logo
Federal judge to hear arguments over Trump's troop deployment to Los Angeles

Federal judge to hear arguments over Trump's troop deployment to Los Angeles

CBS News21 hours ago

Washington — A federal judge will consider Thursday whether to temporarily restrict President Trump's use of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to assist with federal immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.
The hearing in San Francisco marks the first test of Mr. Trump's decision to place more than 4,000 members of the California National Guard under federal control and send 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents as they conduct immigration arrests.
The Trump administration's immigration crackdown sparked protests in California's largest city, which the president said in a June 7 memorandum constitutes "a form of rebellion against" the U.S. that allowed him to call up the National Guard under Title 10. Since the president deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles, protests have popped up in several cities, including Austin, Boston and New York City.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass imposed an 8 p.m. curfew on Tuesday and Wednesday. The Los Angeles Police Department said there have been at least 400 arrests since Saturday stemming from protests and other criminal activity in the downtown area.
Mr. Trump has argued that the military had to be sent into Los Angeles to protect ICE and other federal employees performing their duties, as well as government property. But the decision has escalated tensions with California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, who claimed the presence of the military in city streets threatened to destabilize the community and lead to an escalation.
Newsom's lawsuit
Newsom sued the Trump administration over the president's move and asked U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who is presiding over the case, for early intervention Tuesday.
The governor argued that Mr. Trump "unlawfully bypassed" him when the president called the National Guard into service without his permission and said the federal law invoked by Mr. Trump to deploy the troops — Title 10 — does not give him the authority to do so under the current circumstances.
Newsom had asked Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, to temporarily limit troops to providing indirect assistance to federal officials by protecting immigration detention facilities or other federal buildings, or defending government employees at risk of physical harm. California officials want the judge to block the military from assisting in law-enforcement functions such as executing warrants, arrests, searches or checkpoints.
"These unlawful deployments have already proven to be a deeply inflammatory and unnecessary provocation, anathema to our laws limiting the use [of] federal forces for law enforcement, rather than a means of restoring calm," California Attorney General Rob Bonta wrote in a filing. "Federal antagonization, through the presence of soldiers in the streets, has already caused real and irreparable damage to the city of Los Angeles, the people who live there, and the State of California. They must be stopped, immediately."
Breyer declined to immediately grant California officials relief and instead set a hearing for Thursday afternoon to consider the request.
In a filing submitted to the court, the Trump administration called Newsom's request for relief a "crass political stunt endangering American lives."
"There is no rioters' veto to enforcement of federal law. And the president has every right under the Constitution and by statute to call forth the National Guard and Marines to quell lawless violence directed against enforcement of federal law," Justice Department lawyers wrote.
During testimony on Capitol Hill, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was asked whether he would abide by the judge's decision on the president's use of military forces in Los Angeles in response to the protests. Hegseth declined to definitively say and instead criticized federal judges.
"We've always looked at the decisions of the court," he said, adding "we should not have local judges determining foreign policy or national security policy for the country."
Military officials have said that the Marines on the ground in Los Angeles do not have the authority to arrest people and are there to protect federal property and personnel. U.S. law prohibits the use of active-duty military for domestic law enforcement purposes unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act.
Mr. Trump suggested earlier this week that he would use the law, which dates back to 1792, "if there's an insurrection."
As of Wednesday, roughly 2,800 National Guard and Marines are serving under the command of Task Force 51 and have been trained in de-escalation, crowd control and standing rules for the use of force, according to U.S. Northern Command. There are an additional 2,000 to-be-identified National Guardsmen under federal command, according to the Defense Department.
The task force's mission is to protect federal personnel and property in the greater Los Angeles-area, and members have accompanied ICE on missions, according to U.S. Northern Command. It said the forces do not conduct civilian law enforcement functions, but can temporarily detain a person in "specific circumstances," such as to stop an assault or prevent interference with federal personnel performing their duties.
"They protect; they don't participate," it said in a statement Wednesday.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said during a news conference in Los Angeles that immigration authorities have "tens of thousands of targets," but declined to say how many migrants have been arrested. Two officials with the Department of Homeland Security confirmed to CBS News on Wednesday that 330 migrants who are in the U.S. unlawfully have been arrested in Los Angeles since Friday, and 113 of them had prior criminal convictions.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Exclusive: Trump's tariff deal ‘quietly' added 10% raise which nobody is complaining about anymore, says his former commerce secretary
Exclusive: Trump's tariff deal ‘quietly' added 10% raise which nobody is complaining about anymore, says his former commerce secretary

Yahoo

time13 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Exclusive: Trump's tariff deal ‘quietly' added 10% raise which nobody is complaining about anymore, says his former commerce secretary

Wilbur Ross, former Commerce Secretary and a key architect of Trump's first-term trade policy, describes Trump's current tariff strategy as a deliberate evolution: moving faster, hitting harder, and using broader executive powers to impose tariffs for both economic and diplomatic leverage. The Trump administration's use of tariffs has sparked debate over the ultimate goals of its economic strategy. However, a former Cabinet member and key trade advisor to the President has suggested there is an underlying logic to the approach. Since winning the Oval Office, President Trump has announced an evolving range of policies. with economic sanctions spinning higher on some trade partners while others have been granted pauses. Many of the announcements have not come through official White House channels; for example, Trump threatened a 50% tariff on the EU in April in a bid to get European negotiators to the table—by posting on his social media site, Truth Social. Indeed, Trump has come under scrutiny from Beijing, arguably the most critical region for the U.S. to make a deal, who claim America's tariff tactics have been 'coercion and blackmail' when instead it should 'convey information to the Chinese side…through relevant parties.' But Wilbur Ross, Trump's Commerce Secretary in his first administration, says there's a clear tactic at play beneath Trump's bluster. The 87-year-old banker turned D.C. power player said there is an 'art' to Trump's dealmaking, as White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has suggested; Ross told Fortune in an exclusive interview: 'Well, everybody's reaction to [tariffs] was first shock and amazement, but the actual retaliatory measures that they put in were fairly modest—even China didn't match in dollar for dollar. 'There's a real reason for that, I think the other countries, as they've thought about it, have recognized that while they have to talk very bravely for their domestic political constituencies… They also recognize that at the end of the day, they can't afford a tit-for-tat escalating trade war with us.' And this was a fact Trump was relying on, continued Ross: 'One of the earliest things he put in was that 10% tariff on everything from everywhere. 'Nobody is even complaining about that anymore. When you think about it, in the normal course, getting quietly to do a 10% tariff on everything from everywhere was a huge achievement, even if he didn't get anything else. But because he followed it with these much more extreme things, it makes the 10% look like it's not such a big bother. 'But it's a huge number, and he's been collecting it every day.' Indeed, imported goods alone into the U.S. in 2024 stood at $3.36 trillion—even before tax, duties, and levies were collected (worth $82 billion) and before imported services are added to those figures. Even 10% of near-$3.4 trillion is an eye-watering sum to add to federal budgets, though some items like autos and steel are even higher. Indeed nations like China, Canada, and Mexico are all already subject to more than the baseline 10% universal tariff. When Ross spoke to Fortune in a previous exclusive interview earlier this year, he said President Trump would be all the more confident in his second term because he now better understands the inner workings of Washington, D.C., and has a stronger mandate courtesy of a solid election sweep. And President Trump's tactics, which have included everything from threatening a 25% hike on Apple's iPhones specifically to raising sanctions to more than 150% on China at some points, reflect the path Ross expected. After all, as Secretary, Ross was one of the key allies in Trump's team when renegotiating America's position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). At the time, Trump was a fierce critic of the deal with Mexico and Canada and wanted to withdraw from the agreement and begin negotiating from there. Ross felt the better tactic was to threaten such action and keep an exit as a last resort, an opinion that Trump eventually came around to agreeing with. Likewise, having been appointed in 2017 Ross oversaw the tariff action in the first Trump administration which included sanctions on Chinese goods as well as aluminum and steel more widely. 'He has started out on a much more adventurous path than last time,' Ross told Fortune this week. 'Broader in scope and more extreme in terms of the numbers themselves.' Trump has three objectives, he adds: shrinking trade deficits, producing revenue to offset his 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' and achieving other diplomatic purposes such as the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. and global defense spending. 'He has a much more fulsome, much more complicated agenda than before,' Ross explains. 'It's also different in…that last time I was very careful to set the groundwork to do public hearings, stakeholder meetings, to do written reports, to set a whole record so that under the Administrative Procedures Act we would be relatively safe from people trying to knock it out in court. 'This time, they did a very different thing. They went in mostly just by his say so using the IFA, the Emergency Powers Act, and they ran into a snag at the Court for International Trade.' This snag may alter the course of tariff reaction on the account of businesses, he added, because their investment timelines may shift based on when the tariffs are legally approved. But Ross added: 'Most people are operating under the assumption that sooner or later, he'll get something like what he was looking for…and therefore, while it's slowed down a bit, [I] don't think it will derail [trade talks] because [foreign governments] also know there are other ways he could punish them rather than just the tariffs. 'So it's a bump in the road, but I don't think it's a huge pothole that would wreck the car.' This story was originally featured on

Oil prices jump after Israel's attack on Iran and it could lead to higher gas costs
Oil prices jump after Israel's attack on Iran and it could lead to higher gas costs

Yahoo

time14 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Oil prices jump after Israel's attack on Iran and it could lead to higher gas costs

Oil prices have jumped following Israel's attack on Iran as experts warn the conflict could lead to higher gas costs. The price of a barrel of benchmark U.S. crude jumped 6.8 percent to $72.65 Friday. Brent crude, the international standard, rose 7.1 percent to $74.30 a barrel. 'Gas prices will likely start to rise across much of the country later this evening in response to Israel's attacks on Iran, which have caused oil prices to surge. For now, I expect the rise to be noticable, but limited. Approx 10-25c/gal thus far, but this could change,' industry expert Patrick De Haan wrote on X. Iran is one of the world's major producers of oil and if a wider war escalates, it could slow the flow of Iranian oil to U.S. customers and elsewhere. 'Iran knows full well that Trump is focused on lower energy prices and actions by Iran that impact Middle East supply and consequently raise oil prices damage Trump politically,' Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates consulting firm, told CNN. Past attacks involving Iran and Israel have seen prices for oil spike initially, only to fall later 'once it became clear that the situation was not escalating and there was no impact on oil supply,' said Richard Joswick, head of near-term oil at S&P Global Commodity Insights. The Secretary of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries warned industry executives not to 'raise false alarms.' 'There are currently no developments in supply or market dynamics that warrant unnecessary measures,' the organization said on X. Israel said 200 fighter jets took part in strikes on more than 100 targets in Iran overnight in an escalation that threatens to spark a wider conflict in the Middle East. Israel said Iran has launched more than 100 drones towards Israel in response - but Tehran has denied these reports, according to Iranian media. Trump firmly put the U.S. in Israel's corner after the attacks. The president said he'd given Tehran 'chance after chance to make a deal' that would have headed off the strikes by putting restrictions on the country's nuclear weapons program and complained that Iranian negotiators had never been able to come to an agreement. 'I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. I told them, in the strongest of words, to 'just do it,' but no matter how hard they tried, no matter how close they got, they just couldn't get it done,' he wrote on Truth Social. Trump also said he'd warned Iran that Israel 'has a lot' of American-made military hardware — 'the best and most lethal' — and is quite proficient in using it. 'Certain Iranian hardliner's spoke bravely, but they didn't know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse!' he added. 'Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left. No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE,' the president wrote. The Associated Press contributed reporting 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

If Not Washington, Who Will Fund Harvard?
If Not Washington, Who Will Fund Harvard?

Wall Street Journal

time15 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

If Not Washington, Who Will Fund Harvard?

Jason Riley describes how Harvard has become a punching bag for political grandstanding ('Does the President Want to Fix Harvard or Destroy It?,'Upward Mobility, May 28). Yet the Trump administration swings at its peril. Harvard isn't a delicate orchid that will fold under political heat. It's a $53 billion juggernaut with labs, patents and partnerships that span the globe. If Washington starts revoking grants, threatening tax status or chilling academic freedom to score points with the base, Harvard isn't going to sit tight until President Trump is over. It's going to pivot—aggressively. Someone else, be it Berlin, Seoul or Abu Dhabi, will fund it. The idea that the greatest minds in medicine, energy and artificial intelligence will suddenly transfer their breakthroughs to a U.S. government-licensed trade school is laughable. In a century where data, biotech and artificial intelligence are the new oil, dismantling our own research powerhouse is like banning railroads in 1900 because the engineers read Karl Marx.

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