Hegseth says troops in LA are lawful. He just can't explain why.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday insisted the Pentagon's deployment of troops to Los Angeles was lawful. He just couldn't cite the law he was following.
The Pentagon chief clashed with several lawmakers at a Senate budget hearing as he sought to defend President Donald Trump's decision to send thousands of troops, including 700 active-duty Marines, to California in response to mass deportation protests.
But when asked to explain the legal underpinning that justifies the Marine deployment, the Defense secretary blanked.
'I'd have to pull up the specific provision,' he told Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.). 'But our Office of General Counsel, alongside our leadership, has reviewed and ensured, in the order that we set out, that it's completely constitutional for the president to use federal troops to defend federal law enforcement.'
When Baldwin pushed again, Hegseth said, 'It's in the order, ma'am, but we'll make sure we get it to you as well.'
Hegseth, a former Fox News anchor who appears calm in front of the camera, faced a tougher time at Wednesday's Senate defense appropriations subcommittee than he did at a House budget hearing the day before. Democrats peppered him with questions about the domestic deployments, research budget cuts and the impact of tariffs on the defense industrial base. Republicans largely avoided focusing on Los Angeles, although they lashed out at him on Trump's tardy budget and approach to Ukraine.
The Defense secretary argued the deployments to Los Angeles and along the southern border, where the military has 13,000 National Guard and active-duty troops, are necessary to protect the country.
'We very much support President Trump's focus on defending [the] homeland on our southern border,' he said, 'as well as supporting law enforcement officials doing their job in ICE in Los Angeles who deserve not to be assaulted, accosted and rioted while rounding up one of the 21 million illegals allowed in as an invasion under the previous administration.'
But Democrats questioned whether the moves violated laws that govern the use of the military on U.S. soil. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) pressed Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan Caine about the argument underpinning the orders. 'Is the United States being invaded by a foreign nation?' he asked.
'I don't see any foreign state-sponsored folks invading,' Caine replied.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) raised concerns about Trump politicizing the military, asking Hegseth whether he supported deploying the National Guard to the Capitol in response to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection that sought to overturn the election.
Hegseth would not say. 'All I know is it's the right decision to be deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles to defend ICE agents,' he said.
Murphy called Hegseth's response evidence of a double standard.
'You are not willing to defend against attacks made on our democracy by supporters of the president, but you are willing to deploy the National Guard to protect against protestors who are criticizing the president,' he said.
But it was Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the usually restrained Senate Armed Services Committee's ranking member, who was the most forceful in tone.
He raised alarms about the Los Angeles deployment, as well as several Homeland Security requests for 20,000 more troops to assist at the border, for 'military forces to detain or arrest American citizens,' and to provide drone surveillance.
'Is it your intent to approve these requests?' Reed asked. 'Are you prepared to authorize DHS to use drones and also to authorize military forces to detain or arrest American citizens?'
Hegseth did not respond directly, but defended the administration's actions.
'Every authorization we've provided the National Guard and the Marines in Los Angeles is under the authority of the President of the United States — is lawful and constitutional,' he said. 'They are assisting in defending law enforcement officers … executing their job in the city of Los Angeles.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
35 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
The gift Trump never meant to give: the spotlight to Democratic adversary Gavin Newsom
SACRAMENTO — President Trump craves attention and will stoop to any depth to grab it — even pour gasoline on a kindling fire in Los Angeles. But this time he unwittingly provided priceless attention for an adversary. Because Trump needlessly deployed National Guard troops and — more ridiculous, a Marine battalion to L.A. — California Gov. Gavin Newsom was granted a prime-time speaking slot on national cable television to respond. 'We honor their service. We honor their bravery,' Newsom said of the troops. 'But we do not want our streets militarized by our own armed forces. Not in L.A. Not in California. Not anywhere … . 'California may be first — but it clearly won't end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault right before our eyes. The moment we've feared has arrived.' I'm not sure the 'democracy is under assault' message has much traction, but keeping armed combat forces off our streets must be a salable pitch. Regardless, governors almost never get national TV time to deliver entire speeches, even as brief as Newsom's. You've practically got to be nominated for president. But the publicity-thirsty sitting president provided the cameras for California's governor. Newsom's strong address probably boosted his stock within the Democrat Party and revived dormant speculation about a 2028 presidential bid. No longer was the Democratic governor playing respectful nice guy and tempering criticism of the Republican president. Now he was standing up to the bully who loves to use California, Newsom and our progressive politics as a punching bag. Trump's red-state supporters love every swipe at this 'left coast' state. Newsom rose to the occasion, using his greatest asset: invaluable communication skills coupled with telegenic looks. He laid out his version of what happened to turn relatively peaceful protests against federal immigration raids into destructive street violence. And it's the correct version by objective accounts. On Saturday, Newsom said, federal immigration agents 'jumped out of an unmarked van' near a Home Depot parking lot and 'began grabbing people. A deliberate targeting of a heavily Latino suburb … . In response, everyday Angelenos' exercised their constitutional right to protest. Police were dispatched to keep the peace and mostly were successful, the governor continued. But then tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades were used — by federal agents, Newsom implied. Then Trump deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops 'illegally and for no reason,' the governor asserted. 'This brazen abuse of power by a sitting president inflamed a combustible situation … . Anxiety for families and friends ramped up. Protests started again … . Several dozen lawbreakers became violent and destructive.' Newsom warned: 'That kind of criminal behavior will not be tolerated. Full stop.' And hundreds have been arrested. But he emphasized: 'This situation was winding down and was concentrated in just a few square blocks downtown. But that's not what Donald Trump wanted … . He chose theatrics over public safety.' In Trump's twisted view, if he hadn't sent in the National Guard, 'Los Angeles would be completely obliterated.' Never mind that the violence was confined to a few downtown blocks, a fraction of a city that spreads over 500 square miles. 'We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free and clean again,' the president promised. Veteran Republican strategist Mike Murphy had it right, telling CNN: 'He's lighting the fire as an arsonist, then claiming to be the fireman.' It reminded me of President Lyndon B. Johnson's manufactured Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964 that Congress passed, enabling him to vastly escalate U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Johnson reported a North Vietnamese attack on U.S. destroyers that many experts later concluded never happened. But I think Trump mainly is obsessed with attracting attention. He knows he'll get it by being provocative. Never mind the accuracy of his words or the wisdom of his actions. Sending in the Marines certainly was an eye-opener. So is staging a military parade on his birthday — an abuse of troops for attention, personal glorification and exercise of his own power. He'll say anything provocative without thinking it through: Tariffs one day, suspended the next. He'll boast of sending San Joaquin Valley water to L.A. for fighting fires when it's physically impossible to deliver it. While Trump was playing politics with immigrants and L.A. turmoil, a poll finding was released that should have pleased him. Californians no longer support providing public healthcare for immigrants living here illegally, the independent Public Policy Institute of California reported. Adult state residents were opposed by 58% to 41% in a survey taken before the L.A. trouble erupted. By contrast, a PPIC poll in 2021 found that Californians favored providing state healthcare for undocumented immigrants by 66% to 31%. Polling director Mark Baldassare concluded the public opposition stems mostly from the view that California taxpayers can't afford the costly program — not that they agree with Trump's anti-immigrant demagoguery. In fact, Newson has proposed paring back the state's multibillion-dollar program of providing Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented immigrants because the state budget has been spewing red ink. Given all the rhetoric about the L.A. protests, the statement that particularly impressed me came from freshman Assemblyman Mark Gonzalez (D-Los Angeles), whose downtown district stretches from Koreatown to Chinatown. 'Rocks thrown at officers, CHP cars and Waymo vehicles set on fire, arson on the 101 freeway — have nothing to do with immigration, justice or the values of our communities,' he said in a statement Sunday. 'These are not protesters — they were agitators. Their actions are reckless, dangerous and playing into exactly what Trump wants.' Gonzalez is a liberal former chairman of the L.A. County Democratic Party who stuck to his point: Hoodlums can't be tolerated. And, thanks to Trump, Newsom was able to make a similar point about the president on national TV: His dangerous, self-serving actions can't be tolerated either.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mat-Su mayor files to run as a Republican for Alaska governor
Jun. 12—Edna DeVries, mayor of the Mat-Su Borough, announced on Thursday that she is running as a Republican to be Alaska's next governor. DeVries, 83, has been mayor of the Mat-Su since 2021. She moved to Palmer in 1969 and was mayor of the city for over five years. She served two years as a state senator in the 1980s. In a Thursday interview, DeVries said there are many issues facing Alaska and that she wants to focus on "listening to people, transparency in government and limited government." DeVries, a conservative, said that she feels "very strongly" about election integrity and touted a 2022 ban on voting machines in the Mat-Su borough. She said that she supports following a statutory Permanent Fund dividend, and said Alaska needs to "rein in spending" to address its fiscal challenges. "We need to live within our means. And I don't see the state doing that right now," she said. DeVries said that she is a supporter of school choice. She was critical of a substantial education funding boost approved by the Legislature this year. She said that "we need to have some accountability." DeVries on Thursday filed a letter of intent with the Division of Elections to run as governor next year. That is the first step in launching a campaign, allowing the candidate to raise and spend money. DeVries said filing that letter is "sort of a testing of the waters." "Let's see what the response is out there, and get out and talk to the people to see if they see the same needs in our state as I do," she added. Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy, a Republican, is in the penultimate year of his second term. The Alaska Constitution forbids governors from holding office for a third consecutive term. Three other Republicans have filed letters of intent to run for governor in the November 2026 election: Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, former Fairbanks Sen. Click Bishop, and business owner Bernadette Wilson.
New York Post
41 minutes ago
- New York Post
Federal judge questions constitutionality of Trump sending National Guard to LA riots: ‘President is, of course, limited'
WASHINGTON — A federal judge expressed skepticism Thursday about the constitutionality of President Trump's order to deploy thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell anti-ICE riots. Senior San Francisco US District Judge Charles Breyer heard arguments from attorneys for Trump's Justice Department and California Gov. Gavin Newsom after the Democrat had sued the feds over dispatching roughly 4,000 Guard members to protect officers carrying out immigration enforcement operations. 'We're talking about the president exercising his authority, and the president is, of course, limited,' Breyer, the younger brother of liberal former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, said at one point in the hearing. Advertisement 3 AP 'That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George.' Brett Shumate, the head of the DOJ's Civil Division, disputed Breyer's characterization of the president's order throughout the hour-long hearing, arguing that the commander-in-chief had 'delegated' the federalizing of the Guard through California's adjutant general, as legally required. Advertisement Shumate also claimed that Newsom was merely a 'conduit' for that order as it passed through the chain of command from Trump to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to the state Guard. 'There's no consultation requirement, pre-approval requirement,' he argued. 'There's one commander-in-chief of the armed forces.' The California attorney general's office countered that allowing Trump's action to stand implied there would be 'no guardrails' for further abuse by the executive branch. 3 Clashes have erupted in LA over the last several days sparked by ICE raids. Barbara Davidson/NYPost Advertisement 3 A demonstrator points his finger towards members of the California National Guard during a protest against federal immigration sweeps in downtown Los Angeles. REUTERS 'The president, by fiat, can federalize the National Guard and deploy it,' an attorney for Newsom said, 'whenever there is disobedience to an order.' While Breyer took issue with the deployment of the National Guard, he appeared more inclined to let stand Trump's order sending around 700 US Marines to the Golden State to assist with the federal immigration crackdown. 'I don't understand how I'm supposed to do anything with the Marines, to tell you the truth,' the judge responded, quibbling with Newsom's legal team over whether their involvement violated the Posse Comitatus Act. Advertisement Breyer did not immediately issue a ruling, but said he hoped to put one out 'very soon.' This is a developing story. Please check back for more information.
