logo
Trump seizes on Los Angeles protests in contentious use of military amid migrant crackdown

Trump seizes on Los Angeles protests in contentious use of military amid migrant crackdown

Yahoo5 hours ago

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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Reporter Gets Hit By Rubber Bullet At L.A. Protest, Sparking Shock Allegation
Reporter Gets Hit By Rubber Bullet At L.A. Protest, Sparking Shock Allegation

Yahoo

time8 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Reporter Gets Hit By Rubber Bullet At L.A. Protest, Sparking Shock Allegation

A journalist covering the protests in Los Angeles was blasted by a rubber bullet during her report, prompting allegations that she was purposely targeted by an LAPD officer. (Watch the video below.) As demonstrations against the Trump administration's ICE raids and deployment of the National Guard intensified, 9 News Australia reporter Lauren Tomasi said, 'This situation has now rapidly deteriorated. The LAPD moving in on horseback firing rubber bullets at protesters, moving them on through the heart of L.A.' She is then hit by an apparent rubber bullet in the leg, screaming 'whaa!' as he jumps in pain. Video showed an officer taking aim in her direction, and Australian politicians alleged the attack was deliberate. 'The first thing he [Prime Minister Anthony Albanese] must tell [President Donald Trump] is to stop shooting at our journalists,' Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said, per the Guardian. 'Freedom of the press is a fundamental pillar of a strong, functioning democracy.' Senator Matt Canavan told the outlet 'it looks like there was a targeting there' but didn't want to jump to conclusions. U.S. Correspondent Lauren Tomasi has been caught in the crossfire as the LAPD fired rubber bullets at protesters in the heart of Los Angeles. #9NewsLATEST: — 9News Australia (@9NewsAUS) June 9, 2025 Reporting that Tomasi was indeed struck by a rubber bullet, News 9 said in a statement to the Daily Beast: 'Lauren and her camera operator are safe and will continue their essential work covering these events. This incident serves as a stark reminder of the inherent dangers journalists can face while reporting from the frontlines of protests, underscoring the importance of their role in providing vital information.' The LAPD told the Daily Beast it was not aware of the incident. The BBC reported that British photographer Nick Stern sustained a leg wound from a rubber bullet amid the protests. He required emergency surgery to remove the projectile. Protests Intensify In Los Angeles After Trump Deploys Hundreds Of National Guard Troops Republicans Offer Cowardly Lack Of Pushback To Hegseth Suggesting Marines Could Quell Protests National Guard Troops Ordered To Los Angeles By Trump Find Quiet Streets And Few Protests

Popular Stephen Starr restaurants boycotted by Democrats
Popular Stephen Starr restaurants boycotted by Democrats

Axios

time10 minutes ago

  • Axios

Popular Stephen Starr restaurants boycotted by Democrats

Top Democrats in the House and Senate are boycotting hot Washington, D.C. restaurants that include those owned by famed Philadelphia restaurateur Stephen Starr over labor disputes. Why it matters: The targeted restaurants in Starr's empire include some of the buzziest spots for Democratic fundraisers. Driving the news: More than 50 House and Senate Democrats have signed onto Unite Here Local 25's pledge to avoid six D.C. venues. Zoom in: Starr, who is a Democratic donor, is facing boycotts of his Le Diplomate, Osteria Mozza and The Occidental. The other three boycotted restaurants are founded by chef Ashok Bajaj of Knightsbridge Restaurant Group. The list: Among the signers are some of Democrats' top fundraisers and biggest names, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) are also on the list. Meanwhile, Philly Reps. Brendan Boyle, Dwight Evans and Mary Gay Scanlon signed the boycott list, per Unite Here's website. U.S. Sen. John Fetterman and Philly-regional Rep. Madeleine Dean were not on the pledge list as of Friday. Between the lines: Political groups and candidates have spent thousands of dollars at those spots over the past year, federal campaign records show. Former President Obama and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos made headlines when they dined at Osteria Mozza in January. Then-President Biden was a repeat customer at Le Diplomate during his presidency. What they're saying: Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told Axios: "We can have big policy debates, but we also have to show the American people some concrete examples." He added: "This is our opportunity when we're here in Washington, D.C. to not just go vote in the Capitol but actually go out in the community and make a difference." "We can say that all members on the list are personally boycotting," Benjy Cannon, a spokesperson for the union, told Axios in a message. "Many of them have been meeting personally with STARR and Knightsbridge workers all year." The other side:"Local 25's call for a boycott is baseless," Starr restaurants said in a statement. "A boycott of any kind can result in lost hours, wages, and tips that hardworking employees rely upon." "It is unfortunate that an organization that claims to want to represent employees would call for an action that would harm them." "We respect our employees' wishes," Bajaj said. "How many of these congress members even know themselves that they're signing?" Zoom out: Starr's restaurant group has accused Unite Here Local 25 of overly aggressive tactics. That includes union reps showing up with petitions outside employees' homes, leading one bartender to sign it even though she planned to vote against a union, as Eater reported in February. Francisco López, a Le Diplomate server of five years, told Axios some employees are holding counter protests to the union.

Tariffs on canola seen supercharging Canadian farmers' shift to spring wheat
Tariffs on canola seen supercharging Canadian farmers' shift to spring wheat

Yahoo

time10 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Tariffs on canola seen supercharging Canadian farmers' shift to spring wheat

By Ed White WINNIPEG, Canada (Reuters) -In the U.S. Great Plains, where spring wheat once dominated fields, farmers are turning away from the crop. But across the border in Canada, the pinch and prospect of Chinese and U.S. tariffs on canola have prompted farmers to pick up the slack on wheat. Farmers are still putting their crops in the ground, so it is not yet possible to know the extent of the acreage shift into wheat. However, early signs, based on interviews with more than 20 Canadian and U.S. farmers, agricultural analysts, traders and industry organizations, show that the grain primarily used to bake bread is proving to be a big winner in this year's global trade war. China's 100% tariffs on Canadian canola meal and oil and its threat to impose duties on canola seed, amid President Donald Trump's broader global trade war, have rattled Canadian farmers, who since 1990 had nearly quadrupled their canola acres before paring back in recent years because of growing problems with drought, high production costs and crop diseases. Now, tariffs are expected to accelerate the likelihood that thousands of farmers could further cut back, adding up to hundreds of thousands or even millions of acres less canola, and more wheat, farmers and analysts estimated. "There is going to be a massive switch," said Jerry Klassen, a Manitoba farmer and market analyst with Resilient Capital. He has switched hundreds of acres on his own farm from canola to spring wheat this year and thinks like-minded farmers will do the same. Reuters' reporting on fallout from tariffs in grain markets illustrates how global trade turmoil is causing the neighboring countries to diverge on spring wheat production. Canada's rebounding supply of wheat has kept prices down for millers who fuel global bread demand as well as consumers. The shift to Canadian fields has also offset some worry about the long-term decline in U.S. production area. Politicians in Canada are funding and supporting the shift toward greater wheat production as a way to shield the thinly-populated agricultural export powerhouse of Western Canada from foreign pressure. And farmers have their own motivation: improved wheat varieties have boosted the grain's profitability. Adam Dyck of U.K. breadmaker Warburtons in Winnipeg said some Canadian farmers had tripled their production to 90 to 100 bushels per acre since the 1990s. The shift toward wheat reflects canola's vulnerability to tariffs. Most of the C$14.5 billion ($10.59 billion) 2024 Canadian canola exports go to the U.S. and China, with the U.S. biofuels market consuming most of Canada's canola oil while China buys most of Canada's seed exports to crush for edible oil and animal feed, while wheat is sold to dozens of countries around the world. Some Canadian farmers are expecting that in a prolonged trade war, globally-diverse wheat is a safer bet than U.S. and China-dependent canola. In 2024 Canada shipped two-thirds of its total canola seed exports to China, and 95% of total canola oil exports of 3.5 million tons to the U.S. But Canada's wheat exports were "highly diversified," the U.S. Department of Agriculture noted. The world's wheat and canola markets will be guessing for weeks about Canadian farmers' final decisions on what to seed. Statistics Canada's next report is scheduled for June 27, and the numbers for that report are being collected before farmers have finished planting. 'POVERTY GRASS' Scott Huso, a farmer in Aneta, North Dakota, said that across the northern Great Plains, stretching from Minnesota to the Montana Rockies, farmers have been planting less wheat in favor of crops like corn and soybeans, which are generally more profitable. University of Minnesota data found that last year, farmers in central Minnesota earned hundreds of dollars in operating profit per acre with corn and soybeans, but lost money on spring wheat in 2024. "Wheat, you're not making money on it," Huso said. U.S. total hard red spring wheat production hasn't changed much since the mid-1990s because of substantial improvements in the amount grown per acre. However, total acres are in long-term decline, dropping from 15-20 million acres in the mid-1990s to 13-15 million in the mid-2000s to 10-13 million in the mid-2010s. The U.S. Department of Agriculture said on March 31 that it expects hard red spring wheat acreage in 2025 to drop to 9.4 million acres -- the lowest since 1970. Yet spring wheat is in great demand from the world's millers and bakers. Its high protein content allows it to be used as the base for top-quality bread flour, or as something to blend with lower-quality, cheaper wheats. The U.S. and Canadian plains are the most reliable major source of the world's high-quality spring wheat. Yet that doesn't always lead to the kind of premium prices U.S. farmers might need to justify growing the crop, with steady Canadian supplies and those from overseas competitors like Russia keeping millers comfortable enough to avoid bidding wars, a frustration for many U.S. farmers like Huso. "You just can't convince guys to love wheat these days," said Huso, a member of the North Dakota Wheat Commission. Committed wheat growers like him and organizations like the commission and export-focused U.S. Wheat Associates are trying to convince buyers to pay higher prices and breeders to produce better wheat crop varieties to help wheat compete for U.S. farmers' fields. It's been an uphill struggle. In Canada, the mood is different. Rather than getting knocked out of the crop roster, more farmers are warming to wheat. In May, farmer Korey Peters finished seeding 1,700 acres of spring wheat on his farm near Winnipeg. With new varieties providing more crop per acre, and canola costly and hard to grow profitably in his area, he said he's been putting more and more of his land into wheat and corn. "I know some people call it 'poverty grass,' but it works for us," Peters said. ($1 = 1.3691 Canadian dollars) 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

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