Trial Begins Over Trump's Deployment Of National Guard In Los Angeles
The Los Angeles field office director for the Department of Homeland Security testified on Monday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers desperately needed the help of military personnel in carrying out arrests. The question is whether President Donald Trump 's deployment of armed forces goes against US law that generally prohibits the president from using the military to police domestic affairs.
Ernesto Santacruz Jr testified at the start of a three-day trial in San Francisco over whether Trump's administration violated the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act when it deployed National Guard soldiers and US Marines to Los Angeles following June protests over immigration raids. The administration has argued federal military are allowed to protect federal property and federal agents.
Santacruz said before the deployment, he received multiple reports daily of attacks on his officers.
After the deployment, he said, "We still had officer assault situations, but they did reduce drastically."
Trump has pushed the bounds of typical military activity on domestic soil, including through the creation of militarised zones along the US-Mexico border. On Monday, the president said he was deploying the National Guard across Washington, DC, and taking over the city's police department in hopes of reducing crime, even as the mayor has noted crime is falling in the nation's capital.
The trial could set precedent for how Trump can deploy the guard in the future in California or other states.
The Trump administration federalized California National Guard members and sent them to the second-largest US city over the objections of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and city leaders after protests erupted June 7 when ICE officers arrested people at multiple locations.
The Department of Defense ordered the deployment of roughly 4,000 California National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles. Most of the troops have since left but 250 National Guard members remain, according to the latest figures provided by the Pentagon.
California is asking Judge Charles Breyer to order the Trump administration to return control of the remaining troops to the state and to stop the federal government from using military troops in California "to execute or assist in the execution of federal law or any civilian law enforcement functions by any federal agent or officer."
Trump federalised members of the California National Guard under a law that allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when the country "is invaded," when "there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government," or when the president is otherwise unable "to execute the laws of the United States."
Breyer found the protests in Los Angeles "fall far short of 'rebellion.'"
Witnesses called by the state of California testified Monday as to what the deployed forces could and could not do.
Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman said personnel were authorized, in certain situations, to carry out some law enforcement actions, such as setting up a security perimeter outside of federal facilities and detaining civilians for police arrest.
Breyer, who was nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, appeared skeptical of the federal government's arguments.
Breyer handed Newsom an early victory when the judge found the Trump administration violated the Constitution's 10th Amendment, which defines power between federal and state governments, and exceeded its authority.
The Trump administration immediately appealed, arguing that courts can't second guess the president's decisions. It secured a temporary halt allowing control of the California National Guard to stay in federal hands as the lawsuit unfolds.
After their deployment, the guard members accompanied federal immigration officers on raids in Los Angeles and at two marijuana farm sites in Ventura County while Marines mostly stood guard around a federal building in downtown Los Angeles that includes a detention center at the core of protests.
Since June, federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms. Some U.S. citizens have also been detained.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
3 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Putin supposed to be in jail': In city hosting Trump-Putin meet, residents take to streets
In Anchorage, residents have mixed feelings about the arrival of US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin for talks at Joint Base Elmendorf–Richardson, about 30 minutes from the city. Hanna Correa, 40, who moved from Ukraine to Alaska in 2019, joined a roadside protest with others waving Ukrainian flags. Speaking to the BBC, she said: 'Putin is supposed to be in jail, and he just comes to Alaska like that.' She added that seeing local Americans turn out in support of Ukraine 'made me cry', but said it was 'pretty sad' that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had not been invited. Christopher Kelliher, a 53-year-old military veteran from Alaska, told the BBC he opposed the meeting: 'It's gross, it makes you want to take a shower. Putin doesn't need to be in our state, much less our country. We have an idiot in the White House that will kowtow to this guy.' The BBC also reported that Anchorage's St Tikhon Orthodox Church has held three days of prayer ahead of the meeting. Its priest, Nicholas Cragle, said the war in Ukraine was 'particularly painful and close to the hearts' of his parishioners. 'We're hoping that this meeting will lead to something… lead to a culmination of this conflict,' he said. Others voiced support for the talks. Don Cressley, visiting Anchorage from North Pole, Alaska, for a fishing trip with his grandson, told the BBC: 'I think it's a good idea, I wish Zelenskyy would be out here too… get this thing over with.' He said an end to the war was important 'because of the destruction they're doing to all the cities, all the buildings… making everybody more homeless, taking their foods away, their supplies away, their living right away.' He praised Trump, saying he was doing 'an awesome job' in ceasefire talks. Some locals expressed security concerns, with Russian military aircraft regularly detected near Alaska. Anchorage resident Russell Wilson said: 'Although the Cold War is over between Russia and the US, they're constantly patrolling our airways. If the president doesn't put the hammer down, we could be the next Ukraine.' Others dismissed fears of any direct threat. When asked by the BBC about a possible Russian invasion, Kelliher said: 'Not really, everybody in Alaska owns a gun.'
Indian Express
3 minutes ago
- Indian Express
What might a Russia-Ukraine ‘land swap' entail?
The American and Russian Presidents will meet in Anchorage, Alaska on Friday (early hours of Saturday in India) to discuss, possibly decide, the future of the war in Ukraine. Ahead of the meeting, US President Donald Trump has repeatedly spoken about a 'land swap' which, he says, will help end the fighting. 'There'll be some land swapping going on,' Trump told reporters earlier this week. Russia currently occupies around a fifth of Ukrainian territory. Ukraine holds next to no Russian land. So what might a potential land swap entail? Status of war Three and a half years into the war, Ukraine is well and truly on the defensive. According to Reuters, Russia currently controls 114,500 square km (more than 19%) of Ukraine, including Crimea and a major chunk of territory in eastern and southeastern Ukraine. Some estimates peg this number to be even higher. Ukraine, on the other hand, controls next to no Russian territory. After making significant gains in Kursk last August-September, Ukrainian forces were pushed out of Russian soil by March this year. As things stand, Russia holds all of the initiative in the war: with Ukraine running out of men to send to the frontlines, Russian forces continue to make steady progress. If the fighting were to continue in its current tempo, experts suggest Russia would occupy all of the four eastern and southeastern Ukrainian provinces of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson. At the moment, Russia holds almost all of Luhansk, and about three-quarters of Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, Reuters reported. Putin officially incorporated all four provinces as Russian territory in 2022, shortly after the war began. Russia also controls small pockets of land in the northern Kharkiv, Sumy, Mykolaiv and Dnipropetrovsk regions of Ukraine. Russia has said it is carving out a buffer zone in Sumy to protect Kursk from a future Ukrainian attack. Russia has held Crimea since 2014. While Kyiv publicly maintains that the peninsula is Ukrainian territory, in private, officials have long admitted that getting Crimea back by force would be next to impossible at this point of time. Swap or surrender? Earlier this week, Trump had said that Russia had occupied some 'very prime territory', and he would 'try to get some of that territory back'. But since Ukraine currently holds no Russian land that can be leveraged in a negotiation, many have wondered what Trump's land swap would entail. Moscow wants Ukraine to unilaterally withdraw from all of the strategically and economically vital Donbas region, comprising provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk, multiple media reports from this week have suggested. If Kyiv were to agree — and that is unlikely — this would entail pulling Ukrainian troops back and ceding some 6,600 sq km it still holds onto in this region. In return, Moscow would be willing to freeze the frontier in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, return the small pockets of land it holds in northern Ukraine, and possibly concede the even smaller pockets of land Ukraine still holds in Kursk. Ukraine Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrsky in June had said that despite Russian claims to the contrary, Ukrainian forces still held some 90 sq km of Russian territory in Kursk. Even if this were to be true, whatever Russian land Ukraine holds is incomparable in size and strategic importance to the Ukrainian land held by Russia. This is why the talk of swapping land has been perceived more as a surrender in Ukraine. 'We will not leave Donbas. We cannot,' Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine told local media this week. No good options Given it has no leverage on the battlefield, Kyiv will be hoping that Western sanctions are hurting Moscow enough to force Putin to make some concessions. Such hope is not altogether unjustified: the latest secondary sanctions will potentially leave a massive hole in Moscow's budget, and Trump has promised to further squeeze Putin if Russia does not agree to make peace. That said, the Russian economy has thus far been remarkably resilient against Western pressure. Even if the economy were to be in terrible shape, that alone is no guarantee of a Russian capitulation in what Moscow views as a fight against an existential threat. In this context, experts suggest that the best-case scenario for Ukraine at the moment would be for the conflict and battlelines to be frozen. In theory, this would buy Ukraine some much needed time to rebuild its manpower base and economy, both of which lie in tatters at the moment. At the same time it would also give Russia time to recoup, and potentially prepare for another future invasion — something that Kyiv believes is an inevitability. As Al Jazeera defence editor Alex Gatapoulos puts it: 'This is a really dangerous time for Ukraine.'
NDTV
3 minutes ago
- NDTV
Trump-Putin Alaska Meet Live Updates: US President Warns Of 'Severe Consequences', Talks May Last 6-7 Hours
Trump-Putin Alaska Meet Live Updates: US President Donald Trump is set to meet his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday for a "high-stakes" summit that could not only shape the future of Moscow's three-year war with Ukraine, but also have consequences for European security. Both Trump and Putin are seeking wins from the meeting, which marks the first time Putin will set foot on foreign soil since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Trump, who casts the war as a risky "bloodbath", is pressing for a ceasefire in the war that would cement his image as a global peacemaker. For Putin, the summit is already a big win as it allows him to say that Western efforts to isolate Russia over the years have failed. Trump said that while there are 25 per cent chances of the talks failing, their success could allow him to call Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, for a second three-way meeting. Zelensky's exclusion from the summit is a setback for the West's policy of "nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine" and raises the possibility that Trump could agree to a deal that is unfavourable to Ukraine. While enroute to Alaska's Anchorage, Trump fired barbs mid-air from the Air Force One, warning of more severe sanctions if the talks aren't fruitful. "I noticed he's bringing a lot of business people from Russia, and that's good. I like that because they want to do business, but they're not doing business until we get to war settled," he said.
