Trump meant for National Guard deployment to act as a deterrent, White House says
President Trump's tense, late-night phone call with Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday night came with a warning: 'Get the police in gear.' The president was being shown evidence by his staff of theft at a 7-Eleven and of federal law enforcement with lacerations.
His patience would last less than 24 hours before federalizing the National Guard in a historic action.
'He told the governor to get it under control and watched again for another full day, 24 hours, where it got worse,' Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, told The Times in an interview. 'The assaults against federal law enforcement upticked, the violence grew, and the president took bold action on Saturday evening to protect federal detention spaces and federal buildings and federal personnel.'
The president did so, Leavitt said, 'with the expectation that the deployment of the National Guard would hopefully prevent and deter some of this violence.'
Read more: President Trump suggests Gov. Newsom should be arrested; Newsom decries 'step toward authoritarianism'
The opposite occurred. The worst violence yet took place on Sunday, with some rioters torching and hurling concrete at police cars, hours after National Guard troops had arrived in Los Angeles County.
The protests had been largely peaceful throughout Friday and Saturday, with isolated instances of violent activity. Leavitt said that Newsom and Karen Bass, the mayor of Los Angeles, have 'handicapped' the Los Angeles Police Department, "who are trying to do their jobs."
Local leaders 'have refused to allow the local police department to work alongside the feds to enforce our nation's immigration laws, and to detain and arrest violent criminals who are on the streets of Los Angeles,' she said.
The president and his so-called immigration czar, Tom Homan, have suggested that political leadership — including Newsom himself — could face arrest over 'obstructive' behavior.
"It is a basic principle in this country that if you break the law, you will face a consequence for that," Leavitt said. "So if the governor obstructs federal enforcement, or breaks federal laws, then he is subjecting himself to arrest."
Leavitt said she would not get ahead of Trump on whether he will invoke the Insurrection Act, a law that allows the president to suspend Posse Comitatus, which prohibits the military from engaging in local law enforcement.
Read more: Downtown L.A. hit by widespread vandalism, damage as city struggles to calm unrest
But she took note that, on Monday, the president referred to some of the rioters as insurrectionists, potentially laying the groundwork for an invocation of the law.
'The president is wisely keeping all options on the table, and will do what is necessary to restore law and order in California,' she said, 'and protect law-abiding American citizens. And federal immigration enforcement operations will continue in the city of Los Angeles, which has been completely overrun by illegal alien criminals that pose a public safety risk and need to be removed from the city.'
The president's order, directing 2,000 National Guard troops to protect federal buildings in the city, allows for a 60-day deployment. Leavitt would not say how long the operation might last, but suggested it would continue until violence at the protests ends.
'I don't want to get ahead of the president on any decisions or timelines,' she said. 'I can tell you the White House is 100% focused on this. The president wants to solve the problem. And that means creating an environment where citizens, if they wish, are given the space and the right to peacefully protest.'
'And these violent disruptors and insurrectionists, as the president has called them, are not only doing a disservice to law-abiding citizens, but to those who wish to peacefully protest. That's a fundamental right this administration will always support and protect.'
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
16 minutes ago
Amid LA protests, what officials say about the rules of force for National Guard, Marines
The Marines and the National Guard personnel deployed amid the protests in to Los Angeles will operate under the same rules of force and will not be engaging crowds, according to two U.S. officials. That means they are tasked with protecting federal buildings and federal personnel only -- they will not patrol U.S. streets or try to detain protesters to assist police, the officials said. While all the troops are carrying weapons, their guns will not have ammunition loaded in the chamber, officials said, but will carry ammunition as part of their regular uniforms that can be used in the rare case of needed self-defense. They will not use rubber bullets or pepper spray, either, they said. The officials noted these rules would change if President Donald Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, which he has not done. The rules of force the personnel are operating under call for them to de-escalate any incidents as much as possible. The Marines and Guard troops being sent to Los Angeles are being led by Army Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, who is deputy commander of U.S. Army North, officials said. In total, there are 2,800 troops operating under Title 10 status: 2,100 of them National Guard soldiers and 700 active-duty Marines. Title 10 of the U.S. Code contains a provision that allows the president to call on federal service members when there "is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States" or when "the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The deployment of the 700 Marines was to ensure "adequate numbers of forces to provide continuous coverage" of the area, according to U.S. Northern Command.
Boston Globe
17 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
A Trump family project spurs resignations and a criminal charge in Serbia
Advertisement In November, one week after Trump won reelection, the Serbian government greased the skids by declaring that the site — a bombed-out building that serves as an icon to Serbians' suffering during a 1999 conflict — was no longer considered a culturally protected asset. That paved the way for the Trump family project. Dozens of architects and cultural historians at the state-run Republic Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments cried foul, accusing the government of violating the law. Several days after the government's decision, they fired off a letter saying the property's status as an 'immovable cultural property' could be revoked only if a team of the institute's experts approved it. And they hadn't. 'From the beginning, we knew it was a political decision,' said Estela Radonjic Zivkov, the institute's former deputy director. She said she was pressured by state intelligence officers not to challenge the government on this case, a clear sign of Serbian leaders' intense interest in the project. She did so anyway. Advertisement Now, seven months later, the Trump family project has become both a Serbian scandal and a glaring example of just how far a foreign government was willing to go to further the financial interests of Trump's family. And it underscores recurring concerns that the family's business dealings have become harder to separate from Trump's official decisions. Serbian college students who have been leading mass protests against Aleksandar Vucic, the country's strongman president, have seized on the development as an example of what they see as their government's corrupt ways. In late March, thousands demonstrated at the site. Last month, they and other critics celebrated a surprise victory. Serbia's organized crime prosecutor charged Goran Vasic, Zivkov's boss and the director of the cultural institute, with abuse of power. The prosecutor's office said Vasic had admitted falsifying a document to justify stripping the site of its protected status. No one knows how far the inquiry will go. But one question that has been publicly raised is whether Sinisa Mali, Serbia's powerful finance minister, pressured cultural heritage officials to either back the project or resign. Mali has ties to the White House through Richard Grenell, a longtime Trump ally and the current envoy for special missions. Mali has declined to comment on the project, citing the continuing investigation. Affinity Partners, Kushner's company, says the deal is under review. Vucic has minimized the criminal inquiry, saying that 'there was not any kind of forgery.' Advertisement Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, has said that 'everything President Trump does is to benefit the American people.' Vucic's office did not respond to a request for comment, but the Serbian leader said last year that he 'died laughing' at the notion that 'I used this for political influence on Trump.' As far back as 2013, Donald Trump was eyeballing the Belgrade site for a hotel. The idea arose again in his first term as president. Grenell, who then was Trump's troubleshooter for the fractious relationship between Serbia and Kosovo, encouraged Serbian leaders to consider redeveloping the site with American investment. After Trump lost reelection in 2020, Grenell urged Kushner to take up the project and served as an early intermediary. Grenell met with the Serbian president in 2022 and 2023 and posted images of himself on social media with Mali in 2021. Grenell could not be reached for comment. By May 2024, the Serbian government struck a deal with a company affiliated with Kushner. It agreed to give the developers a 99-year, no-cost lease that could be converted to ownership, also free of charge, according to a draft agreement reviewed by The New York Times. In return for contributing the land, the Serbian government will receive 22 percent of the development's profits, according to people familiar with the deal. There was a hitch: The Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments wasn't going along. Dubravka Djukanovic, an architect and college professor who led the institute, was opposed to changing the site's protected status. In an interview, she said the complex, which was designed by a renowned Serbian modernist architect, should instead be restored and put to public use. Advertisement Last June, she said, she was summoned to a meeting with Mali. Olivera Vuckovic, director of a parallel city institute, was also summoned, according to a person familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of job repercussions. Mali had a blunt message, that person said: Get behind the project or resign. Djukanovic said she swiftly resigned because of the meeting with Mali, but she declined to give further details because of the investigation. Vuckovic could not be reached for comment. The issue simmered for another six months, until after Trump won reelection. On Nov. 14, the Serbian government announced it had revoked the site's protected status. At the cultural institute, Zivkov, then the deputy director, said the staff immediately got to work on a letter saying that the government had 'grossly violated the Law on Cultural Heritage.' If the government trampled its own law in this case, the letter said, 'any cultural property that inconveniences an investor or poses a political or other obstacle may be erased in the same way.' It is unclear whether it was the letter from the institute's staff that prompted the criminal investigation. The institute's director was temporarily detained for questioning, then charged with abuse of power in mid-May. He has not yet appeared in court. Ian Brekke, the top lawyer for Affinity Partners, flew to Belgrade right after that news broke, according to a person familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe confidential business matters. Serbian officials told him the controversy boiled down to a simple administrative error, the person said, but Kushner's team is still assessing the situation. Advertisement This article originally appeared in .
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Attorneys get more time to argue over contested copper mine on land sacred to Apaches
A U.S. district judge in Arizona has opened the door for the next round of legal wrangling as environmentalists and some Native Americas seek to stop the federal government from transferring land in Arizona for a massive copper mining project. Judge Dominic Lanza in a ruling issued Monday denied motions that sought to halt the transfer pending the outcome of the case. However, he did preclude the U.S. Forest Service from proceeding with the land exchange until 60 days after the agency issues a required environmental review. Lanza said that would give the parties more time to analyze the environmental report and file amended complaints. He said granting a preliminary injunction now would be premature since the review will differ in some ways from the one that spurred the legal challenge four years ago. 'It is unfortunate that the result of this order will be to force the parties to engage in another stressful, abbreviated round of briefing and litigation activity' when the new review is issued, he said, acknowledging the unusual circumstances. Attorneys for the federal government and the mining company agreed during a recent hearing to the 60-day delay. That time frame also is specified in the legislation that Congress passed and then-President Barack Obama signed in 2014 authorizing the exchange. The group Apache Stronghold, the San Carlos Apache Tribe and others welcomed more time to fight for Oak Flat, an area they consider as holy. 'In this critical moment, we call on the Trump administration and Congress to halt the transfer to a Chinese-owned mine, and honor what is sacred,' said Wendsler Nosie Sr., leader of Apache Stronghold. 'As we continue to fight in court, know this: Nothing will turn us away from defending the spiritual essence of our people, the lifeblood that connects us to the creator and this land.' A statement from Resolution Cooper said the ruling is consistent with prior decisions and gives the parties time to review the final environmental impact statement that will be issued later this month. 'We are confident the project satisfies all applicable legal requirements,' said Resolution president and general manager Vicky Peacey. She added that years of consultation with tribes and communities resulted in changes to the mining plan to reduce potential effects. The fight over Oak Flat dates back about 20 years, when legislation proposing the land exchange was first introduced. It failed repeatedly in Congress before being included in a must-pass national defense spending bill in 2014. San Carlos Apache Chairman Terry Rambler said Monday that the bill was not in the best interest of the American people, Arizona or his tribe. He said concerns persist about the mine's use of groundwater and the pending obliteration of the culturally significant site. Apache Stronghold and the tribe sued the U.S. government in 2021 to protect the place tribal members call Chi'chil Bildagoteel, which is dotted with ancient oak groves and traditional plants the Apaches consider essential to their religion. The U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected an appeal by the Apache group, letting lower court rulings stand. The project has support in nearby Superior and other traditional mining towns in the area. The company — a subsidiary of international mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP — estimates the mine will generate $1 billion a year for Arizona's economy and create thousands of jobs.
