AP PHOTOS: Mexican flags at LA protests spark debate over symbolism
This is a photo gallery curated by AP photo editors.
———
Over the last week, a sea of green, white and red Mexican flags have become a fixture of the Los Angeles protests against immigration raids.
The use of Mexican and other Latin American flags during the protests are a form of symbolism many conservatives are calling anti-American — while others argue they're an expression of pride in one's homeland that could not be more American.
Whether it be U.S., Mexican or Palestinian flags, the banners reflect a nation of immigrants whose stories have become intertwined with the story of America, experts say.
Kris Hernández, an associate professor of history at Connecticut College, said the flying of foreign flags in the U.S. has always brought awareness to the plight of marginalized groups. Their appearance in the latest protests might symbolize solidarity with their native land or social movements that support Americans of Mexican descent, she said.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that those flying Mexican flags at immigration protests were left-wing radicals that attacked law enforcement agents 'removing violent, criminal illegal aliens from the city.'
And even fierce Trump critic Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a Democrat, expressed his displeasure with the display of non-American flags at immigration protests that have spread to other states.
'Peaceful protests are fine. Violence is not and will only destroy your message," Kinzinger wrote on X. "American flags or nothing.'
Amid the backlash, many Americans who support the right to protest are encouraging demonstrators to protest against immigration policies with the American flag instead of a foreign one, as way of reclaiming the U.S. flag for all who call the U.S. home.
This underscores just how influential the American flag can be, Hernández said. 'What we are seeing ... is that people don't like to see some flags over others,' she said.
Some Latino activists say the Mexican flag is being used by people who were in this land before it was part of the United States. California was part of Mexico until the 1800's. Many Mexican Americans are descendants of people who never crossed a border — instead the border crossed them.
Still, their display of the Mexican flag at protests is being twisted into something it's not, said Juan Proaño, CEO of the League of United Latin American Citizens.
Hector E. Sanchez, president and CEO of 'Mi Familia Vota,' a non-profit focused on mobilizing Latino voters, said Mexicans have been at the forefront of attacks when it comes to immigration — attacks heightened during both of Trump's campaigns.
Sanchez said he wonders why it's not called anti-American when some Americans fly Confederate flags next to the U.S. flag.
'We see a lot of flags celebrating cultural history and heritage,' he said. 'Why is it that the Mexican community is constantly under attack?'
Hashtags

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


The Intercept
11 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
Elizabeth Warren Says Millions Face 'Financial Scarlet Letter' As Trump Restarts Student-Loan Collections: '...Can Cost Someone A Job Opportunity'
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) warned Tuesday that millions of borrowers face "a financial scarlet letter" as the Trump administration ends a five-year pause and restarts collections on defaulted federal student loans. What Happened: The policy, announced May 5, allows the Education Department to seize wages, intercept tax refunds and eventually garnish Social Security checks, putting home purchases and job prospects at risk, Warren wrote in a blog post released ahead of a meeting with Education Secretary Linda McMahon. The New York Federal Reserve says 8.04% of education-loan balances slipped into serious delinquency in the first quarter, projecting a surge in defaults this summer. Roughly 2.2 million borrowers have already seen credit scores plunge more than 100 points since negative reporting resumed last fall. Trending: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — 'A damaged credit score is a financial scarlet letter that can follow consumers for years,' warns Warren. She goes on to explain that borrowers with damaged credit often shell out thousands more in interest on car loans, if lenders approve them at all. Banks may then deny their mortgage applications, pushing them into pricey rentals that build no equity. Utility companies, cell-phone carriers, and landlords also demand hefty security deposits that customers with solid credit skip. 'Nearly half of all employers now run credit checks, meaning damaged credit can cost someone a job opportunity,' she It Matters: McMahon defended the crackdown, saying collections restore accountability and protect taxpayers. While her department temporarily paused Social Security offsets, it plans to resume them later this summer alongside administrative wage garnishment. Warren also blasted a House-passed spending bill in her blog, stating that it would collapse the existing patchwork of income-driven repayment plans into two options with less-generous terms, potentially lengthening repayment periods and raising monthly bills. Warren last week vowed to fight President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," saying it would gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by cutting its Federal Reserve funding. She also argued the legislation would strip health coverage from 16 million Americans and shower billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg with tax breaks. Read Next: The average American couple has saved this much money for retirement — How do you compare? Bezos' Favorite Real Estate Platform Launches A Way To Ride The Ongoing Private Credit Boom Photo courtesy: Sheila Fitzgerald / UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? This article Elizabeth Warren Says Millions Face 'Financial Scarlet Letter' As Trump Restarts Student-Loan Collections: '...Can Cost Someone A Job Opportunity' originally appeared on 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
Yahoo
17 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