logo
Cyber charter reform that could save public schools $616M advances with unclear future in Pennsylvania Senate

Cyber charter reform that could save public schools $616M advances with unclear future in Pennsylvania Senate

Yahoo4 days ago

Spotlight PA is an independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit newsroom producing investigative and public-service journalism that holds power to account and drives positive change in Pennsylvania. Sign up for our free newsletters.
HARRISBURG — Public school districts in Pennsylvania could save more than $600 million annually under a bill that the state House passed Wednesday to cap the tuition they pay to cyber charters.
The bill is part of a several-year effort to boost oversight and cut spending on cyber charter schools. At least some of its concepts have support in both chambers, but the issue has always been complicated by the commonwealth's tricky education politics.
Democrats, who control the state House, have championed increased spending for poor public schools, while Republicans, who control the state Senate, favor funding alternatives including charter schools, though the issue doesn't break neatly down party lines.
Senate Majority Leader Joe Pittman (R, Indiana) reflected that dynamic in a statement Wednesday, saying 'certain aspects' of the bill advanced by the state House 'could be beneficial.' That includes the measure's requirements that cyber schools do wellness checks on students and that public districts get proof of residency for students for whom they pay tuition.
But, Pittman added, there needs to be recognition that the proposal would save school districts money, which he believes should count as the legislature giving public schools increased support as required by a 2022 court ruling.
Democrats, meanwhile, are casting this issue as an administrative necessity.
'This bill is the result of repeated and urgent calls to update our commonwealth's outdated charter school law,' state Rep. Mary Isaacson (D., Philadelphia), the bill sponsor, said on the House floor Wednesday. 'This proposal is about fiscal responsibilities and aligning tuition to the actual cost.'
The measure made it through the lower chamber 104-98, with two moderate Republicans voting in favor. It now goes to the state Senate Education Committee. Its chair, Sen. Lynda Schlegel Culver (R., Columbia), said in a statement, 'We will thoroughly review the legislation as we do for all bills given to the committee.'
Pennsylvania school districts must pay tuition for any students who live within their borders and opt to attend a charter school. These tuition rates are calculated based on the district's per-student spending using a formula that has changed little over the past several decades.
Currently, the state uses nearly the same formula to fund online-only cyber charter schools as it does for brick-and-mortar charters, despite the former's relatively lower overhead costs.
That would change under this bill.
It would instead set a base tuition rate of $8,000 per student. That rate would be increased for students who have extra needs, such as disabilities. This mirrors a proposal that Gov. Josh Shapiro has made in his last two budgets, and of which Democrats have long been supportive.
The measure would also make several other changes. A number focus on transparency, such as the wellness checks and residency requirements Pittman cited.
Other provisions include requirements that cyber charters post annual performance assessments online and inform students if they are found to be low-performing, as well as an enrollment cap on cyber charters found to be low-performing. Cyber charters would also be required to disclose any 'entities' helping to finance their capital projects.
Along with the flat tuition rate, there are also other financial components.
By the end of this year, cyber charters would have to pay back a significant portion of their unspent surplus dollars from the 2024-25 fiscal year to the state. That money would go into a state fund for public schools' facility improvement projects, and would newly make charter schools eligible for those funds.
The bill would additionally bar cyber charters from accumulating large surpluses in the future. Starting at the end of the next fiscal year — June 2026 — any surplus dollars in excess of 12% of the school's total expenditures that aren't earmarked would have to be sent back to public districts.
Plus, it would require that any revenue cyber charters generate via property be paid back to the school districts they receive money from.
According to the bill's fiscal note, lower cyber charter tuition payments would save districts an aggregate of $616 million, half of what they currently spend. Each district's specific savings would vary based on how many students they have enrolled in cyber charters.
The shaky bipartisan agreement that Pennsylvania's cyber charter law needs to be updated didn't come out of nowhere.
Cyber charter enrollment has risen significantly in recent years — by nearly 57% across the state since 2020, when the pandemic began pushing more families to explore the option. Nearly 60,000 Pennsylvania students now attend cyber charters, which means a growing number of school districts and lawmakers are affected.
A review earlier this year from Republican Auditor General Tim DeFoor solidified members' opinion that something had to change.
DeFoor audited five of the commonwealth's 14 cyber charters and found that the revenue they were taking in nearly doubled from 2020 to 2023, from $473 million to $898 million, and also that the schools' financial reserves had increased by nearly 150% in that period. In addition, he found cyber charters had been spending funds on 'unusual' things like gift cards and vehicle payments.
Still, division remains. During the floor debate Wednesday, several Republicans slammed the bill as unfair to cyber charter schools.
'We still have some more work to do for our school districts complaining about equal funding. All they ask is to be treated the same, and I'm here to advocate for them,' said state Rep. Craig Williams (R., Chester). 'House Bill 1500 doesn't do that. House Bill 1500 puts us on a path to end cyber charters.'
Cyber charter administrators and advocates are also uniformly against the measure.
Marcus Hite, who heads the Pennsylvania Association of Public Cyber Charter Schools, called the $8,000 tuition cap 'arbitrary and unrealistic,' saying in a news release it 'doesn't reflect the real cost of educating students, especially those with disabilities or unique learning needs.'
'Cyber charters are already subject to some of the highest levels of oversight in the education system — audits, performance reviews, and public transparency,' he added. 'HB 1500 piles on duplicative and punitive rules.'
In a joint statement, a group of administrators from five cyber charter schools said the bill would lead to closures. Jon Marsh of Philadelphia's Esperanza Cyber Charter School called it 'an attack on some of the most chronically disenfranchised and disadvantaged students in our Commonwealth.'
Public education advocates support the measure. Susan Spicka of Education Voters of PA said it 'will save hundreds of millions of tax dollars annually and bring long-overdue accountability and transparency to Pennsylvania's billion dollar cyber charter industry.'
The issue is heavily lobbied. Last year alone, Commonwealth Charter Academy, the state's biggest cyber charter, spent $202,500 on education-related lobbying. Other cyber charters typically spend at least tens of thousands of dollars annually. That doesn't touch the significant dollars that traditional brick-and-mortar charters and their advocates spend on lobbying.
Public schools have their own lobbying presence, too. The Pennsylvania State Education Association, the union that represents teachers, spent nearly $178,000 on lobbying last year.
If you learned something from this article, pay it forward and contribute to Spotlight PA at spotlightpa.org/donate. Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability journalism that gets results.
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

Trump seizes on Los Angeles protests in contentious use of military amid migrant crackdown
Trump seizes on Los Angeles protests in contentious use of military amid migrant crackdown

Yahoo

time38 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump seizes on Los Angeles protests in contentious use of military amid migrant crackdown

This is the showdown the White House has been waiting for. Unrest sparked by federal immigration raids in Los Angeles provided a questionable catalyst for President Donald Trump to stage a demonstration of military force. His deployment of National Guard troops, against the wishes of California's governor and LA's mayor — both Democrats — appears at this point to be mostly for show, intended to create the perception of the administration getting tough. But the reservists' presence at a fraught, politicized moment could worsen tensions and even become a trip wire that prompts more aggressive administration action. Northern Command said Sunday evening that 500 US Marines were now on 'prepared to deploy' status ahead of what would be a stunning and constitutionally dubious escalation if they were to show up in Los Angeles. Weekend protests saw law enforcement officers in riot gear use tear gas and flash bangs to disperse crowds in downtown Los Angeles and the nearby city of Paramount. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said demonstrators threw objects and were violent toward federal agents and deputy sheriffs. Trump is relishing his response. 'Order will be restored, the Illegals will be expelled, and Los Angeles will be set free,' the president posted on Truth Social on Sunday. He seems to be eyeing political objectives that go beyond the immediate situation in Los Angeles, which, compared with historical precedents, hardly seems to justify a unilateral presidential intervention. He is delivering a warning to Democratic jurisdictions nationwide that oppose his deportation moves. And he's not simply demonstrating his desire to militarize his crackdown on undocumented migrants, which he promised in the 2024 campaign despite legal constraints. He's implying he'll use the military, specifically the National Guard, to act against protest and dissent — a prospect that is troubling in a democratic society. Trump's move on Saturday is also a hint that he's willing to trample tradition and potentially constitutional limits down the line and that he wants to exploit what Republicans see as Democratic weakness on public order. And it buttresses the authoritarian image-making of a strongman commander in chief who ended last week ringside at a UFC fight and who will cap this week with tanks rumbling through the capital, on his birthday, at a parade ostensibly marking the Army's 250th anniversary. Trump gave the order to send 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles after several days of protests and unrest following Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids that netted dozens of arrests. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Saturday night that the move was necessary because of the failure of California authorities to protect federal immigration officials and their own citizens. CNN's Priscilla Alvarez and Betsy Klein reported that White House officials first decided to rush federal agents and resources to Los Angeles to protect ICE agents and guard one of the federal buildings where protests gathered. On Saturday evening, the decision was taken to send in the guard. Despite the heated rhetoric of administration officials and Republican lawmakers on Sunday, however, there were few signs that disorder is raging out of control or that local authorities cannot cope. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has accused Trump of taking a 'purposefully inflammatory' step, and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said National Guard deployments were not 'called for.' And by the standards of outbursts of unrest in the US over the past few decades, the situation in Los Angeles does not appear especially acute. On Sunday, National Guard troops took up positions in three locations in Los Angeles, in what appeared to be the first instance in decades of reservists being deployed by a president without coordination with a governor. CNN crews captured California National Guard troops, operating under the authority of Trump rather than Newsom after the president called them into federal service, pushing back demonstrators outside a detention center. A federal officer was seen firing what appeared to be a gas canister. The stationing of troops at federal facilities is a potentially significant distinction since they were not initially being used in active law enforcement. Such a step would infringe on the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars federal troops from participating in law enforcement unless specifically authorized by the law or Congress. Even in this case, though, the legal situation is not definitive. The administration has not so far invoked the Insurrection Act, which in some circumstances permits the president to use the military to end an insurrection or rebellion of federal power in a state. An objective analysis of the situation in Los Angeles suggests no such extreme disorder yet. But one top administration official seems to be choosing his language with precision. Domestic policy adviser Stephen Miller posted on X that there were two choices: 'Deport the invaders, or surrender to insurrection.' The echoing of the Insurrection Act by a powerful administration figure who claims an 'invasion' of migrants justifies Trump's use of emergency and all but unlimited executive power is probably not a coincidence. The president doubled down in a Sunday Truth Social post, claiming 'violent, insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking' federal agents. The National Guard deployment clearly risks politicizing the military. But it's a political no-brainer for the White House. Images of troops in combat gear, and the administration's vows to enforce order if local leaders won't, boost Trump's tough-guy image, which is an important factor in his appeal to his supporters. It bolsters Republican claims of fecklessness in liberal-run cities that have been plagued by homelessness and crime. By sending troops in over Newsom's head, Trump escalates his feud with the governor, who is one of the most prominent national Democrats at a time when Trump is threatening to pull federal funding to the state. This may also serve as a warning to other blue states that they could see the militarization of the deportation program if they don't cooperate. Then there's the distraction factor. The theatrics of troop arrivals may help disguise the fact that deportations have yet to reach the levels some supporters likely hoped for. And at a dicey political moment, following his public estrangement from Elon Musk and with doubts hanging over his massive domestic spending bill, escalating an immigration controversy serves to change the subject for Trump. Immigration has long been one of his reliable political havens. Still, a new CBS poll Sunday showed that while a majority approve of Trump's goals on the issue, 56% fault his approach. Top Republicans were quick to back Trump's California moves after days when Washington was consumed by the president's psychodrama with Musk. 'You have a very weak, lawless-leaning governor in Gov. Newsom, who's not enforcing the nation's laws,' Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma told CNN's Dana Bash on 'State of the Union.' He went on, 'The president has made it very clear: If the governor or the mayor of the city isn't willing to protect the citizens of his state or the city, then the president will.' Another Republican senator, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, had few concerns about using National Guard troops. 'You provide massive manpower to prevent violence,' he told Bash. 'It would be nice if Democrat politicians wouldn't keep stirring it up and keep asking people to go out there and protest against lawful law enforcement actions. That's kind of hard to stomach.' Oklahoma's other Republican senator, James Lankford, said on NBC's 'Meet the Press' that Trump was trying to 'de-escalate all the tensions' by sending troops. Democrats, however, lashed out at Trump's move. 'My concern, of course, is that this inflames the situation and that he is hellbent on inflaming the situations,' Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar said on CBS' 'Face the Nation.' 'Individual governors look at their states. They make decisions,' Klobuchar said. 'But in this case, the president, time and time again, has shown this willingness to, one, violate the law, as we've seen across the country in many different situations outside of the immigration context. And two, inflame situations.' Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats, warned on 'State of the Union' that 'we have a president who is moving this country rapidly into authoritarianism.' Sanders added: 'This guy wants all of the power. He does not believe in the Constitution. He does not believe in the rule of law … he thinks he has a right to do anything he wants.' Concerns Trump is flexing authoritarian impulses and that the administration would relish confrontations that allow it to move in this direction were underscored by a post on X by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. He wrote that if violence continued, 'Active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert.' A threat by the defense secretary to deploy a force whose battle honors include Belleau Wood, Iwo Jima and Fallujah onto American streets does not only offend principles of democratic republican government. It would almost certainly be illegal, unless Trump invokes the Insurrection Act. At this point, the conditions of that legislation look nowhere near being met. Trump said Sunday he was not yet ready to invoke the act. Still, all this is chilling given his warning last year that he'd be prepared to use the military against 'the enemy from within.' This also comes after four months in which the administration has used questionable presidential power to target institutions from law firms to universities to the media. And it has used contentious national emergencies declared to unlock authorities on trade and immigration. Common Defense, the country's largest grassroots veterans organization, condemned Trump's deployment of the California National Guard. 'The militarized response to protests in Los Angeles is a dangerous escalation that undermines civil rights and betrays the principles we swore to uphold,' said Naveed Shah, the group's political director and a US Army veteran. Hegseth's post underscores one reason why critics regarded him as unsuitable to serve as defense secretary — the fear he'd do anything that Trump told him to, unlike first-term Pentagon chief Mark Esper, who wrote in his book that the president asked whether troops could shoot in the legs demonstrators who gathered at the White House amid the George Floyd protests. Hegseth dodged in his confirmation hearing when repeatedly asked by Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono whether he'd carry out such an order from Trump. And he also hedged when asked by Michigan Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin whether he agreed that there were some orders a president may give that were unconstitutional. 'I am not going to get ahead of conversations I would have with the president. However, there are laws and processes inside our Constitution that would be followed,' Hegseth said. Little in Hegseth's tenure so far suggests he'd stand up against any of the president's more extreme ideas. That's one reason why Trump's unilateral deployment of reserve troops to Los Angeles seems like the initial thrust of an expanding administration effort to use the military in a domestic context.

‘Arrest Me, Let's Go': Newsom Punches Back At Trump Border Czar
‘Arrest Me, Let's Go': Newsom Punches Back At Trump Border Czar

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

‘Arrest Me, Let's Go': Newsom Punches Back At Trump Border Czar

California Gov. Gavin Newsom hit back at Trump border czar Tom Homan on Sunday, slamming threats the White House official previously made about arresting him and other Democratic leaders in the state. 'Come after me, arrest me, let's just get it over with tough guy,' Newsom said in an interview with MSNBC. 'I don't give a damn. But …I care about this community, the hell are they doing. These guys need to grow up, they need to stop and we need to push back.' Those statements come as Trump has made the rare move of sending National Guard troops in to quell immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles without Newsom's approval. During an interview this weekend, Homan suggested that Democratic officials – like Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass – who interfere with ICE raids, could face arrest. 'I'll say that about anybody,' Homan told NBC News. 'You cross that line. It's a felony to knowingly harbor and conceal an illegal alien. It's a felony to impede law enforcement from doing their job.' Federal authorities have already penalized Democratic lawmakers including Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who was arrested for allegedly trespassing at a detention facility in New Jersey, though that case has since been dropped. Alina Habba, the interim US attorney for New Jersey, has also charged Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) with assault for an incident at that same location. And Homan has previously targeted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as well, suggesting that she could be 'in trouble' for hosting a webinar on immigrants' rights. Newsom made clear that he wouldn't be cowed by Homan's threats. 'That kind of bloviating is exhausting,' he said. 'So, Tom, arrest me. Let's go.'

Trump seizes on Los Angeles protests in contentious use of military amid migrant crackdown
Trump seizes on Los Angeles protests in contentious use of military amid migrant crackdown

CNN

time2 hours ago

  • CNN

Trump seizes on Los Angeles protests in contentious use of military amid migrant crackdown

This is the showdown the White House has been waiting for. Unrest sparked by federal immigration raids in Los Angeles provided a questionable catalyst for President Donald Trump to stage a demonstration of military force. His deployment of National Guard troops, against the wishes of California's governor and LA's mayor — both Democrats — appears at this point to be mostly for show, intended to create the perception of the administration getting tough. But the reservists' presence at a fraught, politicized moment could worsen tensions and even become a trip wire that prompts more aggressive administration action. Northern Command said Sunday evening that 500 US Marines were now on 'prepared to deploy' status ahead of what would be a stunning and constitutionally dubious escalation if they were to show up in Los Angeles. Weekend protests saw law enforcement officers in riot gear use tear gas and flash bangs to disperse crowds in downtown Los Angeles and the nearby city of Paramount. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said demonstrators threw objects and were violent toward federal agents and deputy sheriffs. Trump is relishing his response. 'Order will be restored, the Illegals will be expelled, and Los Angeles will be set free,' the president posted on Truth Social on Sunday. He seems to be eyeing political objectives that go beyond the immediate situation in Los Angeles, which, compared with historical precedents, hardly seems to justify a unilateral presidential intervention. He is delivering a warning to Democratic jurisdictions nationwide that oppose his deportation moves. And he's not simply demonstrating his desire to militarize his crackdown on undocumented migrants, which he promised in the 2024 campaign despite legal constraints. He's implying he'll use the military, specifically the National Guard, to act against protest and dissent — a prospect that is troubling in a democratic society. Trump's move on Saturday is also a hint that he's willing to trample tradition and potentially constitutional limits down the line and that he wants to exploit what Republicans see as Democratic weakness on public order. And it buttresses the authoritarian image-making of a strongman commander in chief who ended last week ringside at a UFC fight and who will cap this week with tanks rumbling through the capital, on his birthday, at a parade ostensibly marking the Army's 250th anniversary. Trump gave the order to send 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles after several days of protests and unrest following Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids that netted dozens of arrests. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Saturday night that the move was necessary because of the failure of California authorities to protect federal immigration officials and their own citizens. CNN's Priscilla Alvarez and Betsy Klein reported that White House officials first decided to rush federal agents and resources to Los Angeles to protect ICE agents and guard one of the federal buildings where protests gathered. On Saturday evening, the decision was taken to send in the guard. Despite the heated rhetoric of administration officials and Republican lawmakers on Sunday, however, there were few signs that disorder is raging out of control or that local authorities cannot cope. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has accused Trump of taking a 'purposefully inflammatory' step, and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said National Guard deployments were not 'called for.' And by the standards of outbursts of unrest in the US over the past few decades, the situation in Los Angeles does not appear especially acute. On Sunday, National Guard troops took up positions in three locations in Los Angeles, in what appeared to be the first instance in decades of reservists being deployed by a president without coordination with a governor. CNN crews captured California National Guard troops, operating under the authority of Trump rather than Newsom after the president called them into federal service, pushing back demonstrators outside a detention center. A federal officer was seen firing what appeared to be a gas canister. The stationing of troops at federal facilities is a potentially significant distinction since they were not initially being used in active law enforcement. Such a step would infringe on the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars federal troops from participating in law enforcement unless specifically authorized by the law or Congress. Even in this case, though, the legal situation is not definitive. The administration has not so far invoked the Insurrection Act, which in some circumstances permits the president to use the military to end an insurrection or rebellion of federal power in a state. An objective analysis of the situation in Los Angeles suggests no such extreme disorder yet. But one top administration official seems to be choosing his language with precision. Domestic policy adviser Stephen Miller posted on X that there were two choices: 'Deport the invaders, or surrender to insurrection.' The echoing of the Insurrection Act by a powerful administration figure who claims an 'invasion' of migrants justifies Trump's use of emergency and all but unlimited executive power is probably not a coincidence. The president doubled down in a Sunday Truth Social post, claiming 'violent, insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking' federal agents. The National Guard deployment clearly risks politicizing the military. But it's a political no-brainer for the White House. Images of troops in combat gear, and the administration's vows to enforce order if local leaders won't, boost Trump's tough-guy image, which is an important factor in his appeal to his supporters. It bolsters Republican claims of fecklessness in liberal-run cities that have been plagued by homelessness and crime. By sending troops in over Newsom's head, Trump escalates his feud with the governor, who is one of the most prominent national Democrats at a time when Trump is threatening to pull federal funding to the state. This may also serve as a warning to other blue states that they could see the militarization of the deportation program if they don't cooperate. Then there's the distraction factor. The theatrics of troop arrivals may help disguise the fact that deportations have yet to reach the levels some supporters likely hoped for. And at a dicey political moment, following his public estrangement from Elon Musk and with doubts hanging over his massive domestic spending bill, escalating an immigration controversy serves to change the subject for Trump. Immigration has long been one of his reliable political havens. Still, a new CBS poll Sunday showed that while a majority approve of Trump's goals on the issue, 56% fault his approach. Top Republicans were quick to back Trump's California moves after days when Washington was consumed by the president's psychodrama with Musk. 'You have a very weak, lawless-leaning governor in Gov. Newsom, who's not enforcing the nation's laws,' Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma told CNN's Dana Bash on 'State of the Union.' He went on, 'The president has made it very clear: If the governor or the mayor of the city isn't willing to protect the citizens of his state or the city, then the president will.' Another Republican senator, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, had few concerns about using National Guard troops. 'You provide massive manpower to prevent violence,' he told Bash. 'It would be nice if Democrat politicians wouldn't keep stirring it up and keep asking people to go out there and protest against lawful law enforcement actions. That's kind of hard to stomach.' Oklahoma's other Republican senator, James Lankford, said on NBC's 'Meet the Press' that Trump was trying to 'de-escalate all the tensions' by sending troops. Democrats, however, lashed out at Trump's move. 'My concern, of course, is that this inflames the situation and that he is hellbent on inflaming the situations,' Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar said on CBS' 'Face the Nation.' 'Individual governors look at their states. They make decisions,' Klobuchar said. 'But in this case, the president, time and time again, has shown this willingness to, one, violate the law, as we've seen across the country in many different situations outside of the immigration context. And two, inflame situations.' Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats, warned on 'State of the Union' that 'we have a president who is moving this country rapidly into authoritarianism.' Sanders added: 'This guy wants all of the power. He does not believe in the Constitution. He does not believe in the rule of law … he thinks he has a right to do anything he wants.' Concerns Trump is flexing authoritarian impulses and that the administration would relish confrontations that allow it to move in this direction were underscored by a post on X by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. He wrote that if violence continued, 'Active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert.' A threat by the defense secretary to deploy a force whose battle honors include Belleau Wood, Iwo Jima and Fallujah onto American streets does not only offend principles of democratic republican government. It would almost certainly be illegal, unless Trump invokes the Insurrection Act. At this point, the conditions of that legislation look nowhere near being met. Trump said Sunday he was not yet ready to invoke the act. Still, all this is chilling given his warning last year that he'd be prepared to use the military against 'the enemy from within.' This also comes after four months in which the administration has used questionable presidential power to target institutions from law firms to universities to the media. And it has used contentious national emergencies declared to unlock authorities on trade and immigration. Common Defense, the country's largest grassroots veterans organization, condemned Trump's deployment of the California National Guard. 'The militarized response to protests in Los Angeles is a dangerous escalation that undermines civil rights and betrays the principles we swore to uphold,' said Naveed Shah, the group's political director and a US Army veteran. Hegseth's post underscores one reason why critics regarded him as unsuitable to serve as defense secretary — the fear he'd do anything that Trump told him to, unlike first-term Pentagon chief Mark Esper, who wrote in his book that the president asked whether troops could shoot in the legs demonstrators who gathered at the White House amid the George Floyd protests. Hegseth dodged in his confirmation hearing when repeatedly asked by Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono whether he'd carry out such an order from Trump. And he also hedged when asked by Michigan Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin whether he agreed that there were some orders a president may give that were unconstitutional. 'I am not going to get ahead of conversations I would have with the president. However, there are laws and processes inside our Constitution that would be followed,' Hegseth said. Little in Hegseth's tenure so far suggests he'd stand up against any of the president's more extreme ideas. That's one reason why Trump's unilateral deployment of reserve troops to Los Angeles seems like the initial thrust of an expanding administration effort to use the military in a domestic context.

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