Younger Democrats want to force an uncomfortable conversation about age
LOS ANGELES — Democrat Saikat Chakrabarti decided to challenge Rep. Nancy Pelosi for her San Francisco congressional seat when he watched in disbelief last year as his party chose a 74-year-old member she had backed to lead the House Oversight Committee over Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, his 35-year-old former boss and one of the party's most powerful communicators.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
Standoff with troops in Los Angeles reignites old feud as Newsom resists Trump's immigration raids
WASHINGTON (AP) — It was earlier this year that California Gov. Gavin Newsom was making nice with President Donald Trump as he sought help for his wildfire-battered state and moderating his approach ahead of a potential bid for the White House. But now the gloves are off after Trump took the extraordinary step of federalizing the National Guard in Los Angeles over Newsom's objections and the governor responded by suing the administration, alleging abuse of power that marked an 'unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' The escalating clash pits the leader of the Republican Party against a Democrat with ambitions of leading his own party, with a striking backdrop of a domestic troop deployment meant to control a city in unrest and now to assist in arresting migrants — the centerpiece of the president's agenda. For Trump, it's another chance to battle with Newsom, a frequent foil who leads a heavily Democratic state the president has long criticized. And for Newsom, the feud has handed him a national platform as a beleaguered Democratic Party seeks a leader able to resist Trump. 'He has shown he's not going to be intimidated, and we're all for that,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said of Newsom on Wednesday. Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, a former California resident, said Newsom's motivations for taking on Trump are clear. 'This is all about Gavin Newsom running for president in 2028, and what he is hoping is that becoming the face of a resistance to Trump is going to jog him to victory in Democratic primaries,' he said in his podcast 'The Ben Shapiro Show.' Trump wages a war against California Trump has long been a foe of California, which overwhelmingly rejected him in all three of his presidential campaigns. Over the years, Trump has threatened to intercede in the state's long-running homeless crisis, vowed to withhold federal wildfire aid as political leverage in a dispute over water rights, called on police to shoot people robbing stores and warned residents 'your children are in danger' because of illegal immigration. As a candidate in 2023, Trump said California was once a symbol of American prosperity but is 'becoming a symbol of our nation's decline.' 'This is not a great state anymore. This is a dumping ground,' Trump said at the time. 'The world is being dumped into California. Prisoners. Terrorists. Mental patients.' Newsom would learn to balance the dueling imperatives of a governor who needs to work with the federal government with being one of the Democratic Party's most prominent figures. As governor-elect, Newsom joined Trump in November 2018 as the then-president viewed wildfire damage in Paradise, California, and they pledged to put aside political differences to help the community recover. He was also overly complimentary of the Trump administration's assistance to California during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, praising Trump's 'focus on treatments' for the virus and thanking him for sending masks and gloves to his state. But Newsom was also a top surrogate for Democrats in the 2024 campaign and frequently warned of the consequences of Trump's return to the White House. Trump and Newsom make nice over wildfire catastrophe There was a handshake and a warm pat on the back. Newsom was there on the tarmac in Los Angeles in January, welcoming Trump and first lady Melania Trump, who had traveled west to survey the damage from the deadly wildfires in Southern California. Then they spoke to reporters together, pledging cooperation to rebuild the area and appreciating each other's presence. 'You were there for us during COVID. I don't forget that,' Newsom said. 'And I have all the expectations that we'll be able to work together to get this speedy recovery.' Trump added: 'We will. We're going to get it done.' Newsom also traveled to Washington in February to press Trump and lawmakers for more federal wildfire relief. The governor called his meeting with Trump 'productive' and one that was marked with a 'spirit of collaboration and cooperation.' The cordial attitude was part of Newsom's unmistakable appeal to the center, painting himself as a pragmatist to reach out to those who had fled from a party that had just lost all battleground states in the 2024 presidential election. Newsom spoke to conservative allies of Trump on a new podcast the governor billed as a way for Democrats to learn from the political successes of Trump's 'Make America Great Again' movement. He voiced opposition to transgender athletes participating in female sports while shifting focus away from efforts in Sacramento to 'Trump-proof' California — which Newsom embarked on after Trump's victory in November — as the wildfires raged. In an April interview with YouTube commentator Brian Tyler Cohen, Newsom acknowledged Trump's ability to appeal to the public. 'His success is his ability to win every damn news cycle and get us distracted and moving in 25 different directions,' he said. Newsom warns of democracy 'under assault' as Trump sends troops The Democratic governor and Trump have been feuding publicly about the response to protests, with Newsom claiming Trump didn't warn him he'd deploy troops in a Friday phone call and Trump claiming the conversation was about that. Newsom has taunted Trump administration officials with arresting him, and Trump first appeared receptive to the idea and then walked back earlier remarks. After Newsom filed an emergency request in federal court Tuesday to block the Trump administration from using the National Guard and Marines to assist with immigration raids in Los Angeles, he gave a public address accusing Trump of going beyond arresting criminals. 'California may be first, but it clearly will not end here,' he warned. 'Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault before our eyes.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed Newsom's speech as performative. 'I know Gavin Newsom had a big address to the nation last night — I guess he thought that's what it was for maybe his future political ambitions,' Leavitt said Wednesday. 'But he spoke a lot of words. We haven't seen action.' The filing this week wasn't the first time this year that California had sued the Trump administration. In April, Newsom filed a lawsuit that challenged Trump's authority to impose sweeping tariffs that the governor asserted would inflate prices and inflict billions of dollars in damage to California, which has the nation's largest economy. And California — not just Newsom — continues to be a foil. Just this month, the Trump administration signaled that it intends to cut off federal funding for a long-delayed California high-speed rail project plagued by multibillion-dollar cost overruns. He's threatened to pull federal funding in California if the state did not bar transgender students from participating in girls sports. The Justice Department warned districts they could face legal trouble if they don't bar trans athletes from competition. And on Thursday, he's expected to sign a measure blocking California's vehicle emissions rules. ___ Gomez Licon reported from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and Blood from Los Angeles. Associated Press writer Kevin Freking in Washington contributed.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: Sending the military to a big city to police Americans is the wrong call
Sending National Guard troops into a municipality to quell disturbances is not a solution in a free society. National Guard troops are not trained in arrest, search and seizure. They do not know state or local laws; they most certainly are not familiar with Miranda rights. Back in 1968 as a Chicago cop, I observed firsthand National Guard and Army troops who were deployed to Chicago during the riots in reaction to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination and the Democratic National Convention. 'Confusion' is a mild word to describe the chaos. Sending 700 Marines to Los Angeles may or may not be legal, but I am a Marine veteran, and dealing with our own citizens in a free society was far from the training my fellow Marine warriors and I received. Demonstrators who cross the line from peaceful to violent no doubt need to be arrested and charged — but only by trained law enforcement officers to ensure due process, which is a right of every citizen in a free Tuesday's Tribune, multiple readers penned letters sharply criticizing President Donald Trump's response to the Los Angeles riots, decrying his deployment of the National Guard. 'Donald Trump is exceeding his authority,' Sally Munn writes. Kevin Coughlin asks: What about Jan. 6, 2021? The administration will lead us into 'a police state,' Harry Hofherr writes. The Tribune Editorial Board joined in on the hysterics ('MAGA morphs into Make America Cruel Again,' June 10), warning in its editorial that 'our children are watching.' Jeez, is what the president doing that unconstitutional? That awful? That wrong? The letter writers' charged language sure would make you think so. But, absent from their arguments is any semblance of law. First, the president does not appear to be exceeding his authority. Section 12406 of Title 10 of the US Code, invoked by Trump, is clear: The president may deploy the guard if there is an invasion, rebellion (or threat of one) or, and most applicable here, when 'the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' Seeing as the rioters have blocked federal agents from detaining and deporting immigrants in Los Angeles, it would appear the third condition has been met, and a good argument could be made for the second having been met. California has filed suit against the president for deploying the guard, so these issues will of course have to be litigated in court — as they should be. Second, propagating Jan. 6 'whataboutism' here is quite rich. The Democrat-led Jan. 6 select committee sharply criticized Trump for not having deployed the guard quickly enough to defend federal property and personnel on that dark day in our nation's history. Now, the president seems to have learned from his mistake and yet gets criticized for quickly deploying the guard to protect federal property and personnel. Lastly, to say we now live in a 'police state' is obvious hyperbole. The guard has been explicitly ordered to defend federal employees in response to, not in anticipation of, violent riots. National Guard troops are not marching through Los Angeles; they are posted at or near federal property to shield it and the agents inside. So, to those condemning the president's response to the LA riots, I ask: Is your criticism directed at the person or the policy? There's a big senseless waste of tax dollars. With no request from the governor of California, the leader of the world has sent the National Guard and Marines to control a situation that was created by his own government. I suppose he can't send in the Army because those soldiers are otherwise occupied participating in another waste of taxpayer dollars: the parade! Both of these situations have everything to do with the president's . Too bad he didn't think the insurrection on Jan. 6 was worthy of the National Guard, a situation that truly merited supporting the local police. But that was also another ego trip for him. is the madness going to stop?Chicago is the perfect location for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to strike next. Surely a Texas or Florida city won't be next. Chicago has a divided government as the mayor does not control the City Council, and the mayor is unpopular. The mayor should be calming the city now to alleviate some of the protesting. I would advise Illinois' governor to immediately call up the National Guard upon the first instance of escalated protests before President Donald Trump editorial 'MAGA morphs into Make America Cruel Again' ignores the serious consequences that unchecked, unlawful entry has on our country. While America has always welcomed legal immigrants, illegal immigration breaks federal law and burdens citizens who follow the rules. First and foremost, illegal immigration is illegal. By excusing or encouraging it, we undermine our legal system and send a message that laws are optional. This is unfair to the millions around the world who wait years and spend thousands to come here legally. Law-abiding immigrants and U.S. citizens deserve a system that honors order and fairness — not one that rewards disregard for the rules. Illegal immigration puts pressure on our public services. Schools are overcrowded, teachers are stretched thin and health systems face rising costs. Local emergency rooms and clinics must provide care, but the bill is passed on to the American taxpayer. It's not sustainable, and it's not right. Crime is another serious concern. Americans should not have to fear that their safety is secondary to political narratives. Don't ask law-abiding citizens to subsidize illegal entry and its consequences. We need an immigration system that is lawful, secure and fair. That means enforcing existing laws, securing our borders and streamlining legal immigration — not ignoring our laws in the name of misguided compassion. Americans are generous, but we also value order, accountability and the editorial about the events in Los Angeles, the Tribune Editorial Board 'wondered how on God's green earth this country can hold it together for three-and-a-half more years of this level of presidential overreach, this amount of hatred and division.' My response is: Does the board remember the 1960s? Consider just 1968. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in April. The ensuing riots all over the country make what is happening in LA look minor. We can still see the effects of those riots in parts of Chicago today. Two months later, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated. Then came the Democratic National Convention. I assume the editorial board remembers that. That was just in the United States. In January 1968, North Korea seized the USS Pueblo and held its crew captive for 11 months. At the end of January, communist forces in Vietnam launched their Tet Offensive. While the offensive was a strategic defeat for the communists, its main casualty was President Lyndon Johnson. There were student protests and riots all over Europe. In August, the Soviet Union occupied Czechoslovakia because it dared to have thoughts of its own. And then there was the draft. In other words, while things seem crazy now, we have been through worse. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about what is happening, but we should keep things in perspective. Because we have been there before.I have to agree with all the immigration demonstrators across the country today. The immigrants deserve good jobs and schools and honest government and to live without fear. The problem is they are marching in the wrong place. The root cause of the problem lies in their home countries. They should be marching in the capital cities of their home countries. Let's focus on the root cause. If everyone who feels so strongly about immigration went to the capital cities where the immigrants are escaping from, it would do much to eliminate the problem. March in Mexico City, Quito, San Salvador or Guatemala City, where the problems originate. Let's fix the root cause.I would like to remind my fellow Americans that this country has faced many crises in its short history. There is always someone there to remind us of who and what we represent as a nation and to the world. Such a man was Edward R. Murrow, an American broadcast journalist who lived through the Sen. Joe McCarthy era and stood up against what he knew to be a gross injustice and a violation of our values. I would like to share one of his many memorable quotes to ponder and then for us to decide as a nation if we wish to stand together for what we know is right and then to act. 'We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men — not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.' What will you do to meet this crossroad?I faithfully read Voice of the People each day. Letters that go straight to the truth are my favorites. Some letters, however, simply fuel the flames of divisiveness, without revealing a profound truth. I quickly identify those letters when a I see the words 'posse' and 'minions,' which appeared in two letters on June 6: 'Donald Trump and his posse' and 'Joe Biden and his minions.' Labeling huge swaths of the American electorate as thoughtless sycophants does nothing to help us achieve equitable solutions for today's issues. Certain words divide us. Let's drop them from the discussion.I'd like to take a moment to provide a different perspective to a June 6 letter ('Short memories') regarding Joe Biden as president '(throwing) money at anything that moved' during his administration. Let us remember that Biden inherited an economy that was in a tailspin. To save the U.S. economy and support citizens of our country, Biden used his presidency to benefit the economy, middle class and struggling lower class. Let us remember that his stimulus plan included individual stimulus checks, extended unemployment benefits, extended child care tax credits, increased funding for a national vaccine plan, and increased the budget for mortgage assistance as well as emergency assistance for those who were unhoused. Biden's administration invested billions of dollars in domestic semiconductor manufacturing and research to bring the U.S. manufacturing sector in line with worldwide development. Those were just a few of the positive benefits for U.S. citizens under the Biden presidency. Let us not forget what we once had. If anyone is going to be accused of throwing money, let that money at least be used to support the children and families of the United States. When Biden left office, he gave his successor one of the healthiest economies in the world, with low unemployment, plus a record high number of jobs created. It's a national shame that we can no longer say that about our Secretary Pete Hegseth wants to change the name of the USNS Harvey Milk because Milk's identity as a gay man would compromise the Navy's effort to establish a 'warrior ethos.' Poor Hegseth seems unaware that in classical Greece, gay men — including pairs of gay lovers — were seen as essential to military unit cohesion and effectiveness. According to neoconservative historian Victor Davis Hanson's 1994 study 'The Western Way of War,' pairs of gay lovers fought with ferocity. The Sacred Band of Thebes, made up of 150 pairs of gay lovers, shattered the Spartan army at the Battle of Leuctra in 371 B.C., establishing Thebes' independence from Sparta. Four years later, at the Battle of Tegyra, the Sacred Band vanquished another Spartan force three times its size. One recent account called the Sacred Band of Thebes 'the Special Forces of the classical era.' It is unsettling that the security of the United States is in the hands of a man with no military experience and no knowledge of military history.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's deployment of troops to LA prompts host of legal questions -- and a challenge from California
Remarkable images are emerging of Marines training and National Guardsmen armed with rifles accompanying ICE agents on raids in Los Angeles. It's a scene President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth say can be replicated in any other American city where there are protests against the administration's immigration crackdown. It's also raising a host of legal questions regarding what Trump can and can't do with regards to the military on U.S. soil, and whether he's crossing the line. A first hearing on some of these issues is set for Thursday as California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, challenges the federal deployment and seeks emergency relief. To send thousands of National Guardsmen to Los Angeles, Trump invoked Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. The statute allows the president to call on federal service members when there "is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States" or when "the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." In his order, Trump said the troops would protect federal property and federal personnel who are performing their functions. MORE: What is the Insurrection Act, and what happens if Trump uses it to quell LA protests? Trump, however, did not invoke the Insurrection Act -- a clear exception to the mandates of the Posse Comitatus Act, the law that limits the military from being involved in civilian law enforcement. "Instead, he's using authorities in a very novel way," Elizabeth Goitein, a senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center, said on ABC News Live. Goitein noted how broad Trump's memorandum is in nature, saying it's not limited to Los Angeles and allows for troops to be sent anywhere protests "are likely to occur." "This is a preemptive, nationwide, potentially, deployment of the federal military to effectively police protests. It is unheard of in this country," Goitein said. California leaders claim Trump inflamed the protests by sending in the military when it was not necessary, and did so illegally. Newsom argues the situation, which has been relatively confined to a few square blocks in downtown Los Angeles, doesn't justify the use of Section 12406 in Title 10. "To put it bluntly, there is no invasion or rebellion in Los Angeles; there is civil unrest that is no different from episodes that regularly occur in communities throughout the country, and that is capable of being contained by state and local authorities working together. And nothing is stopping the President from enforcing the laws through use of ordinary, civilian mechanisms available to federal officers," the state contended in an emergency motion. The state's lawsuit also lambasts Trump for bypassing the governor and local leaders who objected to the mobilization of the National Guard and active duty Marines. However, some legal experts say Section 12406 in Title 10 does not on its face require a request from the governor. There is also precedent for the president sending in the National Guard without governor support: in 1965 President Lyndon B. Johnson sent the National Guard to deal with civil unrest in the South without cooperation from state leaders. "If this ultimately gets to the Supreme Court, I don't think they're going to find that the president unlawfully federalized the National Guard troops," said Rachel VanLandingham, a professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles and a former active duty judge advocate in the U.S. Air Force. "A different issue is if these federalized troops, either National Guard or Marines, cross the line into law enforcement and therefore violate Posse Comitatus," she said. National Guard members joining ICE on raids marks a significant escalation, she said. "It's getting dangerously close to law enforcement," VanLandingham said. MORE: US military can temporarily detain protesters in Los Angeles, commander says California made that argument in its emergency motion. "Defendants intend to use unlawfully federalized National Guard troops and Marines to accompany federal immigration enforcement officers on raids throughout Los Angeles," the motion states. "They will work in active concert with law enforcement, in support of a law enforcement mission, and will physically interact with or detain civilians." The Trump administration has steadfastly defended the moves and is urging a federal judge to block California's request for a temporary restraining order. "The extraordinary relief Plaintiffs request would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief's military directives -- and would do so in the posture of a temporary restraining order, no less. That would be unprecedented. It would be constitutionally anathema. And it would be dangerous," lawyers with the Department of Justice said in a court filing. The DOJ lawyers argued that California should not "second-guess the President's judgment that federal reinforcements were necessary" and that a federal court should defer to the president's discretion on military matters. ABC News' Peter Charalambous contributed to this report. Trump's deployment of troops to LA prompts host of legal questions -- and a challenge from California originally appeared on
