Trial exposes internal tension over Trump's use of National Guard in LA
On the witness stand in a federal courtroom in California, a longtime military leader testified that he expressed early resistance when federal immigration authorities wanted military support for a planned immigration operation in June in Los Angeles.
But when he voiced his opposition, a senior Customs and Border Patrol official rebuked him and questioned his 'loyalty' to the nation, recalled Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, who commanded Guard troops in Los Angeles.
It was a remarkable split screen. In L.A., the testimony from Sherman came as part of a three-day trial in which a judge will decide whether the administration's use of the National Guard in that city broke the law. In D.C., Trump forged ahead with a new deployment — and even suggested that other Democrat-run cities like New York and Chicago could be next.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who is overseeing the L.A. trial, noted that his decision in the case could have implications for whether Trump is able to make similar deployments in other cities.
The trial's first day of testimony centered largely on how the military provided support to immigration agents on the streets of Los Angeles and whether they were strictly adhering to legal limits on their ability to participate in law enforcement activity. Though the testimony from three witnesses — two military officials and an ICE supervisor — largely described a cautious and limited approach to the military's role, there were revealing moments of tension within the administration.
Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth deployed 4,000 Guard troops to L.A. in June, and soon added 700 active duty Marines. Their purpose, according to Hegseth, was to protect federal buildings and flank ICE agents during immigration raids, some of which had been beset by unruly protests and violence.
But California Gov. Gavin Newsom says the troops have strayed from their mission, instead conducting civilian law enforcement in violation of an 1878 law known as the Posse Comitatus Act. That law was intended to prevent the president from turning the military on civilians without express approval from Congress.
The most revelatory testimony of the day came from Sherman, who initially commanded the Guard troops Trump deployed to Los Angeles. He recalled his opposition to a request by immigration authorities for military support during an operation slated for Father's Day in the city's MacArthur Park.
Intelligence, Sherman recalled, showed a minimal threat to federal immigration agents, and the proposed operation would have sent military vehicles through the center of the park. But when he expressed misgivings, Gregory Bovino, the chief patrol agent of the Customs and Border Patrol's El Centro sector — who has taken on a leading rolein the Los Angeles immigration crackdown — pushed back strongly, Sherman recalled.
Asked by a lawyer for California if Bovino questioned Sherman's loyalty to the U.S. over the issue, Sherman answered simply 'yes' and did not elaborate.
The Trump administration objected to the testimony about loyalty, but Breyer overruled the objection, saying it was a notable window into the mindset of key decisionmakers.
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, declined to comment, calling questions about the exchange a 'pathetic attempt to divide our law enforcement and our National Guard.'
Ultimately, after Sherman raised concerns, the operation was retooled, rescheduled for July 7 and approved by Hegseth.
In addition to the MacArthur Park deployment, dubbed 'Operation Excalibur,' lawyers for California homed in on two other immigration operations and suggested that Guard troops were being called in by ICE to aid law enforcement even when their presence was not necessary. The other two operations took place at marijuana farms far from Los Angeles' city center.
In a sign of the trial's broader significance, the California lawyers also played a clip of Hegseth discussing the new D.C. deployment and comparing it to the mission in Los Angeles.
Since the L.A. deployment earlier this summer, Hegseth has since scaled back the National Guard presence in that city, though about 300 troops remain.
Sherman's testimony followed a turn on the stand from William Harrington, deputy chief of staff of the Army and another commander of Task Force 51, the contingent of California's Guard troops called by Trump and Hegseth into federal service.
Harrington testified that over two months of the deployment, the National Guard was asked for assistance 64 times.
On cross-examination by a Justice Department attorney, Harrington emphasized that he did not believe any National Guard troops had engaged directly in law enforcement activities that would violate the Posse Comitatus Act. But he also acknowledged that he was not present during any of the operations and was relying on reports from the field as well as watching portions of the operations on livestream.
Sherman testified that troops deployed in L.A. were trained that they could take actions against civilians if they felt there was a direct threat to either ICE agents or soldiers, or if they felt that the agents were being blocked from performing their immigration operations.
He also described an episode in which a veteran, seeking to access a VA facility, was detained by Marines after he walked through a checkpoint while wearing headphones. He said the Marines detained the man as a precaution and then waited for law enforcement to arrive to take over.
Breyer, a Clinton appointee, previously blocked the Guard deployment but was reversed by a unanimous appeals court panel. However, he has yet to rule on whether the administration's deployment may have violated Posse Comitatus.
A ruling against Trump could result in restrictions on the military's ability to operate in Los Angeles or even in other cities where Trump has deployed or is considering deploying troops. But Trump has greater control over the D.C. National Guard than the Guards of other states, and the Justice Department has long maintained that the D.C. Guard can be used for law enforcement purposes without violating the Posse Comitatus Act.
The trial is slated to continue through Wednesday.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
7 minutes ago
- New York Post
Little Sisters of the Poor are still fighting ObamaCare— as states force nuns to violate their faith
It's enraging. More than a decade after the Obama administration first tried to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to buy contraception including abortifacient drugs for employees, states are still hounding the nuns in court. At its heart, ObamaCare was a massive welfare program meant to redistribute health-care costs to the middle class. But it was also a social engineering project aimed at coercing religious organizations and businesses to adopt progressive values. The Affordable Care Act mandated employers, including nonprofits such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, to pay for contraceptives in their worker-provided health insurance as an 'essential health benefit' under the euphemistic category of 'preventative and wellness services.' There was no 'religious exemption.' It's worth taking a step back and thinking about that term: The very idea that an American citizen should be impelled to ask the state for an 'exemption' to practice their faith is an assault on the fundamental idea of liberty. Imagine having to ask the state for an exemption to exercise your free speech? What makes the case even more unsettling, of course, is that the state is demanding citizens engage in activity that is explicitly against their faith. Now, there may well be numerous theological disputes within the Catholic Church. The use of contraception and abortion aren't among them. There is absolutely no question that nuns hold genuine, long-standing religious convictions. And there is no question that liberals want to smash them. Nevertheless, the Little Sisters spent years in court, working their way up to the Supreme Court and winning protections against the federal government (twice). In 2017, the Trump administration exempted religious groups like the Little Sisters from the ObamaCare mandate entirely. The government, however, bolstered with unlimited taxpayer funds, can hunt its prey in perpetuity. So states such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania began their own lawsuits against the Little Sisters. This week, in a nationwide ruling, Judge Wendy Beetlestone, chief judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, found that the Trump administration's expansion of religious exemptions from the contraception mandate was 'arbitrary and capricious.' Religious nonprofit groups and businesses will again have to ask for special accommodations from the Department of Health and Human Services to avoid buying abortifacients. Even if the Trump administration grants every one of them, one day there will be authoritarians in charge who won't — and nonprofit employees will still be guaranteed contraception through health plans paid for by employers. Beetlestone, incidentally, was the same judge who issued a nationwide injunction against the contraception exemption back in 2017, arguing it was 'difficult' to think of any rule that 'intrudes more into the lives of women.' The Supreme Court overturned it in 2020 by a 7-2 majority. Because no one has a right to free condoms. Indeed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act holds that the state must have a 'compelling interest' and use the least restrictive means when burdening religious practice. Free birth control isn't a compelling interest. And fining religious organizations millions of dollars to pressure them into abandoning their beliefs is perhaps the most restrictive means of action, short of throwing nuns in prison. You'd think attacking a group of nuns who offer end-of-life care for the elderly would be a public relations nightmare for Democrats. Yet they've never really shied away from it. Because the point is to intimidate others. In many ways, the Little Sisters' struggle is reminiscent of the travails of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who refuses to create unique message cakes for gay weddings. Phillips is now embroiled in his umpteenth court case over his crimes. The message: Dissent from those who practice their faith will be punished. Take the Catholic Charities adoption agencies, which shuttered in numerous states due to laws and policies compelling them to place children with same-sex couples. The attacks will continue until the Supreme Court upholds the clear language and intent of the First Amendment and religious liberty. It's already punted once: In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a 7-2 Supreme Court decision in favor of Jack Phillips, the court barred the state's attacks only if state officials openly demeaned their target's faith — a ruling so narrow as to be largely useless. But it shouldn't matter why the state is steamrolling the religious liberty of nuns, or anyone else for that matter. The problem is that the ObamaCare mandate is authoritarian and unconstitutional. And the only way to fix that problem is to overturn it. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner. Twitter @davidharsanyi
Boston Globe
7 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Russia and Ukraine agree: A Trump summit is a big win for Putin
Related : For Russia, 'this is a breakthrough even if they don't agree on much,' said Sergei Mikheyev, a pro-war Russian political scientist who is a mainstay of state television. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine, iced out of the Alaska talks about his own country's future, has come to the same conclusion, telling reporters Tuesday: 'Putin will win in this. Because he is seeking, excuse me, photos. He needs a photo from the meeting with President Trump.' Advertisement But it is more than a photo op. In addition to thawing Russia's pariah status in the West, the summit has sowed discord within NATO — a perennial Russian goal — and postponed Trump's threat of tough new sanctions. Little more than two weeks ago, he vowed that if Putin did not commit to a ceasefire by last Friday, he would to punish Moscow and countries like China and India that help Russia's war effort by buying its oil and gas. Advertisement The deadline passed with no pause in the war — the fighting has in fact intensified as Russia pushes forward with a summer offensive — and no new economic penalties on Russia. Ukrainian firefighters and rescue personnel at the site of a Russian bombing in the area in Kharkiv, Ukraine, on July 24. Friday's summit in Alaska pull the Russian leader out of diplomatic isolation from the West, and Ukrainian and European leaders fear it gives him an opening to sway the American president. DAVID GUTTENFELDER/NYT 'Instead of getting hit with sanctions, Putin got a summit,' said Ryhor Nizhnikau, a Russia expert and senior researcher at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. 'This is a tremendous victory for Putin no matter what the result of the summit.' Before Alaska, only two Western leaders — the prime ministers of tiny Slovakia and Hungary — had met with Putin since he ordered the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and was placed under an international arrest warrant for war crimes in March 2023. Many in Europe have been flabbergasted by Trump's decision to hold a summit on Ukraine that excluded Zelenskyy, and the continent's leaders have pressed the president not to strike a deal behind Ukraine's back. Trump tried to allay those fears in a video call with European leaders, including Zelenskyy, on Wednesday. The Europeans said they had hammered out a strategy with Trump for his meeting with Putin, including an insistence that any peace plan must start with a ceasefire and not be negotiated without Ukraine at the table. A peace deal on Ukraine is not Putin's real goal for the summit, said Tatiana Stanovaya, senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. 'His objective is to secure Trump's support in pushing through the Russian proposals.' For Putin, she said, the meeting is a 'tactical maneuver to turn the situation in his favor' and calm what had been increasing White House anger over the Kremlin's stalling on a ceasefire. Advertisement On the eve of the summit Thursday, the Kremlin signaled that it planned to inject other issues beyond Ukraine into the talks, including a potential restoration of economic ties with the United States and discussions on a new nuclear weapons deal. The arms idea plays into Russia's long-standing efforts to frame the war in Ukraine as just part of a bigger East-West conflict. Trump has called his rendezvous with Putin just a 'feel-out meeting' from which he will quickly walk away if a peace deal looks unlikely. President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine during a heated exchange in the Oval Office on Feb. 28. On Trump and Putin's meeting, Zelensky said, "Putin will win in this. Because he is seeking, excuse me, photos." DOUG MILLS/NYT Neither the White House nor the Kremlin has publicly stated what kind of peace deal they are looking for. But Trump has said it could involve 'some land-swapping,' something he feels he is well equipped to negotiate as a onetime New York property developer. Zelenskyy has rejected any land swap, insisting he has no authority under the Ukrainian Constitution to bargain away parts of the country. Agreeing to do so would be likely to trigger a serious political crisis in Kyiv and advance one of Putin's long-standing objectives: toppling Zelenskyy. Ukraine's surrender of its eastern regions would also torpedo Trump's hopes that the United States will one day benefit from Ukraine's reserves of rare earth minerals, most of which are in territory that Russia claims as its own. 'The worst-case scenario for Ukraine and more broadly is that Putin makes some sort of offer that is acceptable to the United States but that Zelenskyy cannot swallow domestically,' said Samuel Charap, a political scientist and the co-author of a book about Ukraine and post-Soviet Eurasia. Advertisement Putin, a veteran master of manipulation, will no doubt work hard in Alaska to cast Zelenskyy as an intransigent obstacle to peace. 'Trump thinks he can look into Putin's eyes and get a deal. He believes in his own talents as a negotiator,' said Nizhnikau, the Finnish expert on Russia. 'The problem is that Putin has been doing this his whole life and is going into this summit with the idea that he can manipulate Trump.' Trump's last summit meeting with his Russian counterpart, held in 2018 in Helsinki during his first term, showcased his propensity to accept Putin's version of reality. He said then that he saw no reason to doubt the Russian president's denials of meddling in the 2016 presidential election. President Trump and Russian President Putin arrived for a one-on-one-meeting at the Presidential Palace in Helsinki, Finland, in July 2018, the last time the two world powers held a summit. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press Trump suggested this year that Ukraine was responsible for the invasion of its own territory and refused to join the United States' traditional Western allies in voting for a United Nations resolution condemning Russia's aggression. On Sunday evening, Zelenskyy worried aloud that Trump could be easily 'deceived.' Trump responded testily Monday to Zelenskyy's insistence that he could not surrender territory. 'He's got approval to go into war and kill everybody, but he needs approval to do a land swap?' Trump snapped. 'There'll be some land swapping going on.' Still, said Charap, the political scientist, 'Putin can't really count his chickens yet.' Despite his iron grip on Russia's political system and its major media outlets, he has his own domestic concerns, particularly on the issue of land, if the sort of swap floated by Trump advances. 'Territory is a third rail politically, especially for Ukraine but also for Russia.' This article originally appeared in . Advertisement
Washington Post
7 minutes ago
- Washington Post
In Washington police takeover, federal agents and National Guard take on new tasks
They typically investigate drug lords, weapons traffickers or cyber criminals. This week, though, federal agents are fanning out across the nation's capital as part of President Donald Trump's efforts to clamp down on crime in the city. The sometimes-masked agents joined members of the National Guard as well as the United States Park Police, whose responsibilities include protecting the country's monuments and managing crowds during demonstrations. Soldiers in fatigues kept watch near Union Station, while officers with the Drug Enforcement Administration patrolled along the National Mall. Agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives helped question a couple in northwest Washington who were parked illegally and eating McDonald's takeout. Trump said Monday that he's taking over Washington's police department in hopes of reducing crime, even as city officials stressed that crime is already falling. The District of Columbia's status as a congressionally established federal district allows the president to take control, although he's limited to 30 days under statute unless he gets approval from Congress. Amid the takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department, or MPD, here's a list of some of the federal agencies involved and what they typically do: THIS WEEK: The Pentagon said that 800 Guard members have been activated for missions in Washington that include monument security, community safety patrols and beautification efforts. Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson said the troops won't be armed and declined to give more details on what the safety patrols or beautification efforts would entail. The White House said Thursday that Guard members aren't making arrests but are 'protecting federal assets, providing a safe environment for law enforcement officers to make arrests, and deterring violent crime with a visible law enforcement presence.' THE BACKSTORY: The National Guard serves as the primary combat reserve of the Army and Air Force, according to its website. But it also responds when 'disaster strikes in the homeland' to protect life and property in communities. THIS WEEK: DEA agents have also fanned out across Washington, working with police on traffic stops and other enforcement efforts. The agency has touted this week that its agents have helped to recover guns and drugs. THE BACKSTORY: The agency typically enforces the nation's controlled substances laws and regulations, while going after drug cartels, gangs and traffickers in the U.S. and abroad. For example, a DEA-led investigation scored a record seizure of fentanyl in May, 'dismantling one of the largest and most dangerous drug trafficking organizations in U.S. history,' the agency said in a news release. The DEA also operates a little-known research lab in northern Virginia that's working to analyze seized narcotics to find ways to stop the supply. Its chemists identify the ever-evolving tactics employed by cartels to manufacture drugs flowing into the U.S. THIS WEEK: Agents with Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, could be seen on Wednesday alongside MPD officers as they conducted traffic checks at a checkpoint along 14th Street in northwest Washington. THE BACKSTORY: HSI investigates a wide variety of crimes on a global scale – at home, abroad and online – with hundreds of offices across the country and abroad. Those crimes include 'illegal movement of people, goods, money, contraband, weapons and sensitive technology into, out of and through the United States,' the agency says on its website. In the last few months, as the Trump administration has ramped up its immigration enforcement efforts across the U.S., HSI agents have been out on raids and involved in immigration arrests at courthouses and other sites around the country. HSI agents also investigate a vast array of crime, including cyber and financial crimes and intellectual property offenses. THIS WEEK: United States Park Police have been seen helping with traffic stops this week in the district and are a regular presence in Washington. D.C. The federal agency is actually one of the nation's oldest, being founded in 1791 by George Washington. THE BACKSTORY: The police are part of the National Park Service and has jurisdiction in all federal parks, with offices in Washington, New York and San Francisco, according to the agency's website. Before this week's takeover, it already had the authority to make an arrest in the District of Columbia. THIS WEEK: ATF agents have been helping out with traffic stops. THE BACKSTORY: The agency primarily focuses on the illegal use of guns and explosives , bombings and acts of terrorism, and the trafficking of illicit liquor or contraband tobacco.
