US court lets Trump retain control of California National Guard for now
WASHINGTON: A US appeals court let Donald Trump on Thursday (Jun 19) retain control over California's National Guard while the state's Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Republican president's use of the troops to quell protests and unrest in Los Angeles.
A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals extended a pause it placed on US District Judge Charles Breyer's Jun 12 ruling that Trump had called the National Guard into federal service unlawfully.
Breyer's ruling was issued in a lawsuit against Trump's action brought by Governor Gavin Newsom.
Breyer ruled that Trump violated the US law governing a president's ability to take control of a state's National Guard by failing to coordinate with the governor, and also found that the conditions set out under the statute to allow this move, such as a rebellion against federal authority, did not exist.
Breyer ordered Trump to return control of California's National Guard to Newsom. Hours after Breyer acted, the 9th Circuit panel put the judge's move on hold temporarily.
Amid protests and turmoil in Los Angeles over Trump's immigration raids, the president on Jun 7 took control of California's National Guard and deployed 4,000 troops against the wishes of Newsom. Trump also ordered 700 US Marines to the city after sending in the National Guard. Breyer has not yet ruled on the legality of the Marine Corps mobilisation.
At a court hearing on Tuesday on whether to extend the pause on Breyer's decision, members of the 9th Circuit panel questioned lawyers for California and the Trump administration on what role, if any, courts should have in reviewing Trump's authority to deploy the troops.
The law sets out three conditions under which a president can federalise state National Guard forces, including an invasion, a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the government or a situation in which the US government is unable with regular forces to execute the country's laws.
The Justice Department has said that once the president determines that an emergency that warrants the use of the National Guard exists, no court or state governor can review that decision.
Trump's decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on US soil and inflamed political tensions in the second most-populous US city.
The protests in Los Angeles lasted for more than a week, but subsequently ebbed, leading Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to lift a curfew she had imposed.
California argued in its Jun 9 lawsuit that Trump's deployment of the National Guard and the Marines violated the state's sovereignty and US laws that forbid federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement.
The lawsuit stated the situation in Los Angeles was nothing like a "rebellion". The protests involved sporadic acts of violence that state and local law enforcement were capable of handling without military involvement, according to the lawsuit.
The Trump administration has denied that troops are engaging in law enforcement, saying that they are instead protecting federal buildings and personnel, including US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
International Business Times
an hour ago
- International Business Times
Netanyahu Says Israel Is Capable of Striking Iran's Highly Secretive Fordow Nuclear Site Buried Under a Mountain Without Help from US
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strongly suggested that Israel has all the capabilities to strike all of Iran's nuclear sites — including the highly secretive Fordow Fuel Enrichment Facility, which is believed to be buried deep underground, nearly half a mile beneath a mountain. Netanyahu insisted that Israel "will achieve all our objectives," even though several military analysts have time and again questioned whether the Jewish state has the capability to destroy the highly secretive nuclear facility buried under a mountain. "We will achieve all our objectives and hit all of their nuclear facilities. We have the capability to do that," Netanyahu said when asked by a reporter about Fordow specifically. Netanyahu's Indirect Threat Israel has targeted several Iranian nuclear sites, including a major installation in Natanz and others near Tehran and Isfahan, since launching its "Operation Rising Lion" air campaign against the Islamic Republic. The Israelis have also eliminated more than a dozen high-ranking Iranian scientists and senior military officials. Meanwhile, the Fordow facility has played a major role in influencing President Donald Trump's deliberations on whether the United States should get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran. Several military experts believe that the United States is the only ally Israel has with advanced bombers capable of reaching the region and delivering heavy bunker-busting bombs powerful enough to destroy the hidden Fordow facility. However, there is ongoing debate among analysts about whether even those powerful weapons would be enough to completely eliminate the site. On Thursday, Trump announced that he would make a final decision within the next two weeks on whether to launch a strike against Iran, as he is still holding out hope for diplomatic talks. "Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks," Trump said in a statement delivered by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. The president is also facing backlash from within his MAGA support base over the conflict, with key figures like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson publicly urging the U.S. to avoid getting involved in the fast-growing crisis. Netanyahu Leaves It to the US Netanyahu said that the decision of whether the United States joins the conflict is "entirely" in Trump's hands. "He'll do what's good for the United States, and I'll do what's good for the State of Israel," the prime minister said, adding, "as the saying goes — every contribution is welcome." Over the weekend, Netanyahu stood by Israel's decision to launch strikes against Iran and dismissed concerns regarding Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's earlier testimony, in which she said that the intelligence community had assessed "Iran is not building a nuclear weapon." "The intel we got and we shared with the United States was absolutely clear — was absolutely clear — that they were working in a secret plan to weaponize the uranium," Netanyahu said on a special edition of Fox News' "Special Report with Bret Baier" Sunday. "They were marching very quickly. They would achieve a test device and possibly an initial device within months and certainly less than a year," he added. "I think we have excellent intel in Iran." Trump later told reporters he believes Iran is close to making a nuclear weapon, contradicting Gabbard's earlier assessment. In response, Gabbard downplayed any perceived disagreement between her and the president on the matter. Netanyahu, for years, has repeatedly warned that Iran was on the verge of completing a nuclear weapon. Prior to Israel's recent strikes, Iran had been enriching uranium to 60 percent purity. While weapons-grade uranium is typically enriched to 90 percent, experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have pointed out that the jump from 60 percent to 90 percent is significantly easier than reaching 60 percent in the first place. Iran has denied pursuing nuclear weapons, claiming its uranium enrichment efforts are solely for peaceful purposes. However, enrichment at 60 percent is not required for civilian nuclear energy. Last week, the IAEA released a 22-page unclassified report on Iran's nuclear activities. While the report didn't confirm that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb, it did raise concerns about the high levels of uranium enrichment. "The Agency has no credible indications of an ongoing, undeclared structured nuclear program of the type described above in Iran and notes the statements of the highest officials in Iran that the use of nuclear weapons is incompatible with Islamic Law," the report said.
CNA
2 hours ago
- CNA
US social media vetting for visas: What should prospective students do?
SINGAPORE: The United States' move to tighten social media screening for visas has left some foreign students perplexed and contemplating deleting their online accounts. Experts meanwhile have highlighted the challenges in scrubbing digital footprints, as well as the potential chilling effect of the new requirements. President Donald Trump's administration on Wednesday (Jun 18) ordered the resumption of scheduling appointments for international student visas after nearly a month-long pause. But all applicants will now be required to make their social media accounts public for review. In an internal state department cable dated Jun 18, US consular officers were directed to conduct "comprehensive and thorough vetting" of all student and exchange visitor applicants to identify those who "bear hostile attitudes toward our citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles". New applicants who refuse to unlock their social media accounts and allow them to be reviewed may be rejected. The Trump administration on May 27 first ordered its missions abroad to stop scheduling new interviews for student and exchange visitor visa applicants as it prepared to expand social media vetting of foreign students. "HOPING THEY DON'T FIND IT" The move has left prospective students and those renewing their visas in a state of panic, with some turning online to try and clarify the new rules. One student wrote on social media platform Reddit that they were "not sure how to go about" the tightened vetting. The Swedish national was in the process of renewing their F-1 visa, which allows foreigners to enter the US as a full-time student at an accredited educational institution. The student said they had always only listed their Facebook account on the online nonimmigrant visa application form, known as DS-160; but also has accounts on Instagram and TikTok where they repost "political stuff". While the posts have since been removed, the student wondered if the best option may be to deactivate those accounts and indicate that they only used Facebook. Commenting on the discussion, another student said they deactivated all unused social media accounts such as those on Facebook and X, formerly known as Twitter. "I'm planning on deactivating my main Instagram account where I do repost political stuff too and it's private (I don't want to make it public), but I don't know if this is good advice," the Redditor wrote. Both students were also unclear if government officials would be able to find accounts that did not have their real names. "We don't know what tools they'll be using, it's all unclear now. I'm hoping they don't find it," one of them wrote. WHAT SHOULD STUDENTS DO? The US was likely looking for posts or comments that were critical of the country's policies and of President Trump in particular, as well as those that support causes the US is against such as the diversity, equity and inclusion or DEI programmes that have come under attack, said Dr Tracy Loh, senior lecturer of communication management at the Singapore Management University (SMU). She recommended avoiding posting or commenting on such issues or deleting such posts, noting that "safe" content would those that were personal in nature such as birthday celebrations and family gatherings. "Immigration officers will most likely randomly scroll through social media accounts to check. I doubt that they would have the time or expertise to recover deleted posts or to investigate the accounts in great detail," said Dr Loh, who teaches at the Lee Kong Chian School of Business. But if the US government does check thoroughly, it would be unlikely for anyone to hide their digital footprint entirely, said associate professor Brian Lee Chin Hin from the School of Humanities and Behavioural Sciences at the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS). There may be screenshots or reposts by others and the US authorities may have already captured the posts that they deem questionable, said the head of the university's communication programme, adding that there are tools to check archived versions of posts. Last-minute mass deletion may also look like an attempt to hide dubious past activities. "One strategy is to focus on deleting the most sensitive content rather than trying to erase all posts, or making an account private all of a sudden," Assoc Prof Lee said. He added that in his opinion, back-up mechanisms by various social media platforms and web archives would make it "unlikely" to wipe off all the posts entirely from the internet. Both experts also cautioned against having undisclosed accounts. "If you hide, lie or have fake accounts and get found out, such actions will most probably be held against you," said SMU's Dr Loh. Those who do not have any form of social media presence may be required to justify why, and creating a new account or profile last minute would look too "staged", said Assoc Prof Lee. Students who come under this group could thus also be "negatively" affected besides those who actively post their views that may be deemed problematic to the US authorities. On the implications of the vetting process, Dr Loh said this creates a "chilling effect" and constitutes censorship. SUSS' Assoc Prof Lee, meanwhile, called the situation "unfortunate".
Straits Times
3 hours ago
- Straits Times
US court lets Trump keep control of California National Guard for now
FILE PHOTO: A demonstrator raises his hand holding flowers as members of the National Guard stand in formation outside a federal building during the No Kings protest against U.S. President Donald Trump's policies, in Los Angeles, California, U.S., June 14, 2025. REUTERS/Daniel Cole/File Photo US court lets Trump keep control of California National Guard for now WASHINGTON - A U.S. appeals court let Donald Trump retain control on Thursday of California's National Guard while the state's Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit challenging the Republican president's use of the troops to quell protests in Los Angeles. Trump's decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on U.S. soil and inflamed political tension in the country's second most-populous city. On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals extended its pause on U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer's June 12 ruling that Trump had unlawfully called the National Guard into federal service. Trump probably acted within his authority, the panel said, adding that his administration probably complied with the requirement to coordinate with Governor Gavin Newsom, and even if it did not, he had no authority to veto Trump's directive. "And although we hold that the president likely has authority to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage," it wrote in its opinion. Newsom could still challenge the use of the National Guard and U.S. Marines under other laws, including the bar on using troops in domestic law enforcement, it added. The governor could raise those issues at a court hearing on Friday in front of Breyer, it said. In a post on X after the decision, Newsom vowed to pursue his challenge. "The president is not a king and is not above the law," he said. "We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.s. military soldiers against our citizens." Trump hailed the decision in a post on Truth Social. "This is a great decision for our country and we will continue to protect and defend law-abiding Americans," he said. "This is much bigger than Gavin, because all over the United States, if our cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should state and local police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done." Breyer's ruling was issued in a lawsuit against Trump's action brought by Newsom. Breyer ruled that Trump violated a U.S. law governing a president's ability to take control of a state's National Guard by failing to coordinate with the governor. It also found that the conditions set out under the statute to allow this move, such as a rebellion against federal authority, did not exist. Breyer ordered Trump to return control of California's National Guard to Newsom. Hours after Breyer acted, the 9th Circuit panel had put the judge's move on hold protests and turmoil in Los Angeles over Trump's immigration raids, the president on June 7 took control of California's National Guard and deployed 4,000 troops against Newsom's wishes. Trump also ordered 700 U.S. Marines to the city after sending in the National Guard. Breyer has not yet ruled on the legality of the Marine Corps mobilization. At a court hearing on Tuesday on whether to extend the pause on Breyer's decision, members of the 9th Circuit panel questioned lawyers for California and the Trump administration on what role, if any, courts should have in reviewing Trump's authority to deploy the troops. The law sets out three conditions by which a president can federalize state National Guard forces, including an invasion, a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the government or a situation in which the U.S. government is unable with regular forces to execute the country's laws. The appeals court said the final condition had probably been met because protesters hurled items at immigration authorities' vehicles, used trash dumpster as battering rams, threw Molotov cocktails and vandalized property, frustrating law enforcement. The Justice Department has said once the president determines that an emergency exists that warrants the use of the National Guard, no court or state governor can review that decision. The appeals court rejected that argument. The protests in Los Angeles ran for more than a week before they ebbed, leading Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to lift a curfew she had imposed. In its June 9 lawsuit California said Trump's deployment of the National Guard and the Marines violated the state's sovereignty and U.S. laws that forbid federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement. The Trump administration has denied that troops are engaging in law enforcement, saying they are instead protecting federal buildings and personnel, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. The 9th Circuit panel is comprised of two judges appointed by Trump during his first term and one appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
