2,000 National Guard troops will be sent to LA amid clashes over immigration raids
LOS ANGELES — The Trump administration said it would send 2,000 National Guard troops into Los Angeles after a second day in which protesters confronted immigration agents during raids of local businesses.
The move marks a major escalation in Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration and came amid concerns from some officials in California.
The Guard has been deployed to Los Angeles previously, but it has been during widespread civil unrest, including the upheaval associated with the 2020 protests following the murder of George Floyd, as well as the riots that occurred after the Rodney King verdict in 1992.
Los Angeles has seen several violent clashes during the recent immigration raids, but they have been limited to isolated areas including the Home Depot in Paramount, a location in L.A.'s fashion district and at the Civic Center.
Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School, noted that when the National Guard was sent to L.A. before, it was because we as a state requested it and it was coordinated.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley Law School, said in a text to the Los Angeles Times that Trump has the authority under the Insurrection Act of 1807 to federalize the national guard units of states to suppress 'any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy' that 'so hinders the execution of the laws.'
But he called the move very troubling. Such deployment typically happen during 'extreme circumstances... here it seems it was an early response. And I fear that it is to send a message to protesters of the willingness of the federal government to use federal troops to quell protests.'
In the most serious incident, a crowd gathered in Paramount in a protest that escalated over the course of the day into a fiery and tumultuous clash with federal agents.
By afternoon, the confrontation near a Home Depot at 6400 Alondra Blvd. was declared an unlawful assembly, and officials warned protesters in Spanish and English to quit the scene immediately. During the protest, at least one protester was injured, witnesses reported, and a Border Patrol official said an agent was hurt.
Meanwhile, Tom Homan, the Trump administration's 'border czar,' said officials were cracking down hard on the unrest and that the National Guard would be deployed to the city Saturday night.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom confirmed Saturday that the federal government was moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers.
Newsom criticized the federal action in a statement Saturday evening, saying that local law enforcement was already mobilized and that sending in troops was a move that was 'purposefully inflammatory' and would 'only escalate tensions.'
'(T)here is currently no unmet need,' Newsom said. 'This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust.'
At the Paramount protest, chants of 'Fuera ICE' — ICE, get out — could be heard as flash-bang grenades deployed by federal agents lighted up the scene. The agents appeared to include members of Border Patrol, the U.S. Marshals Service and Homeland Security Investigations.
A group of protesters on a street corner shouted expletives and that there was 'nothing but noise.' Shortly afterward, the grenades exploded at their feet, causing them to briefly scatter.
A Los Angeles Times reporter watched one protester gather a bag of trash and light it on fire in the middle of Alondra Boulevard, half a block from where immigration agents were gathered.
'This is a difficult time for our city. As we recover from an unprecedented natural disaster, many in our community are feeling fear following recent federal immigration enforcement actions across Los Angeles County. Reports of unrest outside the city, including in Paramount, are deeply concerning. We've been in direct contact with officials in Washington, D.C., and are working closely with law enforcement to find the best path forward,' L.A. Mayor Karen Bass said after the National Guard deployment was announced.
Saturday's scene in Paramount followed raids across Los Angeles on Friday that led to the arrests of 44 people on suspicion of immigration violations, and another on suspicion of obstructing justice.
'Federal law enforcement operations are proceeding as planned this weekend in Los Angeles County,' U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said on X as the standoff unfolded. 'I urge the public to refrain from interfering with these lawful actions. Anyone who obstructs federal agents will face arrest and prosecution.'
In his Fox News interview, Homan, the president's former acting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement director and now 'border czar,' made unsubstantiated claims about the people who had been arrested, saying they included child sex offenders, gang members and national security threats.
'They arrested a lot of bad people yesterday and today,' Homan said. 'We're making Los Angeles safer and Mayor (Karen) Bass ought to be thanking us for making her city safer.'
Homan also remarked that ICE agents were often wearing masks as they conducted raids because they were worried about their families being doxxed.
In Paramount, a city that is 82% Latino, protesters gathered along Alondra Boulevard Saturday after reports that ICE officers were targeting people at a Home Depot where day laborers commonly gather in search of work.
A group of protesters stationed themselves near the Alondra exit of the 710 Freeway, as a second gathered by the Home Depot.
Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies arrived on the scene about 11 a.m. The department clarified in a statement that it 'was not involved in any federal law enforcement operations or actions,' and was present only to assist with traffic and crowd control.
By Saturday afternoon, bright orange shopping carts from Home Depot and a blue recycling bin were scattered across the boulevard. The air was acrid with smoke.
Federal agents deployed round after round of flash-bangs and pepper balls. Some of the projectiles struck protesters, witnesses said.
One woman among the protest group appeared to be bleeding, and another man was treated for injuries.
'There were some individuals around him throwing bricks. One of the windows got shattered and he was knocked unconscious. He seemed in a pretty bad state,' said Nico Thompson-Lleras, an attorney with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights who witnessed the incident. He said it was unclear whether the man was hit by a vehicle, a weapon or something else.
Paramount Mayor Peggy Lemons, who was present at the scene, said she had not learned of any arrests at the Home Depot. She said the confrontation appeared to have started after protesters spotted immigration officers staging in a nearby business plaza where DHS has an office. She encouraged the crowd to stay calm to avoid violence.
She said she was told that the Department of Homeland Security was targeting Home Depots across the county in search of undocumented residents. But she has had little communication from federal authorities about their actions in the city she represents, which is about 4.5 square miles and home to about 57,000 people.
'We don't know what was happening, or what their target was. To think that there would be no heightening of fear and no consequences from the community doesn't sound like good preparation to me,' she said. 'Above all, there is no communication and things are done on a whim. And that creates chaos and fear.'
The city of Paramount released a statement reaffirming it was not working with ICE or assisting the immigration operations in any way.
'As a city, we are committed to fostering a safe and welcoming environment for all members of our community — regardless of immigration status,' the statement read.
There was no raid at the Paramount Home Depot on Saturday, a federal official told The Times.
Helicopter footage from the scene showed law enforcement vehicles blocking access as they closed the road. Border Patrol agents stood lined up. Sheriff's deputies set off flash-bangs to clear a freeway exit of protesters.
A U.S. Marshals Service bus approaching the location was surrounded by a crowd as it exited the freeway. Protesters kicked the vehicle and pushed back in an attempt to stop it, before another federal vehicle pulled up alongside the bus. An agent appeared to shoot tear gas to push the crowd back.
Lindsay Toczylowski, chief executive of Immigrant Defenders Law Center, said in a post on X that ICE agents threw a teargas canister at two female attorneys with the organization, after they approached to ask calmly that they be allowed to see a warrant and observe the action.
ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the incident.
'ICE has brought their terror tactics and masked agents to#Paramount this morning - in my district,' wrote U.S. Rep Nanette D. Barragán, whose district includes Paramount, in a post on X. 'This is unacceptable. We will demand answers and accountability. For those out there - please stay safe, protest peacefully, and KNOW YOUR RIGHTS.'
Protesters burned an American flag while others waved Mexican flags. Some began lining the boulevard with large cement bricks.
One immigration agent was cut on his hand from a rock that sailed through his windshield, according to a social media post by U.S. Border Patrol chief Michael W. Banks.
Federal officials struck an ominous tone.
'Multiple arrests have already been made for obstructing our operations,' FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino said on X. 'More are coming. We are pouring through the videos for more perpetrators. You bring chaos, and we'll bring handcuffs.'
José Luis Solache Jr., the California Assembly member who represents the Paramount area that includes the Home Depot, said he was on the way to a community event when he saw Border Patrol cars exit the freeway. He decided to turn around.
Solache said he arrived and began observing alongside other demonstrators in a peaceful effort when the agents started shooting off canisters in their direction, forcing him and others to run through the smoke. After identifying himself to agents, he tried to get information about what they were doing, but they would not answer his questions, he said.
'You see the community here, demonstrating that they don't want them here,' he said as flash-bangs went off nearby. 'Our hardworking communities are being targeted. These are hardworking families. These are not criminals. You're going to facilities where people are literally working.'
Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The National Guard comes to Los Angeles: What's going to happen? Is it legal?
The Trump administration says it will send 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles after two days of isolated clashes between federal immigration agents and protesters. Officials say the Guard will assist in operations related to Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration. Many questions remain unanswered, but here is what we know: Officials said the troops were arriving in L.A. as soon as Saturday night, though it was unclear when the full 2,000 personnel would be in place. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said on X that the Guard was being deployed "immediately to support federal law enforcement in Los Angeles. And, if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert." Tom Homan, the Trump administration's 'border czar,' said on Fox News that officials were trying to "address violence and destruction occurring near raid locations where demonstrators are gathering. ... American people, this is about enforcing the law, and again, we're not going to apologize for doing it." It is possible they will provide backup during future immigration raids and prove protection of some federal facilities, including a detention center in downtown L.A. has was the scene of protests and some vandalism; California Gov. Gavin Newsom sid local law enforcement was already mobilized and that sending in troops was a move that was 'purposefully inflammatory' and would 'only escalate tensions.' '[T]here is currently no unmet need,' Newsom said. Trump said in a memo to the Defense and Homeland Security departments that he was calling the National Guard into federal service under a provision called Title 10 to 'temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions.' Title 10 provides for activating National Guard troops for federal service. Such Title 10 orders can be used for deploying National Guard members in the United States or abroad. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law, said in a text to The Times that Trump has the authority under the Insurrection Act of 1807 to federalize the National Guard units of states to suppress 'any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy' that 'so hinders the execution of the laws.' Yes, the National Guard has been deployed to Los Angeles numerous times amid civil unrest and natural disaster. Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School, noted that when the National Guard was sent to L.A. before, it was because California requested it and the response was coordinated. In 2020, widespread criminal acts in the wake of the George Floyd murder prompted Mayor Eric Garcetti to seek National Guard troops from Newsom. Garcetti asked for 1,000 troops. Guardsmen toting M-4 rifles could be seen patrolling streets between Skid Row and Bunker Hill. In combat gear, they stood guard outside shattered storefronts and graffiti-tagged buildings, where windows had been shattered and the street strewn with trash. Humvees and military trucks were present in the city. In 1994, after a 6.7 earthquake left more than 1,000 buildings destroyed and 20,000 residents homeless, the Guard was brought in. Convoys rumbled through the San Fernando Valley, patrolling mini-malls and parks to deliver water, deter looters, direct traffic and raise tent cities for 6,000 displaced residents. In 1992, thousands of National Guard and U.S. military troops patrolled L.A. amid the riot following the Rodney King trial. Mayor Tom Bradley requested the help when the LAPD could not quell the unrest. In 1965, 13,000 troops were sent to L.A. amid the Watts riots. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.


CNBC
30 minutes ago
- CNBC
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to L.A. protests
President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after Minneapolis police officers killed George Floyd. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors who refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who, under normal circumstances, would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to "address the lawlessness" in California, the Democratic governor said the move was "purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions." Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The National Guard is a hybrid entity serving state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to "execute the laws of the United States," with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes "shall be issued through the governors of the States." It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could use force while filling that "protection" role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. "There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves," Vladeck wrote. The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for various emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreement of the governors of the responding states. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after Minneapolis police officers killed George Floyd. Many of the governors agreed to send troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis — an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked "only in the most urgent and dire of situations." Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, "I'm not waiting." Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on "The Charlie Kirk Show," in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized "if violence continues."


CNN
33 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: The Musk blowup reveals how Trump is remaking the presidency
Through a panoramic series of actions, President Donald Trump is transforming the federal government into a vast machine for rewarding his allies and punishing those he considers his adversaries. Trump is using executive orders, federal investigations and regulatory decisions to deploy federal power against a stunning array of targets, ranging from powerful institutions such as Harvard and Columbia universities and major law firms to individual critics from his first term and former President Joe Biden's top White House aides. Simultaneously, Trump is rewarding allies with presidential pardons, commutations, government contracts and the termination of federal regulatory or criminal investigations. The explosive breakup with Elon Musk has provided the most vivid demonstration yet of Trump's transactional view of the presidency. When Musk was Trump's most prominent political ally and benefactor, the White House brushed off complaints about the potential for conflicts of interest as the tech billionaire's companies competed for billions in government contacts. Then, when the two men fell out last week, Trump immediately threatened to terminate the contracts for Musk's companies. Trump struck a similar note on Saturday, telling NBC's Kristen Welker that if Musk began to fund Democratic campaigns in protest of the president's sweeping policy bill, 'He'll have to pay very serious consequences.' The extraordinary episode underscored how quickly anyone can move from Trump ally to adversary by opposing or questioning him in any way — and how dire the consequences can be for crossing that line. In his almost instinctive reaction to threaten Musk's contracts — even if it would be difficult to do in practice — Trump signaled unambiguously that staying in his favor would be the difference between favorable decisions by his administration and costly confrontations with it. The president sees little boundary between public policy by the federal government and personal fealty to him. 'Never before in this country has a president made so clear that mere disagreement with him or failure to show sufficient personal loyalty might cause that person to lose government contracts or even face investigation,' said Ian Bassin, co-founder and executive director of Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group that analyzes threats to US democracy. 'That's how things work in Russia, and apparently, under Donald Trump, now here.' Until Trump, historians considered Richard Nixon the president who pushed hardest to bend federal legal authority into a lever to advance his personal and political interests — a process that culminated in the Watergate scandal and the disclosure of the infamous White House 'enemies list.' But while Nixon fulminated against his opponents in private, he never subjected them to anything approaching the bombardment of hostile federal actions that Trump has directed at his targets. 'You see very similar personality traits in the men, about how they feel about people and what they want to do about them,' said John Dean, who served as Nixon's White House counsel during Watergate and later revealed the existence of the enemies list. But, Dean added, whereas Nixon would often lose sight of his threats or back off when faced with resistance inside or outside his administration, Trump and his aides are moving to draft virtually every component of the federal government into this mission. 'Everything with Nixon is more or less a one-off,' Dean said, 'whereas with Trump it is a way of life.' The effect is that, with much less pushback than Nixon faced, Trump is now moving far faster and further toward reconfiguring the federal government's sweeping authority into an extension of his personal will. 'We are so far beyond Nixon's inclinations and disposition to employ the government to attack perceived enemies and perceived political adversaries,' Dean said, 'that it is the difference between spitballs and howitzers.' Almost daily, Trump is acting in new ways to deploy federal power in precision-focused attacks on individuals and institutions who have crossed or resisted him. He has revoked federal security clearances from an array of former officials (including Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, and Republican former Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger) and terminated federal security protection for others. He's withdrawn security clearances from and directed his administration to investigate two critics from his first term, Miles Taylor and Chris Krebs. Last week, Trump ordered a federal investigation into the right-wing conspiracy theory that aides to then-President Biden misused his autopen to implement decisions without his knowledge. Trump has ordered the Justice Department to investigate Democrats' principal grassroots fundraising tool, ActBlue. Large institutions Trump considers hostile have faced comparable threats. He's signed executive orders imposing crippling penalties on several large law firms that have either represented causes or employed attorneys Trump dislikes. Trump has canceled billions of dollars in scientific research grants to prominent universities and escalated that offensive with a dizzying array of other measures against Harvard, including attempting to revoke its ability to enroll foreign students and publicly declaring that the Internal Revenue Service intends to revoke its tax-exempt status: The New York Times recently calculated that Harvard is now facing at least eight separate investigations from six federal agencies. The Federal Communications Commission is investigating '60 Minutes' over its editing of an interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, probing charges that television networks have engaged in 'news distortion,' and scrutinizing the proposed merger with Skydance Media that is being ardently pursued by CBS' parent, Paramount, and its controlling stockholder Shari Redstone. Trump's administration has arrested a judge in Wisconsin and US representative in New Jersey who have resisted his immigration agenda. While pursuing these penalties for critics, Trump has conspicuously rewarded allies. His Justice Department dropped federal corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, who has pledged to support Trump's immigration crackdown, and regulators have terminated high-profile enforcement actions against the crypto industry even as his family's financial ties to the industry have mushroomed. Trump has also issued a flurry of early second-term pardons targeted at his supporters, beginning with the mass pardon of January 6, 2021, rioters and extending to a growing list of Republican and conservative public officials. Legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, author of 'The Pardon,' a recent history of how presidents have used that power, said Trump's actions have no precedent. 'It's not even close,' Toobin said. 'I can't even think of even a parallel.' Taken together, these actions signal something like a mafia-style protection racket, Bassin argued. For those who meet the administration's demands, Bassin said, Trump is offering protection from federal interference, and for those who resist his demands, he's brandishing the opposite. The speed at which Trump flipped from praising to threatening Musk and his companies, Bassin added, 'is a perfect example' of how no one is safe from falling from one side of that line to the other — which allows Trump always to preserve the option of raising the price of protection with new demands. It's a method of operation, Bassin argued, that would be equally recognizable to Russian President Vladimir Putin or mobster John Gotti. Nixon unquestionably wanted to sharpen federal law and regulatory enforcement into the cudgel Trump is forging. Behind closed doors in the Oval Office, Nixon often bombarded his aides with demands to punish those he viewed as his political enemies. 'We have all this power, and we aren't using it,' Nixon exploded to his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, in one August 1972 meeting captured by the White House taping system. At times, Nixon succeeded in channeling that power against his targets. He successfully pressed the Justice Department to intensify an investigation into kickbacks and illegal campaign contributions swirling around Alabama Gov. George Wallace. The administration tried for years to deport John Lennon (over a British conviction for possession of a half-ounce of marijuana) after Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond sent a letter to the Justice Department warning that the former Beatle might headline a series of concerts intended to mobilize young voters against Nixon's reelection. A team of White House operatives — known informally as 'the plumbers' because they were supposed to stop leaks to the press — undertook a succession of shady missions, culminating in the break-in to the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate building that eventually led to Nixon's resignation. Chuck Colson, one of Nixon's most hardcore aides, tried to pressure both CBS and The Washington Post over their coverage of the administration by threatening FCC action to revoke the licenses of local television stations they owned. Colson and Nixon openly strategized about holding open the threat of a federal antitrust investigation to pressure the three television networks. According to research by Mark Feldstein, a professor of broadcast journalism at the University of Maryland, the plumbers even fleetingly discussed ways to assassinate investigative journalist Jack Anderson before they were diverted to a more urgent project — the Watergate break-in. In his obsessive hunt for leaks, Nixon illegally wiretapped the phones of both journalists and his own National Security Council aides. All these resentments converged in the development of what became known as the enemies list. The White House actually compiled multiple overlapping lists, all fueled by Nixon's fury at his opponents, real and imagined. 'It clearly originated with Nixon's disposition, anger, reaction to things he would see in his news summary in the morning,' said Dean. In an August 16, 1971, memo — titled 'Dealing with our Political Enemies' — Dean succinctly explained that the list's intent was to find all the ways 'we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.' Dean told me he wrote the memo in such stark terms because he thought it would discourage the White House. 'I actually wrote that memo that way thinking I would make this so offensive … that they would just say, 'This is silly, we don't do this kind of stuff,'' he said. 'I never got a response to that directly, but when I went to the (National) Archives decades later, (I saw) Haldeman had written 'great' on the memo with an exclamation point.' In fact, though, enthusiasm in the White House did not translate into action at the agencies. On the advice of Treasury Secretary George Shultz, the IRS commissioner put the list in his safe and ignored the White House request that he audit the people on it. Subsequent investigations found no evidence that those on the enemies list faced excessive scrutiny from the IRS or other government harassment. Once Dean revealed the list's existence during the 1973 hearings of the Senate Watergate Committee, inclusion on it became 'something for people to celebrate,' he recalled. 'I have actually spoken to (reunions of) a couple groups of members, people who have been on the list, because they had no consequences other than a badge of honor.' That was a common outcome for Nixon's rages. The Justice Department eventually dropped the case against Wallace. The courts blocked Lennon's removal. The Washington Post did not lose licenses for any of stations, said Feldstein, author of 'Poisoning the Press,' a book about Nixon's relationship with the media. 'Trump is doing what Nixon would have liked to have done,' Feldstein said. 'Even Nixon didn't take it as far.' The differences between Nixon and Trump in their approach to federal enforcement and investigative power extends to their core motivations. Nixon, as Dean and other close observers of his presidency agree, wanted to retaliate against individuals or institutions he thought opposed or looked down on him. Trump certainly shares that inclination. But Trump's agenda, many scholars of democratic erosion believe, pushes beyond personal animus to mimic the efforts in authoritarian-leaning countries such as Turkey and Hungary to weaken any independent institutions that might contest his centralization of power. 'Although some of it was (motivated by) revenge, the huge difference here is most of what Nixon did was to protect himself, politically and personally,' said Fred Wertheimer, who served as legislative director of the government reform group Common Cause during the Watergate scandal. 'Trump is out to break our democracy and take total control of the country in a way that no one ever has before.' One telling measure of that difference: Trump is openly making threats, or taking actions, that Nixon only discussed in private, and even there with constant concern about public disclosure. Trump's willingness to publicly deliver these threats changes their nature in several important ways, said David Dorsen, an assistant chief counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee and former federal prosecutor. Simply exposing an individual or institution to such an open threat from the world's most powerful person, Dorsen noted, can enormously disrupt their life, even if the courts ultimately prevent Trump from acting on it — a point recently underscored by Miles Taylor in an essay for Politico. And because Nixon's threats were always delivered in private, Dorsen added, aides dubious of them could ignore them more easily than Trump officials faced with his public demands for action. Maybe most important, Dorsen said, is that by making his threats so publicly, Trump is sending a shot across the bow of every other institution that might cross him. 'Trump is legitimizing conduct that Nixon did not purport to legitimize,' Dorsen said. 'He concealed it, he was probably embarrassed by it; he realized it was wrong.' As the IRS pushback against the enemies list demonstrated, Nixon's plans faced constant resistance within his own government, not only from career bureaucrats but often also from his own appointees. 'He failed in getting key officials in the government to do what he wanted,' said Wertheimer, who now directs the reform group Democracy 21. If that kind of internal stonewalling is slowing Trump's sweeping offensives against his targets, there's little evidence of it yet. Congress was another constraint on Nixon. Not only did the administration need to fear oversight hearings from the Democrats who controlled both the House and Senate, but at that point a substantial portion of congressional Republicans were unwilling to blink at abusive actions. Ultimately it was a delegation of Republican senators, led by conservative icon and former GOP presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, who convinced Nixon to resign during Watergate. By contrast, Trump today is operating with 'a completely compliant Republican Congress' and has filled the federal government, including its key law enforcement positions, with loyalist appointees who 'operate as if they are there to carry out his wishes, period,' said Wertheimer. As Feldstein pointed out, Trump also can worry less about critical press coverage than Nixon, who governed at a time when 'there were just three networks and everybody watched those.' That leaves the courts as the principal short-term obstacle to Trump's plans. In Nixon's time, the federal courts consistently acted across party lines to uphold limits on the arbitrary exercise of federal power. Three of Nixon's own appointees joined the unanimous 1974 Supreme Court decision that sealed his fate by requiring him to provide Congress his White House tapes. John Sirica, the steely federal district judge who helped crack the scandal, was appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. Today, federal district and appellate courts are mostly demonstrating similar independence. The New York Times' running tally counts nearly 190 rulings from judges in both parties blocking Trump actions since he returned to office. 'I think we've seen the largest overreach in modern presidential history … and as a result, you've triggered a massive judicial pushback,' said Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of the Democracy Defenders Fund, a group fighting many of Trump's initiatives in courts. 'I won't say democracy has won so far, because of the damage that Trump and his ilk have done, but I will say Trump lost.' But even if courts block individual Trump tactics, the effort required to rebuff his actions still can impose a heavy cost on his targets. And, on the most important cases, these lower court legal rulings are still subject to reconsideration by the Supreme Court — whose six- member Republican-appointed majority has historically supported an expansive view of presidential power and last year voted to immunize Trump against criminal prosecution for virtually any actions he takes in office. So far, the Supreme Court has sent mixed signals by ruling to restrain Trump on some fronts while empowering him on others. 'We haven't found out yet what the Supreme Court is going to do when … they get the really big cases,' said Wertheimer. Those decisions in the next few years will likely determine whether Trump can fulfill the darkest impulses of Richard Nixon, the only president ever forced to resign for his actions in office.