LA riots, years of protests lead Republicans to seek federally criminalizing blocking traffic
In the wake of anti-ICE protesters and rioters trapping drivers in Los Angeles and other cities in recent days, Republican lawmakers want to make blocking streets a federal crime.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., will seek this week to make it a federal crime to obstruct or create intentional traffic. The "Safe and Open Streets Act" is a direct response to the "radical tactics of anti-ICE protesters who have intentionally blocked roads and highways across the country," Tillis said.
Lawbreakers could face fines or up to five years in prison.
Video from Los Angeles showed rioters blocking expressways and city streets alike, at times violently attacking or confronting local and federal officers. Under California law, it is a misdemeanor to "willfully and maliciously obstruct the free movement of any person on any street, sidewalk, or other public place" – an ordinance rarely enforced during recent protests.
Tillis' own state has not been immune to such blockages, as protesters shut down a busy portion of NC-147; Durham, North Carolina's freeway, during rush hour in November 2023. Those protesters were seeking to "Free Palestine" and objecting to the Western response to the Oct. 7 massacre by Hamas of Israeli and American citizens.
Immigration-related protests also cropped up recently on a main thoroughfare in Greensboro.
"The emerging tactic of radical protesters blocking roads and stopping commerce is not only obnoxious to innocent commuters, but it's also dangerous and will eventually get people killed. It needs to be a crime throughout the country," Tillis told Fox News Digital.
Tillis added that the "radical" anti-immigration enforcement protesters must face the "full weight of the law" if they endanger public safety.
Sen. Ted Budd, Tillis' Tarheel State counterpart, will be joining the effort, saying in a statement that emergency personnel being held up by such blockages put the public in further danger.
"The First Amendment protects the right to assemble and protest peacefully, but it does not permit such behavior," Budd said.
In another recent incident, pro-Palestinian protesters blocked the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike in Virginia – where Interstates 64 and 95 converge and carve through the city.
In that incident, protesters threw ladders and laid chicken wire across the Rocky Mount-bound lanes of the highway to grind rush hour to a halt at the city's downtown "Boulevard" exit.
"Blocking major roads to stop traffic flows is nothing short of lawlessness that should not be tolerated," said Sen. Marsha Blackburn of neighboring Tennessee.
"These activists are not only intentionally creating a dangerous situation for themselves, but perhaps for a citizen who is awaiting an ambulance or a hard worker who will lose their job for being late," she said in announcing her co-sponsorship of Tillis' legislation; calling out "Hamas sympathizers" such as those in Richmond and Durham.
Focusing again on Los Angeles, co-sponsor Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., said that he watched the riots for "nearly a week" as California officials "did nothing" until President Donald Trump stepped in.
"[D]omestic terrorists assaulted ICE and law enforcement officers, set fire to cop cars and blocked the streets, all while Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass sat on their tails and did nothing," the former Auburn coach said.
"This is a prime example of what happens when lawlessness goes unpunished."
In New Orleans, where protests such as the anti-Trump "No Kings Day" event last week have been massive but more orderly, Sen. Bill Cassidy added that he supports Tillis' bill because people have the right to have their voices heard but not to "undermine people's livelihoods."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News24
13 minutes ago
- News24
B-2s and bunker busters: Massive US bombs used in combat for first time in Iran strikes
A powerful US bunker-busting bomb was used in combat for the first time when Washington struck Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend. Israel had carried out a week of air strikes on Iran, but does not possess the GBU-57 – a 13,600kg weapon viewed as necessary to reach the most deeply buried facilities – or the aircraft needed to deploy it. AFP Details of US plan to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. General Dan Caine, the top US military officer, told journalists on Sunday that Washington's forces dropped 14 of the bombs in the massive operation aimed at knocking out Tehran's nuclear programme. What are its capabilities? The US military says the GBU-57 – also named Massive Ordnance Penetrator – is designed to penetrate up to 60 metres underground before exploding. This differs from missiles or bombs that typically detonate their payload near or on impact. Murat Usubali/Anadolu via Getty Images 'To defeat these deeply buried targets, these weapons need to be designed with rather thick casings of steel, hardened steel, to sort of punch through these layers of rock,' said Masao Dahlgren, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington-based research centre. The 6.6-metre-long GBU-57 also has a specialised fuse as 'you need an explosive that's not going to immediately explode under that much shock and pressure,' Dahlgren said. Caine said on Sunday it was too early to comment on what remains of Iran's nuclear programme, but that 'initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction'. How is it deployed? The only aircraft capable of deploying the GBU-57 is the B-2 Spirit, a stealth bomber. With their long-range capabilities, B-2s departing from the United States 'are able to fly all the way to the Middle East to do bombing runs. That's been done before,' Dahlgren said. AP The US employed seven B-2s in the Iran strikes – aircraft that can fly 6 000 nautical miles (9 600km) without refuelling, and which are designed to 'penetrate an enemy's most sophisticated defences and threaten its most valued, and heavily defended targets,' according to the US military. 'This was the largest B-2 operational strike in US history and the second-longest B-2 mission ever flown,' Caine said. Satellite image (c) 2025 Maxar Technologies Several B-2s proceeded west over the Pacific as a decoy while the bombers that would take part in the strikes headed east – a 'deception effort known only to an extremely small number of planners and key leaders,' the general said.
CNN
37 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court rebuffs effort by R. Kelly to overturn conviction
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal from the recording artist R. Kelly, who claimed prosecutors 'stretched' the law in securing racketeering and sex trafficking convictions against him. Robert Sylvester Kelly is serving a 30-year sentence for those convictions. Kelly, a Grammy-winning R&B songwriter, was convicted under the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, often associated with efforts to take down the Mafia but that can also give prosecutors the ability to seek higher sentences in different types of cases. Kelly's defense attorneys told the Supreme Court that prosectors 'stretched' the use of the act in how they defined the term 'enterprise.' An enterprise for the purposes of RICO, Kelly told the high court, only exists if its members share a common purpose to engage in illegal conduct. 'To hold otherwise would mean that any rogue bad actor operating within a legal organization could be prosecuted under RICO as occurred here,' Kelly's lawyer argued. 'This scenario stretches the RICO statute beyond and contrary to its purpose.' The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled against Kelly in February and he appealed to the Supreme Court in May. Federal prosectors declined to respond. As is its usual practice, the Supreme Court did not explain its decision to deny the appeal. The justices turned away another appeal from Kelly in the fall. In that case, Kelly had argued that he was wrongly retroactively prosecuted under a federal law that passed in 2003 and made the statute of limitations indefinite for sex crimes with minors.
Atlantic
37 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Five Ways Iran May Respond
'NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' Donald Trump posted on Truth Social right after the United States launched a bombing campaign against three sites crucial to the Iranian nuclear program. But Iran gets a vote on whether that time has indeed come, and its leaders are instead vowing 'everlasting consequences.' What happens next in this rapidly expanding war largely depends on what exactly Iran means by that. That's not easy to predict, because the next stage of the conflict now hinges on an Iran facing unprecedented circumstances. The Iranian regime is arguably more enfeebled and imperiled than it has been since the 1979 revolution ushered the Islamic Republic into existence. Even before Israel launched its sweeping military campaign against Iranian nuclear and military targets just over a week ago, it had dramatically degraded two of the three pillars of Iran's defenses: Tehran's regional network of proxy groups (such as Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon) and its conventional military arsenal (assets like missiles, drones, and air defenses). Now Israel and the United States may have reduced the third pillar—the country's nuclear program and its position at the threshold of acquiring nuclear weapons—to smoldering ruins as well. Given these conditions, past behavior by the Iranian regime may not be a reliable indicator of its future actions. Iran's leaders, for example, have developed a reputation for biding their time for months or even years before retaliating against foes, but the speed and scale at which their nuclear program and the regime itself are coming under threat may force their hand. For Iran experts, the north-star assumption tends to be that the regime's overriding priority is ensuring its survival. Viewed through that prism, the Iranian government currently lives in the land of bad options. If Iran responds forcefully to the United States, it could enter an escalatory cycle with the world's leading military power and an archenemy already pummeling it, which in turn could endanger the regime. If Tehran responds in a limited manner or not at all, it could look weak in ways that could also endanger the regime from within (enraged hard-liners) or without (emboldened enemies). 'There are no good options, but Iran still has options,' Sanam Vakil, an expert on Iran and the broader region at the think tank Chatham House, told me. She ticked off the goals of any Iranian retaliation: 'Inflict pain. Transfer the costs of the war outside of Iran. Showcase resilience, survivability.' In my conversations with experts, five potential Iranian moves kept surfacing. 1. Close the Strait of Hormuz Iran could take a big step and use its military to disrupt shipping or even seek to shut down commerce in the Strait of Hormuz, a crowded international waterway near southern Iran through which roughly one-fifth of the world's oil supply passes. Indeed, in the hours after the U.S. strikes, the Iranian parliament reportedly granted its support for such a measure, though Iran's leadership hasn't yet followed through with action along these lines. Such a move would affect the global economy, driving down financial markets, driving up the price of oil, and inflicting steep costs on economies around the world. It would likely get the attention of the economic-minded American president. But in addition to the fact that the U.S. military might contest such a move, the dispersed pain of this measure could ultimately make it an unattractive option for Iran. The economic shock would boomerang back to Iran, in addition to harming Iran's patron, oil-importing China, as well as oil-exporting Gulf Arab states. In recent years, Iran has been improving its relations with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—the Saudis even restored diplomatic ties with the Iranians in 2023. The Iranian regime will likely be wary of alienating partners at a time when it is so isolated and diminished. 2. Attack U.S. personnel or interests in the Middle East Iran could also choose, either directly or through what remains of its regional proxy groups, to attack U.S. forces, bases, or other interests in the region. That could include attacks on U.S. personnel or energy-related infrastructure based in Gulf countries allied with the United States, with the latter option serving as another way to induce economic shock. But Tehran's assessment here may be similar to its calculations regarding the Strait of Hormuz. If the Iranians hit targets in the Gulf, that could 'bite the hand that feeds' Iran, Vakil told me. 'They need the Gulf to play a de-escalation role and perhaps a broader regional stabilization role. I think they will try to protect their relationship with the Gulf at all costs.' Vakil deemed it more probable that Iran would strike U.S. targets in nearby countries that don't have close relations with Tehran, such as Iraq, Syria, and Bahrain, which hosts the headquarters of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT). If Iran were to take this approach, much would depend on whether its strikes are relatively restrained—essentially designed to claim that it has avenged the U.S. attack without provoking a major response from Washington—or whether it decides to go bigger, perhaps galvanized by the devastation wrought by the U.S. attacks and the U.S. government's sharp public messaging. 'If the Iranians really strike all of the NAVCENT base in Bahrain,' Jonathan Panikoff, a former U.S. deputy national-intelligence officer for the Near East who is now my colleague at the Atlantic Council, told me, they may 'open up a world of hurt.' Such an attack might embarrass Trump and spur him to make good on his threat in his address to the nation on Saturday evening to respond to Iran with even greater force. The United States could, for example, hit Iranian oil and gas facilities or other energy sites, army and navy targets, or even political and military leaders. The war in Iran could quickly metastasize into a regional conflict. Consider, as one case study, what transpired after the United States killed the Iranian general Qassem Soleimani during the first Trump administration in 2020. Analysts predicted all sorts of potential Iranian retaliatory measures of various sizes and scales, but Iran ultimately opted for an intense but circumscribed missile attack on the Al-Asad Airbase in Iraq, resulting in no fatalities but more than 100 U.S. personnel with traumatic brain injuries. The Trump administration downplayed the attack and limited its response to imposing more economic sanctions on Iran, and the two countries even swapped messages via the Swiss embassy in Tehran to defuse tensions. 3. Attack U.S. personnel or interests beyond the Middle East An even more escalatory approach would be for Iran to directly attack U.S. targets beyond the region, Panikoff noted, referencing countries such as Turkey, Pakistan, and Central Asian nations. But he thinks such a move is 'very unlikely' because the Iranians would be taking a 'hugely retaliatory' step and inviting conflict with those countries. 'Having an actual missile attack—say, into Pakistan against the U.S. embassy—would be devastating and shocking,' Panikoff told me, adding that he could envision Iranian leaders doing this only if they believed that the end of their regime was near and they had 'nothing to lose.' Alternatively, the Iranians could revert to more rudimentary, older-school practices of theirs such as directly executing terrorist attacks or sponsoring proxy-group terrorist attacks against U.S., Israeli, or Jewish targets around the world. That 'would be a lower bar' for the Iranians, Panikoff said, and 'is something to be worried about.' 4. Dash toward a nuclear weapon The Iranian regime could draw the lesson from its escalating war with Israel and the United States that only possession of a nuclear weapon can save it. Even before Israel's military operation, Iran seemed to be tentatively moving in the direction of trading its position on the brink of nuclear-weapons power for actual nuclear weapons, which appears to have contributed to the timing of Israel's campaign. But although prior to the war Iran may have been capable of enriching uranium to 90 percent, or weapons-grade, within days or weeks, it was further away—perhaps months or more—from the capability of turning that weapons-grade uranium into a usable nuclear weapon. And now its nuclear program has been seriously degraded, though the extent of the damage isn't yet entirely clear: Iran may have retained its stockpile of enriched uranium. Any push for the bomb could also invite further economic sanctions and military operations against Iran. That makes a race for a nuclear bomb in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. strikes, with whatever resources it has left, unlikely, although Iran could take steps short of that such as seeking to develop and possibly use a crude nuclear device, scrambling to rebuild its nuclear program, or withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran will emerge from this war with dead nuclear scientists and destroyed physical nuclear infrastructure, but what will persist in some form is the technical expertise that enabled it to enrich uranium to 60 percent, and that probably can be applied to further enriching the material to weapons-grade, because that isn't much of an additional leap. The longer-term threat of a nuclear Iran is unlikely to be wiped out as long as the current Iranian regime, or any like-minded or even harder-line one, remains in power. 5. St rike a nuclear deal with the United States It may seem like the most improbable scenario, given the bellicosity of Iranian rhetoric, but another potential outcome is that Iran concludes that the regime will be existentially threatened by an escalatory spiral with a militarily superior Israel and the United States and that, beyond a muted response, its next move should be striking a new nuclear deal with the United States that results in the end of the war and the regime in Tehran still in place. But this would require Iran to agree to U.S. conditions that it forswear any nuclear enrichment, to which Iran hasn't given any indication of being amenable. So for the moment, this outcome appears unlikely as well. Iran may want to carefully calibrate its response to the U.S. strikes, but calibration in volatile conflicts isn't always possible. The Iranian attack on U.S. forces in Iraq after Soleimani's killing five years ago may have been smaller than some anticipated, but it has still been described as 'the largest ballistic-missile attack against Americans ever.' Troops later recounted that one soldier in a shelter behind the base's blast walls was nearly blown up by the barrage. Frank McKenzie, then the commander of U.S. Central Command, has estimated that had he not ordered a partial evacuation of the airbase, an additional 100 to 150 Americans might have been wounded or killed. If that had happened, the Trump administration might have responded much more forcefully, which in turn could have sparked further escalation from Iran. The effort to achieve a calibrated response might have produced a full-blown war. All actors in this current war now contemplating their next moves should keep that lesson in mind.
