logo
Trump administration deploys Marines to Los Angeles, vows to intensify migrant raids

Trump administration deploys Marines to Los Angeles, vows to intensify migrant raids

Business Recorder20 hours ago

LOS ANGELES/WASHINGTON: The Trump administration on Monday ordered US Marines into Los Angeles and intensified raids on suspected undocumented immigrants, fueling more outrage from street protesters and Democratic leaders who raised concerns over a national crisis.
Some 700 Marines based in Southern California were expected to reach Los Angeles Monday night or Tuesday morning, officials said, as part of a federal strategy to quell street demonstrations opposing the immigration raids, which are a part of a signature effort of President Donald Trump's second term.
Although their mission to protect federal personnel and property is temporary - filling the gaps until a full contingent of 4,000 National Guard troops can reach Los Angeles - the deployment is an extraordinary use of military force in support of a police operation, and it comes over the objection of state and local leaders who did not request help.
Meanwhile, US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem pledged to carry out even more operations to round up suspected immigration violators, extending a crackdown that provoked the protests.
Trump officials have branded the protests as lawless and blamed state and local Democrats for permitting upheaval and protecting undocumented immigrants with sanctuary cities.
The military and federal enforcement operations have further polarized America's two major political parties as Trump, a Republican, threatened to arrest California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, for resisting the federal crackdown.
California sued the Trump administration to block deployment of the National Guard and the Marines on Monday, arguing that it violates federal law and state sovereignty.
The top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Jack Reed, said he was 'gravely troubled' by Trump's deployment of active-duty Marines.
'The president is forcibly overriding the authority of the governor and mayor and using the military as a political weapon. This unprecedented move threatens to turn a tense situation into a national crisis,' Reed said.
'Since our nation's founding, the American people have been perfectly clear: we do not want the military conducting law enforcement on US soil,' he said.
The announcement that Marines would be deployed was made on the fourth straight day of protests.
Late on Monday police began to disperse hundreds of demonstrators who gathered outside a federal detention center in downtown Los Angeles where immigrants have been held. Police said arrests were being made.
National Guard forces had formed a human barricade to keep people out of the building.
LA protests simmer as Trump and state officials clash
Then a phalanx of police moved up the street, pushing people from the scene and firing 'less lethal' munitions such as gas canisters. Police had used similar tactics since Friday.
Rare use of military
US Marines are known as the first American forces to establish and beachhead in US military interventions, and as the last forces to leave any occupation.
Though military forces have been deployed domestically for major disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and the attacks of September 11, 2001, it is extremely rare for troops to be used domestically during civil disturbances.
Even without invoking the Insurrection Act, Trump can deploy Marines under certain conditions of law or under his authority as commander in chief.
The last time the military was used for direct police action under the Insurrection Act was in 1992, when the California governor at the time asked President George H.W. Bush to help respond to Los Angeles riots over the acquittal of police officers who beat Black motorist Rodney King.
Newsom contends it is his charge as governor to call in the National Guard, labeling Trump's' action as 'an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.'
Trump in turn said he supported a suggestion by his border czar Tom Homan that Newsom should be arrested over possible obstruction of his administration's immigration enforcement measures. 'I would do it if I were Tom. I think it's great,' Trump told reporters.
Four days of protests
The protests so far have resulted in a few dozen arrests and some property damage.
'What is happening effects every American, everyone who wants to live free, regardless of how long their family has lived here,' said Marzita Cerrato, 42, a first-generation immigrant whose parents are from Mexico and Honduras.
Protests also sprang up in at least nine other US cities on Monday, including New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco, according to local news outlets.
In Austin, Texas, police fired nonlethal munitions and detained several people as they clashed with a crowd of several hundred protesters.
Before the Los Angeles dispersal, several hundred protesters outside a detention center chanted 'free them all,' flew Mexican and Central American flags, and directed sometimes-vulgar insults toward federal officers.
At dusk, officers had running confrontations with protesters who had scattered into the Little Tokyo section of the city.
As people watched from apartment patios above street level, and as tourists huddled inside hotels, a large contingent of LAPD and officers and sheriffs deputies fired several flash bangs that boomed through side streets along with tear gas.
Trump deploys National Guard as Los Angeles protests against immigration agents continue
Homeland Security said its Immigration and Customs Enforcement division had arrested 2,000 immigration offenders per day in recent days, far above the 311 daily average in fiscal year 2024 under former President Joe Biden.
'We conducted more operations today than we did the day before and tomorrow we are going to double those efforts again,' Noem told Fox News' 'Hannity.'
'The more that they protest and commit acts of violence against law enforcement officers, the harder ICE is going to come after them.' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass opposed the clampdown, telling MSNBC, 'This is a city of immigrants.'
Noem countered that, 'They are not a city of immigrants. They're a city of criminals.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

China's angry rebuttal to Trump's tariff Tsunami
China's angry rebuttal to Trump's tariff Tsunami

Business Recorder

timean hour ago

  • Business Recorder

China's angry rebuttal to Trump's tariff Tsunami

My reading of China has always been of a country that is sagacious, forgiving and accommodating—an entity flowing naturally through history, shaped by the burden and blessing of over 5,000 years of civilizational legacy. China has long carried the unique distinction of never being an occupying force in the historical sense, never driven by the imperial ambition to rule the world. Despite holding immense power at different junctures in history, China refrained from conquest. Its Great Wall was built not as a launchpad for outward domination, but as a safeguard for inward integration. This tradition of strategic restraint and internal focus has morphed into the philosophical foundation of President Xi Jinping's economic and diplomatic agenda in the 21st century. China's foreign policy, even amid rising global tensions, has maintained its emphasis on win-win cooperation, mutual growth, and infrastructural diplomacy. It does not promote regime change, nor does it meddle in the internal politics of other nations. China's strength lies in its ability to uplift weaker economies through massive infrastructure projects, energy support, port development, and institutional capacity-building. These efforts are not intended to dominate but to elevate. That is the spirit of China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), offering struggling nations an alternative model of growth without conditionalities that mirror neo-colonialism. In contrast, the Trump administration's aggressive 'America First' policy has been marked by an unrelenting tariff war, often in violation of international norms, bilateral treaties, and the principles of the World Trade Organization (WTO). These tariffs were not just protectionist; they were unilateral assaults on the interconnected architecture of the global economy. By weaponizing tariffs, Trump sought to coerce trading partners and reconfigure supply chains through brute economic power. However, in doing so, the administration not only antagonized allies and adversaries alike but also disrupted global trade balances, supply chains, and investor confidence. The global economy is an ecosystem. If one part of it is harmed, the ripple effects are felt across continents. In this context, the Trump tariffs didn't just target China—they undermined the very structure of global trade and collaboration. The United States, which once championed free trade, suddenly became its greatest disruptor. This led to global uncertainty, inflation in various sectors, and rising consumer prices within the United States itself. In response to this unprecedented tariff regime, China issued its strongest economic and diplomatic rebuttal to date. Breaking from its traditional quiet diplomacy, Beijing made it unequivocally clear that it would not succumb to unilateral economic bullying. For the first time, Chinese officials accused the United States of distorting international trade norms and harming global economic recovery. China argued that the United States had, in fact, been the largest beneficiary of globalization. With a massive 25% share in world trade, the US economic dominance was built on the very trade practices it was now dismantling. China emphasized that it did not initiate the trade war but would not hesitate to defend its interests. It pledged to open up its economy further, reduce tariffs, and increase imports—not out of compulsion, but to demonstrate its commitment to global cooperation. This stands in sharp contrast to the inward-looking, protectionist tendencies of the Trump administration. China's response was calm but resolute. It promised to uphold the principles of extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits. It reaffirmed its belief in genuine multilateralism, rejecting all forms of unilateralism and economic coercion. China stood firmly in support of the international system with the United Nations at its core and the multilateral trading system with the WTO at its foundation. China's declaration also emphasized that the vast majority of nations still believed in fairness, justice, and the rule of international law. These countries, it argued, would eventually stand on the right side of history—not because of allegiance to any one superpower, but because equity must triumph over hegemony. Trump, meanwhile, sought to justify the economic fallout from his tariff blitzkrieg by promising future investments totaling $7 trillion. However, even he admitted that the US stock market had lost nearly $6 trillion in value within days. While the theoretical future investment may or may not materialize over four to five years, the immediate damage was undeniable. The American consumer bore the brunt of the tariffs, with increased prices on everything from electronics to household goods. What Trump failed to recognize—or perhaps chose to ignore—is that tariffs on imports function as a hidden tax on American citizens. When tariffs are levied on goods from China or any other country, US importers pass those costs onto retailers, who in turn pass them onto consumers. So, while the US Treasury may gain in the short term from tariff revenues, it is ultimately the American people who pay the price. This disconnect between political rhetoric and economic reality triggered public backlash. Demonstrations erupted across the United States, not just from ideological opponents of Trump but from ordinary citizens suffering from inflation and job insecurity. The symbols associated with Trump's protectionist agenda—banners, flags, and campaign props—became the targets of public outrage, a visible expression of disillusionment with failed promises and mounting hardship. The damage was not just economic; it was reputational. America's standing as a leader of the free world, a promoter of open markets and democratic values, was called into question. The aggressive imposition of tariffs on allies and adversaries alike sent a message that America was retreating from the world stage, abandoning its commitments, and undermining its credibility. What is the via media in this escalating trade conflict? The answer lies in dialogue, cooperation, and mutual respect. Instead of unilaterally imposing tariffs, the United States must return to the table and engage its partners through negotiation, evidence-based studies, and inclusive policy-making. Any trade policy that causes disproportionate harm to a segment of the global population—be it American or foreign—is inherently flawed. Tariffs should be the last resort, not the first weapon of choice. They must be evaluated based on who truly benefits and who bears the cost. If the people of both nations stand to gain, then policy adjustments may be justified. But if tariffs disproportionately hurt consumers, strain diplomatic ties, and fracture global supply chains, then they are not only counterproductive but dangerous. The world today demands cooperation over confrontation. It requires strategic empathy rather than economic nationalism. China's model of infrastructure-led diplomacy and economic integration may not be perfect, but it offers an alternative vision to brute-force protectionism. A world driven by consultation and shared prosperity is far more stable than one governed by unilateral decrees and economic coercion. The battle between tariff wars and trade cooperation is not just a contest of policies—it is a contest of visions. The world must choose between retreating into silos or building bridges across continents. In this defining moment, China's calm and strategic response to Trump's aggressive tariffs may well mark a turning point in the global order. It is a call for equity—not hegemony. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

US role key to regional peace: CM
US role key to regional peace: CM

Express Tribune

time3 hours ago

  • Express Tribune

US role key to regional peace: CM

Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz Sharif has appreciated the constructive and positive role of the United States amid the Pakistan-India strained relations recently. During a meeting with US Chargé d'Affaires Natalie A Baker and Consul General Kristin K Hawkins, she highlighted the active and positive role of the United States and deemed it highly important for attaining sustainable peace in the South Asian region. Pakistan-US relations are a valuable partnership based on shared values and strategic interests, she said. The chief minister reaffirmed her keenness to strengthen the cordial relations between Punjab and California. She expressed solidarity with the people of California on being a sister state and described her meeting with the US Congressional Pakistan Caucus as positive and constructive. She highlighted, "Pakistan is emerging as a strategic partner for the United States in various sectors, including textile. Punjab is the largest and most economically vibrant province in the country and welcomes US investment and cooperation in multiple sectors. The Pakistani-American community play the role of a strong bridge in further strengthening cordial relations between the two countries." She outlined, "We deem the United States as an important global ally on confronting formidable challenges such as climate change, food security and sustainable development. The Punjab government is keen to further expand its strategic partnership with the United States." Matters pertaining to strengthening the long-standing Pakistan-US relations and enhancing cooperation in areas of mutual interest were discussed in the meeting. The chief minister thanked Natalie A Baker for supporting Lahore Qalandars in the PSL tournament. Meanwhile, Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz stated in her message on the International Day for Dialogue among Civilizations, "The everlasting solution to the ongoing atrocities in Palestine and Occupied Kashmir is only possible by initiating meaningful dialogue. The international community has to decide and ascertain whether we will continue to lift the dead bodies of innocent children or choose the path of peace through dialogue." She said dialogue among civilizations is the path needed to attain peace, progress and safeguard the humanity. Adopting a culture of respect and tolerance is an effective response to war and hatred. The chief minister said, "Pakistan is a peaceful country, which has always advocated dialogue, tolerance and mutual respect among the comity of nations. We all have to comprehend the spirit of dialogue and abandon the attitude of considering differences, which triggers undue hostility among the nations."

Jaishankar's ‘terroristan' remark overlooks India's own role in regional instability, aggression
Jaishankar's ‘terroristan' remark overlooks India's own role in regional instability, aggression

Express Tribune

time4 hours ago

  • Express Tribune

Jaishankar's ‘terroristan' remark overlooks India's own role in regional instability, aggression

Listen to article Amid a long history of rouge acts of aggression, terrorism and preemptive assaults on Pakistan. Now India's Minister of External Affairs S Jaishankar committed another verbal attack on Pakistan as calling it 'terroristan'. Speaking at a joint press conference in New Delhi on Tuesday alongside European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, Jaishankar said, 'I'd like you to understand this is not a conflict between two states per se,' Jaishankar said. 'This is actually a response to the threat and the practice of terrorism. So, I would urge you to make it. Don't think of it as India or Pakistan; think of it as India–Terroristan. You will then appreciate it,' he added. The remarks are among the strongest in recent months by a senior Indian official and come amid heightened diplomatic tensions. However, India has a long history of intervention, igniting armed conflict and even producing a shadow army during 1971 war. India's current Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has openly acknowledged the country's policy of targeting peoples beyond its borders, reinforcing long-suspected claims of cross-border operations. In a TV interview, Singh stated, 'If any terrorist tries to disturb India… and escapes to Pakistan, we will go there to kill him,' describing the strategy as approved by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The statement comes in the wake of a recent Guardian report about India's involvement in up to 20 extrajudicial killings in Pakistan since 2020. While India's Ministry of External Affairs has dismissed the report as 'false and malicious propaganda,' Singh's remarks appear to contradict that denial, casting new light on India's covert terror doctrine. On the other hand, The Indian agency RAW, was finally drawn out of shadows last year when it assassinated pro-Khalistan activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar on Canadian soil. Delhi was in denial – but not for long. The US ambassador in Ottawa was quick to confirm there was shared intelligence among the 'Five Eyes' partners that helped Canada unravel Nijjar's murder mystery. This was followed by another explosive revelation. The FBI thwarted an Indian plot to assassinate another pro-freedom Sikh leader on American soil. It was learnt that the US informed some allies about the plot following Nijjar's murder. Both former prime minister Justin Trudeau and Ex-president Joe Biden took up the blatant violation of sovereignty by Indian agents with Delhi at the top level. Hate speech, minorities and Islamophobia In March 2024, more than 20 UN experts signed a joint statement urging India to "end attacks against minorities" in the run-up to national elections. Since Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi took office in 2014, India has seen numerous outbreaks of violence between majority Hindus and its 200-million-strong Muslim minority. Instances of hate speech against minorities in India such as Muslims increased 74% in 2024, a Washington-based research group said reported in 2025, with incidents ballooning around last year's national elections. In 2022, a study by the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) found that Twitter users in India are responsible for 55.12% of anti-Muslim content on the platform. The report highlights a strong link between surges in online Islamophobia and major global events involving Muslims, such as protests, terror attacks, and regional conflicts. Pakistan's irrefutable evidence During a press conference last month in Rawalpindi, Director General ISPR Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry revealed that Indian army officers are sponsoring terror operations in Pakistan, supplying explosives, IEDs, and funds to militants targeting civilians and security forces. 'This irrefutable evidence is just one small part of India's state-sponsored terrorism,' Chaudhry said. Citing the arrest of a Pakistani suspect on April 25 near the Jhelum bus stand, DG ISPR informed the individual was trained and funded by Indian handlers. Authorities recovered an IED, Indian-origin drone, and large sums of cash. 'Forensic analysis of the retrieved materials confirmed irrefutable evidence, verifiable by any credible independent agency,' he added. Chaudhry named several Indian army personnel — including Major Sandeep Verma and Subedar Sukhwinder — as handlers, claiming they provided instructions for assembling and planting explosives, including a deadly attack in Jalalpur Jattan that killed four Pakistani soldiers. He also called out Indian media for spreading 'blatant propaganda' following incidents involving explosives and dismissed allegations against Pakistan over the recent Pahalgam attack in Indian-administered Kashmir. 'Seven days have passed since the Pahalgam incident, and so far, India has not presented any evidence for its baseless allegations,' he said. Kulbhushan Jadhav case On March 3, 2016, Pakistani intelligence agencies achieved a monumental success by arresting Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav, marking a significant milestone in the fight against terrorism and exposing India's involvement in state-sponsored terrorism. Following his arrest, Pakistani intelligence agencies uncovered Jadhav's extensive terrorist network, which was responsible for targeting innocent Pakistani lives. During interrogation, Jadhav confessed to carrying out operations in Pakistan under the direct orders of the Indian government and RAW. In conclusion, Jaishankar's recent remark, labelling Pakistan as 'terroristan,' exposes a glaring irony, given India's own extensive history of covert operations, cross-border violence, and state-sponsored terrorism. While India continues to deflect accusations and blame Pakistan, the undeniable evidence of Indian involvement in extrajudicial killings, support for militant activities, and assassination plots against its own citizens abroad paints a starkly different picture. The remarks by Indian officials only serve to highlight the hypocrisy at play, with India's foreign policy and actions contradicting its rhetoric. As the global community becomes increasingly aware of these covert operations, India's attempts to project itself as the moral high ground in the region ring hollow.

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