Could Ukraine have stopped Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014?
Amid reports that a U.S. peace proposal might include recognizing Moscow's illegal annexation of Crimea, President Donald Trump denied Ukraine was being pressured to accept the move — while also asserting Ukraine had given up the peninsula in 2014 "without firing a shot."
"Nobody is asking (President Volodymyr) Zelensky to recognize Crimea as Russian territory, but if he wants Crimea, why didn't they fight for it eleven years ago when it was handed over to Russia without a shot being fired?" Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on April 23.
The claim that Ukraine simply handed over Crimea when Russia illegally annexed the peninsula in February 2014 ignores years of Moscow's military buildup in the region and the volatile political crisis occurring in Ukraine at the time that left Kyiv ill-equipped to mount a defense.
Russia's annexation of Crimea coincided with the Euromaidan Revolution, widely considered the single most consequential political event in Ukraine's independent history that ended with the ousting of then pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych.
After Yanukovych ordered his security forces to open fire on protestors, killing around 100 people, he fled the country to Russia on Feb. 21, 2014. In the power vacuum left by his departure, Moscow moved to take over Crimea.
The Kremlin had been amassing troops in Crimea for years thanks to agreements that had allowed it to station its Black Sea Fleet on the peninsula. This military presence enabled Moscow to take swift control over Crimea in less than a month.
Russian special forces without insignia seized the building of the Supreme Council and the Crimean Ministers Council overnight on Feb. 27, 2014. A few weeks later, Russian soldiers took control of airports, Ukrainian military units, and the navy. While the takeover was largely without armed resistance, Ukrainian troops stationed at the Balbek Air Base did put up a fight against Russian troops.
A total of 103 cadets, 2,239 soldiers and sailors, and 1,649 officers of the Ukrainian Armed Forces held out for almost a month in a complete Russian encirclement in Crimea, then-acting Ukrainian President Oleksandr Turchynov wrote recently on his personal website on April 14 in response to claims that the Ukrainian soldiers stationed in Crimea had not been commanded to defend their positions.
Meanwhile, the U.S. and the U.K. — signatories of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which pledged to uphold Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Kyiv surrendering its nuclear arsenal — did not come to Ukraine's defense. The agreement has been widely criticized for its vague political guarantees rather than firm commitments to protect Ukraine in the case of armed aggression.
'They explained that they didn't want to irritate Vladimir Putin or provoke a full-scale war in the heart of Europe. Ukraine wasn't given a single bullet,' Turchynov recalled.
Russia began taking its first steps toward its future occupation of Crimea long before 2014, helped along by the government of then pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
The Kharkiv agreements, signed by Yanukovych and then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on April 21, 2010, extended Russia's lease to station its Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol until 2042. The agreements signed that year also lifted any restrictions on Russian troops' movements around the peninsula, "creating all the necessary prerequisites for occupation," Turchynov wrote.
The increase in the Russian fleet's presence, whose troops and military equipment exceeded that of Ukraine's in Crimea, was supposed to be in exchange for cheaper Russian gas for Ukraine by applying a discount in the form of canceling customs duties. The deal, however, threatened Ukraine's sovereignty.
"This was a threat, because at any time, this group (of forces) could have launched wider-scale actions against our country," Vadym Skibitskyi, deputy head of Ukraine's military intelligence agency (HUR), told Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) in 2021.
Between 2010 and 2014, Russia began covertly bringing in modernized or refurbished equipment into Crimea to strengthen its military forces, according to Ukrainian intelligence (HUR). The agency also recorded incidents when Russia seized Ukrainian navigation equipment in 2011 and 2012.
Russian troops were also actively forming new brigades on the Crimean peninsula. At the same time, the Ukrainian army had been experiencing long-lasting funding cuts. An ongoing reform of the army resulted in the disbanding of the 32nd Army Corps and the withdrawal of the 3rd Separate Special Forces Regiment, both of which were stationed in Crimea.
Under the presidency of Viktor Yushchenko from 2005-2010, the issue of the Ukrainian military's combat capability and potential NATO membership was regularly raised. These discussions came to a standstill under Yanukovych.
Toward the end of his presidential term, Yushchenko said in 2009 that the Ukrainian army had become a "victim of political intrigue," hinting that disagreements within the government had led to the impoverishment of the military.
The situation around the peninsula heated up even more in late 2013. On the eve of the Olympic Games in Sochi, a city on the Black Sea coast, Russia announced the need to conduct additional security measures in the water to ensure safety during the sporting event.
"Using this legend, the Russian military practiced blocking maritime waters, as well as the airspace, and conducted various reconnaissance operations. They used reconnaissance and long-range radar detection aircraft. They also conducted aggressive reconnaissance activities against Ukraine," Skibitskyi told RFE/RL.
In late February 2014, Russian airborne troops from regions including Tula, Ryazan, and Kubinka were reportedly put on high alert and began movement toward the Black Sea coast.
Ukraine had little capability to respond at that point.
The Kremlin began its occupation of Crimea while Kyiv was in chaos after Yanukovych fled to Rostov-on-Don following the EuroMaidan. Instead of organizing the defense of Crimea, pro-Russian associates of the former president were also busy fleeing Ukraine.
"The entire policy of Yanukovych started to fall into place: it weakened the Ukrainian state, paving the way for both the forthcoming annexation of Crimea and the attempt to separate the eastern and southern oblasts from the rest of the country," a report by the Warsaw Institute published in 2018 read. Russia launched an invasion of Ukraine's eastern regions with the use of proxies after it annexed Crimea, and attempted to sow instability in the south.
After an interim government was set up in Kyiv, a secret meeting of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council was held on Feb. 28, 2014, almost a week after Russian forces began their operation on the peninsula.
The participants decided to put the Ukrainian Armed Forces on full combat alert, appeal to the Budapest Memorandum guarantor countries, strengthen the defense of critical infrastructure, and create an operational headquarters for responding to the situation in Crimea.
The decisions did little to drive Russia off the peninsula.
Ukrainian admiral Denys Berezovskyi took over the Ukrainian Navy on March 1, 2014. The next day, he refused to comply with the Ukrainian authorities' orders, issuing one himself to subordinate units in Crimea military personnel to hand over their weapons to the warehouses and return military equipment to storage facilities.
According to a transcript of the Feb. 28, 2014 NSDC meeting, then-Defense Minister Ihor Teniukh claimed that Ukraine had 15,000 soldiers on the peninsula at the end of February 2014.
Turchynov later said that since the beginning of the occupation, 70% of Ukrainian soldiers betrayed their military oath, bringing their number down to 4,000. However, according to Teniukh, only up to 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers were combat ready.
During his presidency, Yanukovych's party, the Party of Regions, in cooperation with Russian intelligence services kept close watch over Crimea, even preparing the ground for the upcoming invasion, according to the Warsaw Institute. In particular, Ukrainian military units, police, and Security Service officers were infiltrated and captured by Moscow agents, the Warsaw Institute.
"Political disorientation, low morale, poor financial and logistical support, as well as the systematic work of Russian agents in the leadership of the security forces led to mass desertion and defection to the aggressor of most Ukrainian soldiers and officers stationed in occupied Crimea," Turchynov said.
"Viktor Yanukovych surrendered Crimea deliberately. There was no pressure on him from the Russian Federation."
"Most of the remnants of our military units, surrounded and scattered across the peninsula, were not even able to fulfill orders and basic requirements of military regulations, ensuring the defense of their positions with weapons," Turchynov added.
Following the forcible seizure of Crimea, the Russian government held a referendum on the status of peninsula without international observers and with armed Russian soldiers present at polling locations. Russia soon after declared Crimea a part of Russia, cementing its illegal annexation on March 21, 2014. Most countries do not recognize the results of the referendum.
"Viktor Yanukovych surrendered Crimea deliberately. There was no pressure on him from the Russian Federation," Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, the former head of Ukraine's Security Service, said during Yanukovych's trial in absentia in 2018.
The surrender of Crimea to Russia had been planned since 2010, when fugitive President Yanukovych came to office, he added.
On March 24, 2014, Turchynov signed a decree enacting a decision of the NSDC to relocate military units and law enforcement agencies from Crimea to other regions of Ukraine.
Within less than a month, Russia had moved to invade and partially occupy parts of eastern Ukraine.
Read also: The origins of the 2014 war in Donbas
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
35 minutes ago
- Forbes
LA Protests: Newsom Dares Trump Officials To Arrest Him (Live Updates)
President Donald Trump told reporters Sunday afternoon the protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles were conducted by 'violent people' but doesn't think they constituted an insurrection, suggesting he would not invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy troops, after he ordered 2,000 National Guard troops to break up the protests. June 9, 12:30 p.m. EDTThe Los Angeles Police Department has announced that gatherings at Downtown Los Angeles have 'been declared as an UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY,' as it ordered people to 'leave the Downtown Area immediately.' June 8, 11 p.m. EDTIn an interview with MSNBC, California Gov. Gavin Newsom dared the Trump administration to come and arrest him in response to earlier comments by the president's border czar Tom Homan threatened to go after any official who interferes the immigration crackdown. Newsom told MSNBC, 'Come after me, arrest me, let's just get it over with, tough guy...I don't give a damn, but I care about my community.' In his interview, Newsom once again accused Trump of 'putting fuel on the fire,' with his actions and confirmed that his state will file a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Monday. 10 p.m. EDTCalifornia's Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis told CNN that she expects state officials to file a federal lawsuit on Monday against the Trump administration's move to federalize and deploy the National Guard in Los Angeles. Kounalakis said the lawsuit will say that the president did not have the 'authority to call in the National Guard for 400 people protesting in a way that local law enforcement could clearly handle it.' 4 p.m. EDTWhen asked by reporters whether he would invoke the Insurrection Act, the law that gives presidents the authority to deploy the military domestically, Trump said, 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection,' adding he does not think the Los Angeles protests are an insurrection, though he said there are 'violent people, and we're not going to let them get away with it.' Trump said he called California Gov. Gavin Newsom and told him he had to 'take care' of the protests, otherwise he would 'send in the troops,' and he told a reporter who asked whether California officials who obstruct deportations would face federal charges: 'If officials stand in the way of law and order, yeah, they will face charges.' 1:30 p.m. EDTAbout 300 members of the National Guard have been stationed across Los Angeles so far, The New York Times reported, the first soldiers as part of the 2,000 Trump has promised to station across the city as more protests are expected to take place this afternoon. 1 p.m. EDTLos Angeles Mayor Karen Bass told the Los Angeles Times said she tried to talk to the Trump administration to 'tell them that there was absolutely no need to have troops on the ground here in Los Angeles,' stating the protests on Saturday were 'relatively minor' and 'peaceful,' with about 100 protesters. 3:22 a.m. EDTBass appeared to rebuff Trump's claim the National Guard did a 'great job' in the city, stating in a post on X that the National Guard had not yet been deployed at that time in Los Angeles, while praising Newsom and local law enforcement. 2:41 said in a late-night Truth Social post the National Guard did a 'great job' in Los Angeles, while slamming Newsom and Bass and the 'Radical Left' protesters and stating protesters will no longer be allowed to wear masks: 'What do these people have to hide, and why???' 12:14 slammed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for 'threatening to deploy active-duty Marines on American soil against its own citizens' as 'deranged behavior.' June 7The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said it had arrested two people Saturday evening for alleged assault on a police officer, stating multiple officers had been injured by a Molotov cocktail, the Los Angeles Times reported. 10:34 exhibited 'violent behavior' toward federal agents and local law enforcement, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said in a statement, while clarifying it is not involved in federal law enforcement response and is instead focused on crowd and traffic control. 10:22 a post on X, Newsom said the federal government is taking over the California National Guard and deploying soldiers in Los Angeles solely to create a 'spectacle.' 10:06 announced in a post on X the Department of Defense is 'mobilizing the National Guard IMMEDIATELY to support federal law enforcement in Los Angeles,' stating Marines are standing by for deployment in case of violence. 9:17 House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced Trump would deploy 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles to address 'lawlessness,' citing protests targeting immigration officers. More protests are expected to take place Sunday, in what will be the third straight day of demonstrations against immigration raids in Los Angeles. Protests broke out Friday and Saturday in Paramount and Compton, cities adjacent to Los Angeles, over immigration raids conducted by ICE, during which the agency detained 44 immigrants Friday and 118 immigrants Saturday, the Associated Press reported. Police and protesters clashed over the weekend, according to local reports and videos on social media, with law enforcement using tear gas and flash grenades to break up the crowds while some protesters threw rocks and lit vehicles on fire. Trump reportedly said in a memo he is invoking Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services, which allows the federal government to deploy the National Guard if the United States is 'invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation,' or if there is a 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' Vice President JD Vance said in a post on X on Saturday night the influx of immigrants, which he called 'Biden's border crisis,' amounts to an 'invasion,' rebuffing critics who have questioned whether Trump had the authority to deploy troops. Trump's move has faced some pushback from constitutional scholars. 'For the federal government to take over the California National Guard, without the request of the governor, to put down protests is truly chilling,' Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, told the Los Angeles Times. The legal issues raised by Trump sending the National Guard to L.A. (Los Angeles Times)


San Francisco Chronicle
44 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's new travel ban takes effect as tensions escalate over immigration enforcement
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's new ban on travel to the U.S. by citizens from 12 mainly African and Middle Eastern countries took effect Monday amid rising tension over the president's escalating campaign of immigration enforcement. The new proclamation, which Trump signed last week, applies to citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also imposes heightened restrictions on people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela who are outside the U.S. and don't hold a valid visa. The new ban does not revoke visas previously issued to people from countries on the list, according to guidance issued Friday to all U.S. diplomatic missions. However, unless an applicant meets narrow criteria for an exemption to the ban, his or her application will be rejected starting Monday. Travelers with previously issued visas should still be able to enter the U.S. even after the ban takes effect. While many of the listed countries send few people to the United States, Haiti, Cuba and Venezuela had been major sources of immigration in recent years. Haitian-American Elvanise Louis-Juste, who was at the airport Sunday in Newark, New Jersey, awaiting a flight to her home state of Florida, said many Haitians wanting to come to the U.S. are simply seeking to escape violence and unrest. Haitians continue to flee poverty and hunger while police and a U.N.-backed mission fight a surge in gang violence, with armed men controlling at least 85% of its capital, Port-au-Prince. 'I have family in Haiti, so it's pretty upsetting to see and hear,' Louis-Juste, 23, said of the travel ban. 'I don't think it's a good thing. I think it's very upsetting.' Many immigration experts say the new ban is designed to beat court challenges by focusing on the visa application process and appears more carefully crafted than a hastily written executive order during Trump's first term that denied entry to citizens of mainly Muslim countries. Trump said this time that some countries had 'deficient' screening for passports and other public documents or have historically refused to take back their own citizens. He relied extensively on an annual Homeland Security report of people who remain in the U.S. after their visas expired. Measuring overstay rates has challenged experts for decades, but the government has made a limited attempt annually since 2016. Trump's proclamation cites overstay rates for eight of the 12 banned countries. Trump also tied the new ban to a terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. U.S. officials say the man charged in the attack overstayed a tourist visa. He is from Egypt, a country that is not on Trump's restricted list. The ban was quickly denounced by groups that provide aid and resettlement help to refugees. 'This policy is not about national security — it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,' said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America, a nonprofit international relief organization. The inclusion of Afghanistan angered some supporters who have worked to resettle its people. The ban does make exceptions for Afghans on Special Immigrant Visas, generally people who worked most closely with the U.S. government during the two-decade-long war there. Afghanistan had been one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Trump suspended refugee resettlement his first day in office.
Yahoo
an hour 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.