Trump's Guard deployment to LA protests puts Newsom in political predicament
(Reuters) -Soon after scattered protests broke out in Los Angeles on Friday in the wake of federal immigration raids, President Donald Trump and California Governor Gavin Newsom spoke by phone. Trump never mentioned any federal response, according to Newsom, who described the conversation as "very cordial" on MSNBC on Sunday.
Twenty-four hours later, Trump ordered thousands of National Guard troops to the state, bypassing Newsom and igniting another firestorm over his aggressive efforts to deport migrants living in the U.S. illegally.
For Newsom, governor of the nation's most populous state and a potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidate, Trump's gambit has created substantial political risks.
Throughout Trump's first and second terms, Democratic governors have struggled to find the most effective approach to dealing with the mercurial Republican president; confronting Trump can result in backlash, but conceding ground sometimes encourages him to push harder.
Newsom and Trump have often clashed in the past, with Trump calling the governor "Newscum" and Newsom declaring after Trump's election victory that he would "Trump-proof" California.
During Trump's first months in office, however, Newsom has often opted for appeasement rather than antagonism - meeting the president on the tarmac when Trump visited during January's devastating wildfires and interviewing leading Trump acolytes such as Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon on his new podcast.
But Trump's decision to send troops into California - the first time in decades that a president had done so absent a request from a governor - and his claim that Los Angeles was being "invaded" by violent mobs appear to have convinced Newsom to abandon his conciliatory approach.
"I've always wanted to approach engagement with the president of the United States in a respectful and responsible way," Newsom told MSNBC on Sunday. "But there's no working with the president, there's only working for him – and I will never work for Donald Trump."
Speaking to reporters on Monday, Trump said Newsom was incompetent and that he should be arrested.
"I think his primary crime is running for governor because he's done such a bad job," Trump said when asked what crime Newsom had committed.
'A DELICATE ACT'
The state sued Trump on Monday, seeking to force him to rescind the Guard deployment. Meanwhile, about 700 Marines will be sent to Los Angeles until more Guard personnel can arrive, a U.S. official said.
Newsom is trying to navigate choppy political waters, according to strategists from both parties. As the governor of California, a deep-blue Democratic state that Trump has gleefully caricatured at every opportunity, Newsom could struggle to appeal to swing voters as a national candidate without moderating his image.
There is also the risk that angering Trump could harm Newsom's 39 million constituents; the governor is still waiting for federal funding to help rebuild after the wildfires, while the president recently threatened to cut the state's education funding after a transgender girl competed in a girls' track and field championship event.
At the same time, Democratic voters want to see their leaders fight tooth-and-nail against what they see as Trump's lawlessness and corruption.
"He's serving his own ambitions as well as the state of California, and those two things don't often coincide," said Steven Maviglio, a longtime Democratic consultant in the state. "It's a dilemma for Newsom."
The protests allowed Trump to tout his hardline immigration policies while claiming California was helpless to stop the violence without his intervention.
"On this one, I think the president has really check-mated the governor," Maviglio added. "This fed right into his scenario of what California is all about...a wildly liberal state with lawlessness and immigrants and no rules."
Jon Fleischman, a Republican strategist and former executive director of the state Republican Party, said images of burning cars and protesters waving Mexican flags only served to bolster Trump's position. Newsom, he argued, had taken Trump's bait by blaming him for the escalation of violence.
"Donald Trump can't force somebody to throw a rock at a police car," he said.
Other Democratic governors have grappled with similar predicaments under Trump's administration.
In April, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, also seen as a potential 2028 presidential candidate, visited the White House to discuss the future of a military base in her state, but was caught by surprise in the Oval Office when Trump signed executive orders targeting his political enemies. A photograph of the governor covering her face from cameras went viral.
"Balancing your state's needs and working with President Trump, if you're a Democratic governor, is always going to be a delicate act," said Chris Meagher, a Democratic communications consultant.
"I think the more that Governor Newsom can keep his head down and do the work and show that he has the situation under control, the better off that he's going to be."
(Reporting by Joseph Ax and Trevor Hunnicutt; editing by Paul Thomasch and Nia Williams)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
32 minutes ago
- New Straits Times
Trump deploying thousands more National Guard, US Marines to protest-hit LA
WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump's administration said Monday it was sending 700 US Marines and thousands more National Guard troops to Los Angeles, sparking a furious response from California's governor over the "deranged" deployment. Trump had already mobilised 2,000 National Guard members to the country's second most populous city on Saturday, with some 300 taking up positions protecting federal buildings and officers on Sunday. On Monday – the fourth day of protests against immigration raids in the city that have seen some scuffles with law enforcement – the Trump administration announced the mobilisation of the 700 Marines as well as an "additional" 2,000 National Guard. A senior administration official told AFP that "active-duty US Marines from Camp Pendleton will be deployed to Los Angeles to help protect federal agents and buildings." The official first gave a figure of 500 Marines, but later updated the number to 700. Deploying active duty military personnel like US Marines into a community of civilians within the United States is a highly unusual measure. The US military separately confirmed the deployment of "approximately 700 Marines" from an infantry battalion following the unrest. They would "seamlessly integrate" with National Guard forces that Trump deployed to Los Angeles on Saturday without the consent of California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom. The deployment was meant to ensure there were "adequate numbers of forces," it added. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell then announced the mobilisation of "an additional 2,000 California National Guard to be called into federal service to support ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) & to enable federal law-enforcement officers to safely conduct their duties." It was not immediately clear if the "additional" 2,000 guardsmen were on top of the 2,000 that had already been mobilised, or only the 300 that were already in the streets of Los Angeles. Newsom wasted little time accusing the president of sowing "chaos" in Los Angeles. "Trump is trying to provoke chaos by sending 4,000 soldiers onto American soil," the governor posted on X. Earlier, he slammed the "deranged" decision by "dictatorial" Trump to send in Marines.
Free Malaysia Today
35 minutes ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Trump to keep Starlink at White House despite break with Musk
President Donald Trump said he had no plans to cut off Starlink, despite announcing his relationship with Elon Musk was over. (EPA Images pic) WASHINGTON : President Donald Trump said on Monday he has no plans to discontinue Starlink at the White House but might move his Tesla off-site, following his announcement over the weekend that his relationship with Elon Musk, the billionaire CEO of both companies, was over. 'I may move the Tesla around a little bit, but I don't think we'll be doing that with Starlink. It's a good service,' Trump told reporters, referring to the satellite internet company that provides high-speed broadband access. It is a unit of Musk's SpaceX. In March, Trump said he had purchased a red Tesla Model S from Musk, Trump's then-close ally. Last week, a White House official said Trump might get rid of it after a public feud erupted between the two men. The Tesla was seen parked at the White House over the weekend. On Saturday, Trump said he had no intention of repairing ties with Musk. On Monday, the president said he would not have a problem if Musk called. 'We had a good relationship, and I just wish him well,' Trump said. Musk responded with a heart emoji to a video on X showing Trump's remarks. Last week, Trump and Musk exchanged a flurry of insults after the world's richest man denounced Trump's tax and spending bill as a 'disgusting abomination.' Musk's opposition has complicated Republican efforts to pass Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' in congress, where the party holds slim majorities in the house of representatives and senate. Since the dispute began last Thursday, Musk has deleted some social media posts critical of Trump, including one signalling support for impeaching the president. Sources close to Musk said his anger has started to subside, and they believe he may want to repair his relationship with Trump.
Malay Mail
an hour ago
- Malay Mail
Asean and East Asian Summit must stress fiscal prudence over firepower — Phar Kim Beng
JUNE 10 — As President Donald Trump, ostensibly, prepares for his appearances at the East Asia Summit in Kuala Lumpur this mid October 2025 — with no assurance of showing up unlike other Heads of States that are the Strategic Dialogue Partners of Asean — all signs point to him pushing a familiar and blunt message: America's allies and partners in Asia must spend more on US arms. But if past and current trends are any indication, Trump's appeals are likely to fall on deaf ears. The region is not just weary of increased militarization—it is actively rejecting Washington's insistence that defense budgets be inflated at the expense of economic recovery and long-term stability. There is an inherent contradiction in Trump's demands. A president who places tariffs on allies—from Japan to South Korea to even Southeast Asian nations—cannot reasonably expect those same countries to increase military procurement from the United States. The message from Washington is one of transactional loyalty, not strategic partnership. And in Asia, where historical memory is long and national budgets are tight, such coercive diplomacy rarely works. Strategic Mistrust Cloaked as Defense Diplomacy The push for higher defense spending has long been a hallmark of US foreign policy, particularly under Republican administrations that view military preponderance as a symbol of leadership. Trump's doctrine—though lacking a coherent strategy—is clear in its intent: to boost American arms exports and reduce the US security burden by compelling others to foot the bill. However, the underlying tone of Washington's approach under Trump is steeped in mistrust. By questioning the reliability of alliances and imposing punitive tariffs even on long-standing partners, Trump has eroded the very strategic trust necessary for such defense cooperation. Asian states are acutely aware that accepting US weapons often comes with strings attached—operational constraints, technology limitations, political conditionality, and long-term maintenance dependencies. Moreover, many of these nations are engaged in delicate balancing acts between China and the United States. A sudden uptick in American arms purchases could be seen not as deterrence but as provocation. The Regional Response: Prioritizing Growth and Stability In Southeast Asia and beyond, national budgets are being reoriented toward post-pandemic recovery, climate resilience, digital infrastructure, and education reform. There is little appetite—public or political—for ballooning defense outlays. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks at the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue security summit in Singapore May 31, 2025. — Reuters pic Countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and even Thailand have publicly emphasized the need for economic investments, not military escalation. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and Domestic Direct Investment (DDI) are seen as stabilizing forces, offering job creation, technology transfer, and revenue generation. Arms deals, in contrast, represent capital outflows with limited downstream benefits. Indeed, even where defense procurement is on the agenda, the priority is on affordability, multilateral interoperability, and reduced dependency on any single supplier. This explains why Asian countries have diversified their sources—turning to Turkiye, South Korea, France, and even indigenous defense development—rather than doubling down on American options. Moreover, there is growing recognition that security in Asia is not only military. Non-traditional threats—such as cyberattacks, piracy, human trafficking, illegal fishing, and climate-related disasters—require a broader toolkit than fighter jets and missile systems. In forums such as the Asean Defence Ministers' Meeting Plus (ADMM-Plus), the emphasis is on capacity building, joint training, and regional resilience. Arms races are anathema to these priorities. The Trump Tariff Trap The irony is that Trump's own economic policies undercut his strategic objectives. By erecting tariff walls against Asian exports—often under the pretext of 'national security'—Trump has undermined regional confidence in US economic leadership. Countries like South Korea and Japan have had to endure hostile tariff actions despite hosting major US bases. Asean member states, particularly those with growing manufacturing sectors, find themselves penalized even as they are asked to bolster America's geostrategic posture. The result is a transactional model of diplomacy that few in Asia are willing to accept. Nations across the Indo-Pacific see the US demand for greater defense spending not as a shared responsibility but as an imposition—one that prioritizes America's arms industry over regional economic needs. The message from Washington is clear: buy our weapons or risk being labeled unreliable. But the response from Asia is equally clear: we will spend where it matters most—for our people and our future. The Myth of Free Riding It is fashionable in Washington to accuse Asian partners of free riding—benefitting from American security guarantees without proportionate contributions. Yet this narrative ignores the reality on the ground. South Korea contributes billions to the upkeep of US forces, Japan provides extensive basing support, and the Philippines, despite its domestic constraints, allows rotational US deployments. These are not passive beneficiaries but active participants in regional security architecture. In Southeast Asia, countries have consistently engaged in multilateral peacekeeping, counterterrorism, and maritime cooperation. Their contributions may not be measured in F-35 purchases, but in the daily grind of maintaining regional peace and order. The call for 5 per cent of GDP on defense—echoed by voices like US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—is simply out of step with the fiscal realities of the region. Asean alone is short of at least US$1.5 trillion in development expenditure with Indonesia needing at least a third of this figure. Such a benchmark, if adopted, would severely hamper development goals and spark unnecessary regional tensions. The Path Ahead: Economic Security First As the region looks ahead to the next decade, it is clear that economic security will remain paramount. The East Asia Summit in Kuala Lumpur and Asean Summits in Kuala Lumpur this year and Manila the next, must provide platforms for frank dialogue. Trump may once again present a tough case for American arms purchases. But Asia's answer, if rooted in pragmatism and sovereignty, will be a firm 'No.' The way forward lies in deeper economic integration, industrial upgrading, and human capital development. Strategic autonomy does not require blind purchases of US weaponry. It requires building national capabilities in science, technology, and innovation. It requires policy consistency—not shifting tariff threats. And it requires mutual respect—not coercive diplomacy dressed as alliance-building. Washington must come to terms with a changing Asia—one that is no longer beholden to Cold War mentalities or dependent on unilateral guarantees. The region seeks cooperation, not compliance. In the face of Trump's renewed pressure, Asian capitals are likely to stand their ground, not out of defiance, but out of necessity. After all, the most enduring security lies not in missiles and tanks, but in resilient economies and empowered societies. * Phar Kim Beng is Professor of Asean Studies at the International Islamic University Malaysia and Senior Visiting Fellow at the University of Cambridge. ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
