Pete Hegseth Responds to Claims That He and Trump Want 'Martial Law'
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has pushed back against critics who say President Donald Trump's administration seeks to impose martial law, following the president's announcement of sweeping federal intervention in Washington, D.C.
Speaking on Fox News' eponymous The Ingraham Angle, with host Laura Ingraham, Hegseth defended the deployment of up to 1,000 National Guard troops and federal takeover of the nation's capital police department as lawful measures to restore order.
Why It Matters
Trump's invocation of emergency powers to federalize D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department represents one of the most aggressive federal interventions in local law enforcement in recent history.
The move sets a precedent that could extend to other cities, with Trump specifically naming Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Baltimore as potential targets for similar federal deployments.
Martial law is a term that references the military seizing control of a civilian area during an emergency.
What To Know
Trump invoked Section 740 of the 1973 D.C. Home Rule Act, allowing federal control for 30 days, with congressional approval required for extensions. The intervention was triggered following the August assault on Edward "Big Balls" Coristine, a 19-year-old former Department of Government Efficiency staffer, in a Logan Circle carjacking attempt.
During the Fox News interview, Ingraham pressed Hegseth on martial law concerns: "The question of martial law keeps getting raised by the left that Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth want to impose martial law, as authoritarians would."
The defense secretary responded by pointing to Los Angeles as an example, noting the deployment of 4,000 California National Guard troops and Marines during immigration protests. "They were the troops available to ensure that we de-escalated the situation and didn't allow other lawbreakers to say, 'Look, it's wide-open. We can do whatever we want in these sanctuary cities,'" he said.
Hegseth directly addressed critics' concerns about targeting political opponents: "I was told, 'Oh, you're going to lock up political opponents. You're going to go after Democrat, yada, yada. It's the same stuff every time. Mischaracterizing our intentions."
He said that Trump's approach involves using "legal and lawful and constitutional means," including federalizing police departments, deploying National Guard units and bringing in federal marshals when local law enforcement proves inadequate.
But the federal takeover in the nation's capital accompanies contradictory crime data. According to the Metropolitan Police Department, violent crime in D.C. has dropped to a 30-year low, with violent offenses falling 35 percent in 2024 and declining another 26 percent this year.
Trump called Monday "liberation day," announcing plans for a broader "beautification" campaign including abolishing homeless encampments, launching street repairs and adding amenities like a White House ballroom.
Ingraham: The left says Trump and Hegseth, they want to impose martial law as authoritarians… to that you say?
Hegseth: To that I say look at Los Angeles… pic.twitter.com/Ev3nhrYmnx — Acyn (@Acyn) August 11, 2025
What People Are Saying
Hegseth also said on The Ingraham Angle Monday: "The intentions of this president is to establish law and order using legal and lawful and constitutional means, which he completely has, and you know why they don't like him? He's got the guts to do it. He's got the guts to say, I'm gonna federalize the police that don't work. I'm gonna bring in the National Guard. I'm gonna bring in federal marshals."
Trump, during a Monday news conference at the White House: "This is liberation day in D.C., and we're going to take our capital back."
Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, in a statement sent to Newsweek on Monday: "This is the latest effort by the president to distract from the issues he should be focused on—including the roller coaster of the U.S. economy thanks to his policies. When it comes to public safety in Baltimore, he should turn off the right-wing propaganda and look at the facts. Baltimore is the safest it's been in over 50 years. Homicides are down 28% this year alone, reaching the lowest level of any year on record. We still have real work to do to build on this progress—but that work starts and ends here in Baltimore, with the local, state, and federal partners who have gotten us this far."
Muriel Bowser, mayor of Washington, D.C., told MSNBC: "It is true that we had a terrible spike in crime in 2023, but this is not 2023—this is 2025. We've achieved that by working with the community, the police, our prosecutors, and, in fact, the federal government."
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, left, accompanied by President Donald Trump, right, and Attorney General Pam Bondi, center, speaks at a news conference in the White House on August 11 in Washington, D.C.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, left, accompanied by President Donald Trump, right, and Attorney General Pam Bondi, center, speaks at a news conference in the White House on August 11 in Washington, D.C.What Happens Next?
The 30-day federal control period will test the administration's approach to urban crime management. Trump's threats to extend similar measures to other Democratic-led cities will likely face legal challenges and political opposition.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
4 minutes ago
- CBS News
California says Trump's L.A. military deployment was illegal and caused "anxiety and fear"; Feds say president had authority
Lawyers for the state of California and the federal government faced off in court Tuesday over President Trump's deployment of thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles. The attorney for the state, Meghan Strong, argued that having what she called a "standing army" in Los Angeles is "unprecedented" and goes against a "deep-rooted policy against military involvement in civilian life." She said that Mr. Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth "think that they can disregard that policy on a whim." Californians "have been forced to endure anxiety and fear caused by the pervasive presence of this standing army," said Strong. Mr. Trump sent in around 700 Marines and 4,000 California National Guard troops to protect federal property and law enforcement agents during a series of protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in early June. The deployment prompted a lawsuit from Gov. Gavin Newsom, who did not approve of the use of his state's Guard forces and called the move an illegal "power grab." At issue in the three-day bench trial pitting Newsom against the Trump administration is whether the troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits military personnel from carrying out domestic law enforcement. Strong alleged that the federal government acted in violation of that 1878 law, saying troops were used to provide armed security for federal agents, set roadblocks and perimeters that restricted civilian movement, and detained civilians. California asked U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer for an injunction that would let the military protect federal property — like courthouses and ICE facilities — but block it from continuing the support for immigration enforcement operations, which the state's lawyer called an "unlawful military crusade." Meanwhile, Eric Hamilton, a lawyer for the Justice Department, argued that the military deployment is legal, with the purpose of protecting federal property and personnel. He said that no violation of the Posse Comitatus Act exists. The federal government's only witness — Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, who was at one point commanding general of the Guard task force in Los Angeles — said he was instructed "that we were not conducting law enforcement operations and that we were there to serve the United States." "We took our duty very seriously, and care and professionalism was always exhibited," he said. Mr. Trump justified the deployment using a law called Title 10, which allows the president to call up Guard forces during a "rebellion," or if he is unable "with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." In an early June memo, Mr. Trump said the protests in Los Angeles "constitute a form of rebellion" and endangered federal agents. Breyer had previously ruled that Mr. Trump used Title 10 unlawfully, but he was overruled by an appellate court that said Mr. Trump had discretion to decide if that law applied. Since then, most of the troops have left Los Angeles, with roughly 300 Guard forces remaining. But the issue has drawn more attention in recent days, as the Trump administration deploys National Guard forces to Washington, D.C. The administration says that deployment is necessary to support law enforcement and crack down on violent crime, but local leaders have condemned the federal government's intervention. Strong cautioned that "Los Angeles is only the beginning," citing recent comments from Mr. Trump that she said indicated he may deploy the National Guard to other cities, including Oakland and New York. A "constitutional exception?" Parts of Tuesday's testimony hinged on an alleged "constitutional exception" to the Posse Comitatus Act. At one point, Sherman referred to a "constitutional exception." He testified that he was advised federal troops were allowed to do "four things" that would normally be barred under the law — security patrols, traffic control, crowd control and riot control — "because it was in line with what the President was directing" and "what the Secretary of Defense was directing." But Judge Breyer was unaware of such an exception and pressed Sherman on the issue. "I'm not a lawyer," said Sherman. "That may be to your credit," responded Breyer. Breyer later asked if Sherman ever received legal advice that if the Guard task force engaged in certain activities, it would violate the Posse Comitatus Act. Sherman testified that he was told, since Mr. Trump's memo said the Los Angeles protests were a form of rebellion that prevented federal agents from doing their jobs, that triggered the constitutional exception. "This is all the way from the top of DOD down to Task Force 51," he said. California's attorney, Strong, disputed this "mysterious constitutional exception," arguing that neither the president nor the secretary of defense "can create an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act." "That means all the directives we've seen the past two days are wrong and what they told soldiers to do was illegal," she said. "Those directives are based on a constitutional exception that doesn't exist." One exception to the Posse Comitatus Act is the Insurrection Act, which lets the president use the military to enforce the law during an insurrection. Mr. Trump has not invoked that law. "If he calls something a rebellion, it is a rebellion?" Mr. Trump's description of the Los Angeles protests as a "rebellion" was raised again in court on Tuesday, after Sherman testified Monday that he didn't hear the term used to describe the demonstrations. Sherman clarified on Tuesday that he knew Mr. Trump's memo called the protests a rebellion. The judge later pushed back against the idea that Mr. Trump has the discretion to decide if a "rebellion" is occurring. "If he calls something a rebellion, it is a rebellion?" Breyer asked, repeatedly. The federal government's attorney, Hamilton, said that the president is commander in chief, and he's entitled to deference in that judgment. But when asked by the judge multiple times, he acknowledged that it doesn't make it a rebellion. Breyer further questioned Mr. Trump's ability to dictate what the law allows, when Hamilton argued that there was no violation of the Posse Comitatus Act because the military was serving a protective function in Los Angeles. "Are you saying that because the president says it, therefore it is?" said Breyer. "If the president says you can do X," he continued, "because the president has said it, that's sufficient to take it out of the Posse Comitatus Act?" The trial will conclude on Wednesday.
Bloomberg
4 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Call With European Leaders: What's at Stake
00:00 Trump and Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, both framing this summit as a feel out meeting. Do we expect therfore anything concrete to come out of it? Yeah. Good morning, Lizzie. I mean, I think it's too early to say in the sense that if both of them have come out with a very similar line, they clearly trying to sort of manage expectations that there's going to be some almighty breakthrough of these talks in Alaska. Having said that, you know, they are going into a summit with a very, very experienced negotiator in the form of Putin, who has made some very clear demands about what he wants before he's prepared to come to any sort of discussion about a cease fire and then some longer term peace. And I think Trump has indicated that a land swap of some sort is possible. So really what we'll be looking for on Friday is the sort of the contours of what that might look like. But again, Trump and again, Rubio have made it clear that they may go into that summit and nothing comes out of it whatsoever. Well, so as we wait for that, the next catalyst could be this meeting between EU leaders and Zelensky talking to Trump and his VP JD Vance today. What do we expect them to say? And is there any chance that actually that could influence the Alaska talks on Friday? Yeah, I mean, I think it is possible there may be an influence there. I mean, in terms of the position, I think the EU in particular with strong support, would of course, from Ukraine have said that, you know, there mustn't be a forced redrawing of borders. In other words, the EU position largely seems to be a ceasefire now along existing lines and then you get some sort of negotiations for a longer term peace. However, that is somewhat at odds with the kind of the rhetoric that we've been getting out of the US side. So again, are they going to be able to influence some, you know, really hard to say, but they're certainly going to give it a try. And I think, again, Ukraine has been very firm on this that they're not prepared to basically retreat from basically what accounts for three and a half thousand square miles of territory that Russia has been unable to capture militarily for the better part of a decade.
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oregon tourism suffers as Canadians boycott US over Trump
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — Canadians are skipping Oregon as a vacation destination this year in light of recent actions made by President Trump. The Oregon Tourism Commission, , recently shared some of the messages they received in response to a handwritten post card campaign meant to engage Canadian visitors. 'We will miss our visit and spending money in your lovely state,' said one person in an email. 'As a Canadian, it's my duty to say 'Sorry', but I'm not sure I mean it.' They said that the words and actions of the president have left them no choice but to boycott U.S. goods and services, in addition to cancelling their travel plans to Oregon. 'Due to your President's ongoing threats of tariffs and even threatening to make our country the '51st state' – a literal threat of annexation – my friends and I have decided to cancel our hotel reservations and move our vacation destination to within Canada instead,' another person said in an email. 'Our original plans to the Oregon coast would have seen our 6 families spend around a week on the beautiful Oregon coast likely spending well over $20,000 in direct investment in your economy. Instead, we will spend that money at home in Canada,' the email said. Another person said they had cancelled the trip they were planning to Washington and Oregon later this year. 'The reason is, you see, your president is waging an unprecedented economic attack on my country, Canada. Canada is the United States' largest customer, we've integrated our economies, and shed blood with each other in global conflicts as allies,' they said. 'And now, our country is under siege by your president. Canadians are angry, and they're acting. They are rapidly shifting to non-U.S. products, and canceling trips to America.' Overall visits to the U.S. from Canada have declined 23.7% since the beginning of the year, according to a July 2025 Oxford Economics Tourism Economics report. International visits to the U.S. have declined across the board, but fallout from Canada has been the steepest. Cities located close to the U.S.-Canadian border are the hardest hit. The steepest year-over-year declines are expected in Seattle, Portland and Detroit, according to the report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
