logo
Jon Stewart: Trump lit ‘fuse' on LA ‘tinderbox'

Jon Stewart: Trump lit ‘fuse' on LA ‘tinderbox'

Yahoo2 days ago

Comedian Jon Stewart accused President Trump of 'happily' setting off a 'tinderbox' in Los Angeles amid days of protests against the president's immigration policies.
'The Daily Show' host railed against Trump for deploying 4,000 National Guard troops in California and knocked the administration's recent push to ramp up immigrant arrests.
'So now, predictably, these non-targeted, much broader deportation efforts in cities that feel very connected to the immigrant population is a tinderbox. And Trump happily lights the fuse,' the comedian said on his show.
Stewart asserted Trump was focused on protestors to help drown out the attention drawn by his feud with tech giant Elon Musk after the former adviser accused the president of being named in documents pertaining to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019.
'Why escalate this s— now?' Stewart asked. 'Oh, right — Elon Musk is now accusing Trump of being in the Epstein files.'
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt responded Musk's claims last seek, arguing he was upset over the Trump agenda bill being reviewed by the Senate and called the spat 'unfortunate.' Musk's post was later removed from his account.
Stewart on Monday urged the Trump administration to shift its focus from legislative priorities to the needs of people on the ground in California.
'It's an explosive situation on the cusp of federalism versus states' rights, border control versus due process, terrifyingly militarized sweeps versus hard-working people in local communities,' he said.
'The United States Marines versus the Postmates guy who brought you an egg sandwich. It's going to require a deft and firm, experienced and wise — I think you know where I'm going with this … A deft touch from leadership in Washington.'
Local leaders including California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) have pushed back on Trump's moves and urged for local law enforcement to handle the protests.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Factbox-Breakdown of U.S. tariffs on China since Trump's first term
Factbox-Breakdown of U.S. tariffs on China since Trump's first term

Yahoo

time6 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Factbox-Breakdown of U.S. tariffs on China since Trump's first term

BEIJING (Reuters) -Billions of dollars of Chinese goods have been impacted by additional U.S. tariffs since 2018, initially under the first Donald Trump presidency and later under the Biden administration. Returning to the White House this year, Trump has imposed even more duties on China. The U.S. tariffs range from those imposed under Section 301 of its trade act due to what Washington claims are unfair Chinese trade practices, to duties under Section 232 levied for national security reasons. This year, Trump has imposed another 20% levies on all Chinese goods, saying Beijing has not done enough to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States. So-called reciprocal tariffs, under which the U.S. will match duties imposed by other countries, have also been levied in a bid to rebalance trade flows. Below are the U.S. tariffs on China effective as of June 12, 2025: Tariff Rate Products Effective date Reciprocal 10% All Paused for 90 days until Aug 10, 2025 Fentanyl 20% All Mar 4, 2025 Section Up to List 1: Pharmaceuticals, July 6, 2018 301 25% iron and steel, aluminium, vehicles and aircraft, medical or surgical instruments and apparatus and more. List 2: Vehicles, Aug 23, 2018 railway or tramway locomotives, aircraft and their parts, medical or surgical instruments and apparatus and more. List 3: Prepared May 10, 2019 foodstuffs, beverages, mineral products, fertilizers, wood products, textiles, precious and base metals, vehicles, aircraft, vessels, machinery and mechanical appliances and more. List 4A: Prepared Feb 14, 2020 foodstuffs, beverages, mineral products, fertilizers, footwear, wood products, ceramic products, glass, textiles, precious and base metals, machinery and mechanical appliances, vehicles, aircraft, vessels, art, antiques and more. In September 2019, the U.S. imposed 15% tariffs on more than $120 billion of Chinese goods under Section 301, which it then halved to 7.5% less than six months later. The 25% U.S. tariffs on $250 billion of Chinese goods under the earlier List 1-3 remain unchanged. In September 2024, the U.S. Trade Representative under the Biden administration announced additional tariffs of 25-100% on 14 product groups following a four-year review of the Section 301 tariff actions. The levies were imposed on strategic Chinese sectors or sectors where the United States has made significant domestic investments. Additional tariffs on goods under Section 301: Effective date EVs 100% Sep 27, 2024 Solar cells, syringes and 50% needles Non-lithium-ion battery parts, 25% lithium-ion electrical vehicle batteries, other critical minerals, ship-to-shore cranes, steel and aluminium products, facemasks Semiconductors 50% Jan 1, 2025 Lithium-ion non-electrical 25% Jan 1, 2026 vehicle batteries, medical gloves, natural graphite, permanent magnets In addition to the above duties, the first Trump administration in 2018 imposed a range of tariffs under Section 232 aimed at restricting goods deemed a threat to national security, including all aluminium and steel imports, shutting most Chinese suppliers out of the U.S. market. 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

How Project 2025 Compares With Trump's Los Angeles Response
How Project 2025 Compares With Trump's Los Angeles Response

Newsweek

time7 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

How Project 2025 Compares With Trump's Los Angeles Response

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's response to protests in Los Angeles is in keeping with suggestions put forth in Project 2025, a political commentator has said. Allison Gill, who worked at the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, said on Wajahat Ali's the Left Hook Substack that the president's military response was "spelled out in Project 2025," a conservative policy dossier. She did not specify how. Newsweek has contacted the Heritage Foundation and Gill for comment by email. The Context Protests against immigration enforcement began in Los Angeles on Friday and have continued, with some isolated incidents of violence and looting. In response, Trump announced the deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to restore order, without California Governor Gavin Newsom's consent. While the president has said the move was necessary to prevent the city from "burning to the ground" amid protests and riots, officials in California have accused Trump of exacerbating the situation in an "unprecedented power grab." A police officer firing a soft round near the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles on June 8. A police officer firing a soft round near the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles on June 8. AP Photo/Eric Thayer What To Know Gill, who served Trump a lawsuit in 2023 accusing him of conspiring to fire her from the Veterans Affairs Department during his first presidency, said sending in the Marines was "propaganda" because the protests were not severe enough to require them. Though she said Project 2025 predicted the president's response to the protests, she did not elaborate on how. Project 2025 is a 900-page document of policy proposals published by the Heritage Foundation think tank. It advocates limited government, border security and tough immigration laws among other conservative measures. The policy proposals have proved divisive, and the president's critics and supporters alike have debated their influence on him. While Project 2025 does not mention the Insurrection Act, a November 2023 report from The Washington Post, citing internal communications and a person involved in the conversations, said the Project 2025 group had drafted executive orders that would use the Insurrection Act to deploy the military domestically. Gill told Ali that she warned people of Trump's potential use of the military to curb protests before the presidential election. "We did everything that we could in leading up to the election in 2024 to tell everyone as loud as we can, they are planning to do this," she said, adding: "Saying he's going to call this an invasion. He's going to call this an insurrection. And he's going to use that to invoke emergency powers so that he can unleash the military on United States citizens and perhaps even suspend habeas corpus so that he can detain his political enemies without due process." "This is scary," Gill, who hosts the Mueller, She Wrote podcast, continued. "This is full-on fascism, full-on authoritarianism." "This is a test case for authoritarianism," Ali added. Before the 2024 presidential election, Democrats accused Trump of planning to implement Project 2025 if he won. While Trump initially called parts of the plan "ridiculous and abysmal," he told Time after his electoral victory that he disagreed with parts of it, but not all of it. He has since appointed a number of people linked to Project 2025 to White House positions. In an October interview with Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures, Trump indicated that he would use the National Guard or the military if there were disruptions from "radical left lunatics" on Election Day. What Does Project 2025 Say? Project 2025 advocates for improved defense infrastructure and for the Department of Homeland Security to "thoroughly enforce immigration laws." The document added that DHS should "provide states and localities with a limited federal emergency response and preparedness." However, it did not say whether this would occur in the context of protests. What Trump's Advisers Have Said Trump's advisers have previously spoken about the use of National Guard troops in other contexts. According to a February 2024 report in The Atlantic, Stephen Miller, now the White House deputy chief of staff, said that Trump—if returned to office—would take National Guard troops from sympathetic Republican-controlled states and use them in Democratic-run states whose governors refused to cooperate with their mass deportation policy. What People Are Saying President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday: "If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can't do their jobs, which everyone knows they can't, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!" Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday: "We will always protect the constitutional right for Angelenos to peacefully protest. However, violence, destruction and vandalism will not be tolerated in our city and those responsible will be held fully accountable." What Happens Next The anti-ICE protests, which have spread to other cities, are likely to continue. Newsom has called on the Trump administration to remove federal troops from Los Angeles.

Mass. needs competitive pay for defense lawyers
Mass. needs competitive pay for defense lawyers

Boston Globe

time7 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Mass. needs competitive pay for defense lawyers

Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Legislators ought to listen to the committee. Ensuring that there are enough lawyers to uphold the constitutional right to representation enshrined in the Sixth Amendment should be a legislative priority. Whether in the state budget or in some other legislative vehicle, such as a supplemental budget, lawmakers should find a way to boost compensation rates across all categories of indigent defense, which span criminal, mental health, family law, and juvenile cases. Doing so would cost the state about $29 million annually. Advertisement Massachusetts' minimum bar advocate rate of $65 per hour is an outlier in New England. Maine's minimum rate is $150, New Hampshire's is $125 to $150, and Rhode Island's is $112 for most cases. Current rates in Massachusetts don't reflect the complexity of modern court cases, the overhead costs private attorneys pay out of pocket, or the state's sky-high cost of living. Advertisement The Senate's version of the budget does boost rates — but only for mental health appointments and Superior Court cases. The work stoppage is underscoring the critical work bar advocates produce. Since the stoppage began on May 27, the committee and its in-house counsel have struggled to provide attorneys for all clients that need them. Now, a slew of people accused of crimes are waiting, either in jails or out on bail — more than 150 people in Boston as of June 9, according to the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. These numbers are estimates, and bar advocate participation in the work stoppage varies between counties. But leaders agree that the number of unrepresented clients across Massachusetts is already in the hundreds and will continue to grow. Without representation, defendants are forced to stay in jail for days without arraignment, a violation of their constitutional rights. As early as next week, the Supreme Judicial Court may have to consider implementing the A shortage of bar advocates has put courts under pressure before. In 2019, Hampden County couldn't represent all of its clients, and a court instituted a day rate of $424 to incentivize additional private lawyers to handle arraignments. It was effective — and proved that low compensation really is a dissuasive factor for most private attorneys. Advertisement The legislature shouldn't wait for the crisis to deepen to provide a pay raise for bar advocates. Waiting to act will force more defendants to languish without representation, risking case mismanagement or pouring money into finding other private attorneys willing to do the work. This doesn't have to happen. The best way to solve this issue is to pay bar advocates fairly in the upcoming budget, allowing them to uphold the constitutional rights of their clients and ensuring due process across the Commonwealth. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store