Israel needed to mount an attack. Israel was able to conduct its initial strikes mostly with its own intelligence and capabilities — killing three military leaders and nine top scientists working on nuclear enrichment and destroying several nuclear enrichment sites, Israeli officials have said — but it also leaned heavily on American intelligence, bunker-buster bombs that were provided this year and air defense systems, some of which were scrambled into the region quickly in recent days. But Trump still wouldn't sign off on everything Israel wanted. After the start of their military campaign, the Israelis collected intelligence that could have allowed them to target and kill Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Netanyahu presented the operation to Trump, who opposed the plan altogether and wouldn't allow the United States to participate, according to two U.S. officials. No Americans had been killed in the conflict, so Trump didn't believe it would be appropriate to remove Khamenei, the political leader, and recommended against the Israelis' conducting the operation, the officials said. On Sunday, he appeared to advocate again for talks over strikes, saying on his social media platform, Truth Social: "Iran and Israel should make a deal, and will make a deal, just like I got India and Pakistan to make. ... Many calls and meetings now taking place. I do a lot, and never get credit for anything, but that's OK, the PEOPLE understand. MAKE THE MIDDLE EAST GREAT AGAIN!" Trump's approach to Israel's military campaign started to take form last Sunday at Camp David, the presidential retreat in rural Maryland. By that time, Israeli officials had already begun to share extensive information with U.S. officials about their potential operation. Caine, the Joint Chiefs chairman, briefed Trump and his national security team about the Israeli plans to strike Iran and U.S. options, according to two U.S. officials and one of the people familiar with the deliberations. Those options, the three sources said, included logistical support, like refueling Israeli jet fighters, sharing intelligence and using the American military's electronic warfare capabilities to help Israel jam enemy weapons and communications. Another option was to provide direct military support to Israel, even having U.S. jets drop munitions in active combat alongside Israeli fighters, for example. And yet another option, Caine briefed Trump, was to do nothing at all. Trump has consistently said he wants to extract the United States from foreign conflicts and has sought to use diplomacy to end Russia's war on Ukraine and the fighting in Gaza, albeit without success. But Israel was getting anxious, and it wasn't convinced that Trump's plan for peace in the region would work. Netanyahu and his war Cabinet didn't have faith in the U.S. negotiations with Iran taking place in Oman, despite Washington's public pronouncements that a deal was close. For months, the Trump administration has pressed the Israelis not to carry out strikes on Iran and warned that the United States wouldn't support them if they did. By the end of last week, the White House's public tone started to include more support for Israel, and in private it shifted from strong opposition against a widespread military operation to acceptance that it was likely to happen and less resistance to it. Among the reasons for Trump's change of heart was the declaration Thursday by the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, that Iran was in breach of its nonproliferation requirements. Trump was also concerned by the sense coming from Israel, the United States and the IAEA that Iran had achieved leaps in its nuclear program, and he didn't want to be the president on whose watch it was able to obtain a nuclear weapon. The United States had already been quietly moving some pieces into place to prepare for the Israeli attack. In recent days, U.S. European Command was told some of its P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol and reconnaissance planes would be diverted to the Middle East to conduct surveillance. Then, in remarks that drew little attention last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that more than 20,000 U.S. anti-drone missiles meant for Kyiv had been diverted — to the Middle East. Trump and Netanyahu spoke several times in the previous week, but by last Monday, Trump had grown convinced that Israel was going to strike and was starting to put more pieces into place to help support the strike. Soon after that conversation last Monday, the Pentagon directed European Command to send a Navy destroyer to sit off Israel to help defend it in the likely event of a counterattack from Tehran, joining two more and a carrier strike group already there. Witkoff had been expected to travel to Muscat for peace talks as late as Friday. With the conflict still active, the U.S. side acknowledged that those talks were off. But it's not shutting the door to future discussions. "While there will be no meeting Sunday, we remain committed to talks and hope the Iranians will come to the table soon," an administration official told news organizations.
Fast Company
41 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Why government's AI dreams keep turning into digital nightmares—and how to fix that
Government leaders worldwide are talking big about AI transformation. In the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., officials are pushing for AI-first agencies that will revolutionize public services. The vision is compelling: streamlined operations, enhanced citizen services, and unprecedented efficiency gains. But here's the uncomfortable truth—most government AI projects are destined to fail spectacularly. The numbers tell a sobering story. A recent McKinsey analysis of nearly 3,000 public sector IT projects found that over 80% exceeded their timelines, with nearly half blowing past their budgets. The average cost overrun hit 108%, or three times worse than private sector projects. These aren't just spreadsheet problems; they're systemic failures that erode public trust and waste taxpayer dollars. When AI projects go wrong in government, the consequences extend far beyond budget overruns. Arkansas's Department of Human Services faced legal challenges when its automated disability care system caused 'irreparable harm' to vulnerable citizens. The Dutch government collapsed in 2021 after an AI system falsely accused thousands of families of welfare fraud. These aren't edge cases—they're warnings about what happens when complex AI systems meet unprepared institutions. The Maturity Trap The core problem isn't AI technology itself—it's the mismatch between ambitious goals and organizational readiness. Government agencies consistently attempt AI implementations that far exceed their technological maturity, like trying to run a marathon without first learning to walk. Our research across 500 publicly traded companies for a previous book revealed a clear pattern: organizations that implement technologies appropriate to their maturity level achieve significant efficiency gains, while those that overreach typically fail. Combining this insight with our practical work implementing digital solutions in the public sector led to the development of a five-stage AI maturity model specifically designed for government agencies. Stage 1: Initial/Ad Hoc. Organizations at this stage operate with isolated AI experiments and no systematic strategy. Stage 2: Developing/Reactive. Agencies begin showing basic capabilities, typically through simple chatbots or vendor-supplied solutions. Stage 3: Defined/Proactive. Organizations develop comprehensive AI strategies aligned with strategic goals. Stage 4: Managed/Integrated. Agencies achieve full operational integration of AI with quantitative performance measures. Stage 5: Optimized/Innovative. Organizations reach full agility and influence how others use AI. Most government agencies today operate at stages 1 or 2, but AI-first initiatives require stage 4 or 5 maturity. This fundamental mismatch explains why so many initiatives fail. Without the right cultural frameworks, technological expertise, and technical infrastructure, organization-wide transformation based around AI capabilities stand little chance of success. Start Where You Are, Not Where You Want to Be The path to AI success begins with brutal honesty about current capabilities. A national security agency we studied exemplifies this approach. Despite seeing enormous opportunities in large language models, they recognized serious risks around data drift, model drift, and information security. Rather than rushing into advanced implementations, they are pursuing incremental development grounded in institutional knowledge and cultural readiness. This measured approach doesn't mean abandoning ambitious goals—it means building toward them systematically. Organizations must select projects that are appropriate to their maturity level while ensuring each initiative serves dual purposes: delivering immediate value and advancing foundational capabilities for future growth. Three Immediate Opportunities For agencies at early maturity stages, three implementation areas offer immediate value creation opportunities while building toward transformation: 1. Information Technology Operations IT represents the most accessible entry point for government AI adoption. The private sector offers a road map — 88% of companies now leverage AI in IT service management, with 70% implementing structured automation operations by 2025, up from 20% in 2021. AI can transform government IT through chatbots handling common user issues, intelligent anomaly detection identifying network problems in real-time, and dynamic resource optimization automatically adjusting allocations during peak periods. These capabilities deliver immediate efficiency gains while building the technical expertise and collaborative patterns needed for higher maturity levels. The challenge lies in government's unique constraints. Stringent security requirements along with legacy systems at agencies like Social Security and NASA create implementation hurdles that private sector organizations rarely face. Success requires careful navigation of these constraints while building foundational capabilities. 2. Predictive Analytics Predictive analytics represents perhaps the highest-value opportunity for early-stage agencies. Government organizations possess vast data resources, complex operational environments, and urgent needs for better decision-making—perfect conditions for predictive AI success. The U.S. military is already demonstrating this potential, using predictive modeling for command and control simulators and live battlefield decision-making. The Department of Veterans Affairs has trialed suicide prevention programs using risk prediction algorithms to identify veterans needing intervention. Beyond specialized applications, predictive analytics can improve incident management, enable predictive maintenance, and forecast resource needs across virtually any government function. These implementations advance AI maturity by building essential data management practices and analytical capabilities while delivering immediate operational benefits. Unlike complex generative AI systems, predictive analytics can be implemented successfully at any maturity stage using well-established machine learning techniques. 3. Cybersecurity Enhancement Cybersecurity offers critical immediate value, with AI applications spanning digital and physical protection domains. Modern AI security platforms process vast amounts of data across networks, endpoints, and physical spaces to identify threats that traditional systems miss—a capability that is particularly valuable given increasing attack sophistication. Current implementations demonstrate proven value. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's Automated Indicator Sharing program enables real-time threat intelligence exchange. U.S. Customs and Border Protection deploys AI-enabled autonomous surveillance towers for border situational awareness. The Transportation Security Administration uses AI-driven facial recognition for streamlined security screening. While national security agencies implement the most advanced applications, these capabilities offer immediate value for all government entities with security responsibilities, from facility protection to data privacy assurance. Building Systematic Success Creating sustainable AI capabilities requires following five key principles: Build on existing foundations. Leverage current processes and infrastructure while controlling implementation risks rather than starting from scratch. Develop mission-driven capabilities. Create implementation teams that mix technological and operational expertise to ensure AI solutions address real operational needs rather than pursuing technology for its own sake. Prioritize data quality and governance. AI systems only perform as well as their underlying data. Implementing robust data management practices, establishing clear ownership, and ensuring accuracy are essential prerequisites for success. Learn through limited trials. Choose use cases where failure won't disrupt critical operations, creating space for learning and adjustment without catastrophic consequences. Scale what works. Document implementation lessons and use early wins to build organizational support, creating momentum for broader transformation. The Path Forward Government agencies don't need to choose between ambitious AI goals and practical implementation. The key is recognizing that most transformation happens through systematic progression. While 'strategic leapfrogging' is possible in some situations, it is the exception rather than the norm. By starting with appropriate projects, building foundational capabilities, and scaling successes, agencies can begin realizing concrete AI benefits today while developing toward their longer-term transformation vision. The stakes are too high for continued failure. With 48% of Americans already distrusting AI development and 77% wanting regulation, government agencies must demonstrate that AI can deliver responsible, effective, and efficient outcomes. Success requires abandoning the fantasy of overnight transformation in favor of disciplined, systematic implementation that builds lasting capabilities. The future of government services may indeed be AI-first, but getting there requires being reality-first about where agencies stand today and what it takes to build toward tomorrow. (This article draws on the cross-disciplinary expertise and applied research of Faisal Hoque, Erik Nelson, Professor Thomas Davenport, Dr. Paul Scade, Albert Lulushi, and Dr. Pranay Sanklecha.)
Fox News
41 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump endorses House freshman for reelection less than six months into the lawmaker's congressional tenure
President Donald Trump issued a full-throated endorsement of Rep. Abe Hamadeh, R-Ariz., backing the lawmaker for re-election less than half a year into the freshman House member's first term in office. "Abe Hamadeh has my Complete and Total Endorsement for Re-Election – HE WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!" the president declared in a Truth Social post in which he described the congressman as "an America First Patriot." Trump endorsed Hamadeh in December 2023, ahead of the 2024 GOP U.S. House primary in Arizona's 8th Congressional District. But then later he issued an unusual dual endorsement of both Hamadeh and another GOP primary candidate, Blake Masters, just ahead of the 2024 contest that Hamadeh ultimately won. Back in February Hamadeh introduced a resolution to limit the types of flags that may be displayed in House facilities, though the text of the proposal stipulates that it would not "apply to the individual personal office space of a Member of the House of Representatives." The resolution would allow for displaying the American flag and various other kinds of flags, some of which would include "The State flag of the represented district of a Member of the House of Representatives, displayed adjacent to the office of such Member" and "The flags of visiting foreign dignitaries during an official visit." "Congress is supposed to embody the AMERICAN people. That's why I've introduced a resolution to ban foreign and ideological flags in the Halls of Congress. It's pathetic that I even have to introduce this resolution," Hamadeh declared in a tweet this month. Six other House Republicans are listed as cosponsors on including three original cosponsors and three other lawmakers listed as backing the measure this month. "You have inspired me and so many other young men and women to fearlessly serve our country in our nation's Armed Services and the halls of Congress," Hamadeh wrote in a June 14 letter to Trump marking the president's 79th birthday and the Army's 250th.
