logo
Trump sends troops to Los Angeles after immigration crackdown protests: What to know

Trump sends troops to Los Angeles after immigration crackdown protests: What to know

Yahoo2 days ago

President Trump authorized the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops, following days of protests against immigration enforcement actions in the Los Angeles area.
The rare move bypassed the consent of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and has garnered criticism from local Democrats who warned the move could further inflame tensions.
The federalizing of the California National Guard also has prompted some legal questions about the extent of the president's authority.
Here's what to know about the troop deployment:
The protests began Friday in downtown Los Angeles.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested immigrants in LA's Fashion District, as well as in a Home Depot parking lot and other locations.
On Saturday, the protests spread to other areas, including Compton and Paramount, a predominantly Latino city south of LA.
As word spread of another possible ICE raid at a Home Depot in Paramount, protesters descended upon a nearby Department of Homeland Security (DHS) office. Federal authorities, however, later said that no action was planned for that location.
Federal authorities said the weeklong tally of immigrant arrests in the Los Angeles area rose to more than 100 — not including the arrests that took place during the protests.
The president took notice this weekend of the rowdy demonstrations, which included instances of vandalized cars and property in the greater Los Angeles areas.
He dared local authorities to respond more forcefully, noting the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) had not initially been involved in responding to the protests. The LAPD also confirmed it was not involved.
Trump said Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) were to blame for the unrest that began as a result of ICE raids.
'If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can't do their jobs, which everyone knows they can't, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.
Trump on Saturday announced he authorized the deployment of 2,000 National Guard soldiers. By Sunday afternoon, about 300 troops were stationed in three locations in the greater Los Angeles area.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the move is a result of 'violent mobs' attacking 'Federal Law Enforcement Agents carrying out basic deportation operations' in recent days.
Trump said Sunday that he directed relevant Cabinet officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, 'to take all such action necessary to liberate Los Angeles from the Migrant Invasion, and put an end to these Migrant riots.'
Hegseth said Sunday morning that Marines were ready to be deployed to Los Angeles if needed.
A statement from U.S. Northern Command on Sunday indicated that approximately 500 U.S. Marines are 'in a prepared to deploy status should they be necessary to augment and support the [Defense Department's] protection of federal property and personnel efforts.'
Democrats across the country have sharply pushed back against the administration's move to federalize the National Guard.
Newsom and Bass have been particularly forceful in pushing back against the administration's efforts. Newsom warned the federal response is 'inflammatory' and said deploying soldiers 'will erode public trust.'
'LA authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment's notice,' Newsom wrote in a Saturday X post. 'We are in close coordination with the city and county, and there is currently no unmet need.'
Newsom's office on Sunday sent a letter to Hegseth's office asking him to rescind the order deploying armed forces into the city. He also vowed to sue the Trump administration for bypassing his consent in federalizing the California National Guard.
Bass urged protesters to remain peaceful but slammed the troop deployment as a 'chaotic escalation' amid rising tensions.
'What we're seeing in our city is chaos provoked by the Trump Administration,' Bass said in a message to Los Angeles residents late Sunday.
'When you raid Home Depots and workplaces, when you tear parents and children apart, and when you run armored caravans through our streets, you cause fear and panic,' she added. 'And deployment of federalized troops on the heels of raids is a chaotic escalation.'
All 23 Democratic governors issued a statement Sunday afternoon slamming Trump's decision to federalize California's National Guard by using a law that hasn't been used in decades, arguing it was both unnecessary and escalatory.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris also criticized the deployment of troops in her home city of Los Angeles, calling it a 'dangerous escalation meant to provoke chaos.'
'This Administration's actions are not about public safety — they're about stoking fear,' she added. 'Fear of a community demanding dignity and due process.'
She also stressed her support for peaceful protests, saying, 'I continue to support the millions of Americans who are standing up to protect our most fundamental rights and freedoms.'
The federalization of the California National Guard represents a rare and legally murky step that bypassed Newsom's consent.
The last time the federal government mobilized National Guard members without the consent of a governor was in 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent guard members to Selma, Ala., to protect civil rights protesters there.
The National Guard is relatively limited in its scope, since members are deployed specifically to protect federal buildings, including the downtown Los Angeles detention center where much of the unrest was centered.
The military is generally barred from carrying out domestic law enforcement duties. Declaring the Insurrection Act is seen as a potential path around those restrictions.
Trump did not rule out invoking the Insurrection Act during a gaggle with reporters before boarding Air Force One on Sunday, but he suggested the current protests against immigration raids had not yet risen to the level of an insurrection.
Shortly after the gaggle, Trump issued a statement on Truth Social claiming that 'violent, insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking our Federal Agents to try and stop our deportation operations.'
The Associated Press contributed.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘We've lost the culture war on climate'
‘We've lost the culture war on climate'

Yahoo

time22 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

‘We've lost the culture war on climate'

President Donald Trump's latest climate rollback makes it all but official: The United States is giving up on trying to stop the planet's warming. In some ways, the effort has barely started. More than 15 years after federal regulators officially recognized that greenhouse gas pollution threatens 'current and future generations,' their most ambitious efforts to defuse that threat have been blocked in the courts and by Trump's rule-slicing buzzsaw. Wednesday's action by the Environmental Protection Agency would extend that streak by wiping out a Biden-era regulation on power plants — leaving the nation's second-largest source of climate pollution unshackled until at least the early 2030s. Rules aimed at lessening climate pollution from transportation, the nation's No. 1 source, are also on the Trump hit list. Meanwhile, the GOP megabill lumbering through the Senate would dismember former President Joe Biden's other huge climate initiative, the 2022 law that sought to use hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks and other incentives to encourage consumers and businesses to switch to carbon-free energy. At the same time, Trump's appointees have spent months shutting down climate programs, firing their workers and gutting research into the problem, while making it harder for states such as California to tackle the issue on their own. The years of whipsawing moves have left Washington with no consistent approach on how — or whether — to confront climate change, even as scientists warn that years are growing short to avoid catastrophic damage to human society. While the Trump-era GOP's hardening opposition to climate action has been a major reason for the lack of consensus, one former Democratic adviser said her own party needs to find a message that resonates with broad swaths of the electorate. 'There's no way around it: The left strategy on climate needs to be rethought,' said Jody Freeman, who served as counselor for energy and climate change in President Barack Obama's White House. 'We've lost the culture war on climate, and we have to figure out a way for it to not be a niche leftist movement." It's a strategy Freeman admitted she was 'struggling' to articulate, but one that included using natural gas as a 'bridge fuel' to more renewable power — an approach Democrats embraced during the Obama administration — finding 'a new approach' for easing permits for energy infrastructure and building broad-based political support. As the Democratic nominee in 2008, Obama expressed the hope that his campaign would be seen as 'the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.' But two years later, the Democrats' cap-and-trade climate bill failed to get through a Senate where they held a supermajority. Obama didn't return to the issue in earnest until his second term, taking actions including the enactment of a sweeping power plant rule that wasn't yet in effect when Trump rescinded it and the Supreme Court declared it dead. Republicans, meanwhile, have moved far from their seemingly moderating stance in 2008, when nominee John McCain offered his own climate proposals and even then-President George W. Bush announced a modest target for slowing carbon pollution by 2025. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin contended Wednesday that the Obama- and Biden-era rules were overbearing and too costly. 'The American public spoke loudly and clearly last November: They wanted to make sure that all agencies were cognizant of their economic concerns,' he said when announcing the rule rollback at agency headquarters. 'At the EPA under President Trump, we have chosen to both protect the environment and grow the economy.' Trump's new strategy of ditching greenhouse gas limits altogether is legally questionable, experts involved in crafting the Obama and Biden power plant rules told POLITICO. But they acknowledged that the Trump administration at the very least will significantly weaken rules on power plants' climate pollution, at a moment when the trends are going in the wrong direction. Gina McCarthy, who led EPA during the Obama administration, said in a statement that Zeldin's rationale is "absolutely illogical and indefensible. It's a purely political play that goes against decades of science and policy review." U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were virtually flat last year, falling just 0.2 percent, after declining 20 percent since 2005, according to the research firm Rhodium Group. That output would need to fall 7.6 percent annually through 2030 to meet the climate goals Biden floated, which were aimed at limiting the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius since the start of the Industrial Revolution. That level is a critical threshold for avoiding the most severe impacts of climate change. Those targets now look out of reach. The World Meteorological Organization last month gave 70 percent odds that the five-year global temperature average through 2029 would register above 1.5 degrees. The Obama-era rule came out during a decade when governments around the world threw their weight behind blunting climate pollution through executive actions. Ricky Revesz, who was Biden's regulatory czar, recalled the 'great excitement' at the White House Blue Room reception just before Obama announced his power plant rule, known as the Clean Power Plan. It seemed a watershed moment. But it didn't last. 'I thought that it was going to be a more linear path forward,' he said. 'That linear path forward has not materialized. And that is disappointing.' Opponents who have long argued that such regulations would wreck the economy while doing little to curb global temperature increases have traveled the same road in reverse. Republican West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey said he felt dread when Obama announced the Clean Power Plan in 2015. Then the state's attorney general, he feared the rule's focus on curbing carbon dioxide from power plants would have a 'catastrophic' impact on West Virginia's coal-reliant economy. 'It was really an audacious and outrageous attempt to regulate the economy when they had no power to do so,' said Morrisey, who led a coalition of states that sued the EPA over Obama's proposal. 'You can't take the actions that they were trying to take without going to the legislature.' Meanwhile, Congress has become harsher terrain for climate action. In May, House Republicans voted to undo the incentives for electric cars and other clean energy technologies in Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, the nation's most significant effort to spur clean energy and curb climate change. That same week, 35 House Democrats and Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) crossed the aisle and voted to kill an EPA waiver that had allowed California to set more stringent tailpipe pollution standards for vehicles to deal with its historically smoggy skies. California was planning to use that waiver to end sales of internal combustion engine vehicles in 2035, a rule 10 other states and the District of Columbia had planned to follow. The Supreme Court has added to the obstacles for climate policy — introducing more existential challenges for efforts to use executive powers to corral greenhouse gas emissions. In its 2022 decision striking down the Obama administration's power plant rule, the court said agencies such as EPA need Congress' explicit approval before enacting regulations that would have a 'major' impact on the economy. (It didn't precisely define what counts as 'major.') In 2024, the court eviscerated a decades-old precedent known as the Chevron doctrine, which had afforded agencies broad leeway in how they interpret vague statutes. Many climate advocates and former Democratic officials contend that all those obstacles are bumps, not barriers, on the tortuous path to reducing greenhouse gases. They say that even the regulatory fits and starts have provided signals to markets and businesses about where federal policy is heading in the long term — prodding the private sector to make investments to green the nation's energy system. One symptom is a sharp decline in U.S. reliance on coal — by far the most climate-polluting power source, and the one that would face the stiffest restrictions in any successful federal regulation to lessen the electricity industry's emissions. Coal supplied 48.5 percent of the nation's power generation in 2007, but that fell to 15 percent in 2024. Last year, solar and wind power combined to overtake coal for the first time. 'Regulation has served the purpose of moving things along faster,' said Janet McCabe, who was deputy EPA administrator under Biden and ran EPA's Office of Air and Radiation during Obama's second term. 'The trajectory is always in the right direction.' Freeman, who is now at Harvard Law School, said federal regulations plus state laws requiring renewable power to comprise portions of the electricity mix helped justify utility investments in clean energy. That, in turn, accelerated price drops for wind and solar power, she said. Clean energy advocates point to those broader market shifts, calling a cleaner power grid inevitable. 'There are people in each of these industries who wouldn't have taken the climate problem seriously and cleaner technology seriously, and invested in it, if it weren't for the pressure of the Clean Air Act and the incentives that more recently had been built into the IRA,' said David Doniger, senior attorney and strategist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'So policy does matter, even when it's not in a straight line and the implementation is inadequate.' But even if those economic trends continue — an open question given the enormous new power demand from data centers — it will not bring the U.S. closer to cuts needed to keep the world from overheating, multiple climate studies have concluded. And the greatest chunk of the emissions decline since 2005 comes from shifting coal to natural gas, another fossil fuel, which fracking made cheap and abundant. Biden's power plant rule, now being shelved by Trump's EPA, would have imposed limits on both coal-burning power plants and future gas-fired ones, requiring them to either capture their greenhouse gases or shut down. Staving off regulations may well keep coal-fired power plants running longer than anticipated to meet forecast demand growth, belching more carbon dioxide into the air. The Trump administration has even sought to temporarily exempt power plants from air pollution rules altogether and is trying to use emergency powers to prevent coal generators from shuttering. Without federal rules that say otherwise, power providers would also be likely to add more natural gas generation to the grid. Failing to curb power plants' pollution, scientists say, means temperatures will continue to rise and bring more of the floods, heat waves, wildfires, supply chain disruptions, food shortages and other shocks that cost the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars each year in property damage, illness, death and lost productivity. 'I don't think the economics are going to take care of it by any means,' said Joe Goffman, who led the Biden EPA air office. 'The effects of climate change are going to continue to be felt and they're going to continue to be costly in terms of dollars and cents and in terms of human experience.' Some state governors, such as Democrats Kathy Hochul of New York and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, have vowed to go it alone on climate policy if need be. But analyses have shown state actions alone are unlikely to achieve the greenhouse gas reductions at the scale and speed needed to avoid baking in catastrophic effects from climate change. The Sierra Club, for example, has helped shutter nearly 400 coal-fired units across the U.S. since 2010 through its Beyond Coal campaign, which has argued the economic case against fossil fuel generation in front of state utility commissions. While Joanne Spalding, the group's legal director, said it can continue to strike blows against coal with that strategy, she acknowledged that 'gas is a huge problem' — and left no doubt that the Trump administration's moves would do damage. 'Given what the science says about the need to act urgently, this will be a lost four years in the United States,' she said.

Gov. Abbott readying National Guard for protests, not the first time
Gov. Abbott readying National Guard for protests, not the first time

Yahoo

time22 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Gov. Abbott readying National Guard for protests, not the first time

AUSTIN (KXAN) – Gov. Greg Abbott has called up Texas National Guard members to at least two Texas cities, in response to immigration-related protests, officials from Austin and San Antonio have confirmed. It isn't the first time Abbott has brought in guardsmen in reaction to protesters. Mayor: TX National Guard on standby to assist DPS during protests in Austin The governor previously activated more than 3,800 Texas National Guard members, including Army National Guard soldiers, in 2020 amid the George Floyd protests and the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the Texas Military Department. The National Guard was not called in for the pro-Palestine student protests at the University of Texas at Austin last year, according to AP News, but more than 100 Department of Public Safety troopers were deployed, The Texas Tribune reported. Abbott said this current deployment of Texas National Guard is meant to 'ensure peace & order.' 'Peaceful protest is legal,' Abbott said in a social media post. 'Harming a person or property is illegal & will lead to arrst.' Bringing in the National Guard has drawn mixed reactions from local and state officials. KXAN's Kelly Wiley is reporting on the state's use of the National Guard, and we will be updating this report throughout the day. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

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