Incendiary: President Trump's deployment of Guard troops in LA draws ire
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's order to deploy California National Guard troops – over the objection of the state's governor – to deal with protests over immigration raids is mostly political theater, according to government officials.
But it is an act that runs the risk of tilting the nation toward martial law, some say.
'Presidents set precedents and this one is escalatory, incendiary, and could come back to haunt all Americans,' Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said June 8.
Trump's order gives 2,000 soldiers the authority to protect federal property like office buildings but no power to arrest civilians, according to a spokesperson for U.S. Northern Command, which is directing the operation. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also has put an active-duty Marine unit on orders to prepare to deploy to California.
The 300 members of the California National Guard who deployed Sunday to three sites in Los Angeles appeared to face little in the way of organized opposition, according to a Defense official who was not authorized to speak publicly. Their presence was a performative show of force, the official said, as their authority is clearly restricted.
Most of the Guard soldiers are military police officers whose day jobs typically are in civilian law enforcement. They understand the need for restraint, the official said. If they see a protester vandalize federal property, a Social Security Administration office, for example, they can detain the suspect and turn them over to local police.
Trump's order fell short of invoking the Insurrection Act, an 18th century law that gives the president authority to use the military to enforce federal law, suppress a rebellion or protect a group's civil rights if the state does not do so. It was last invoked in 1992 during by President George HW Bush at the request of California's governor in response to riots after police officers involved in the beating of Rodney King had been acquitted.
Trump and Hegseth's unilateral action over Newsom's objection sets dangerous precedent, Reed said in a statement.
'It is crucial that decisions of this magnitude are made with transparency, restraint, and respect for constitutional balance,' Reed said. 'The President and Defense Secretary should immediately stand down these troops and Congress should reject this dangerous overreaction.'
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: president donald trump deploys national guard california
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
5 minutes ago
- CBS News
Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, Colorado sue Trump administration over plan to distribute machine gun converters
Maryland, New Jersey and Delaware joined a multi-state lawsuit against the Trump administration to prevent it from distributing devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to be converted into machine guns. The lawsuit stems from a May 16 settlement agreement between the Trump administration and Rare Breed Triggers, a company that manufactures devices known as forced reset triggers. The lawsuit also includes Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Washington, D.C. What are forced reset triggers? Forced Reset Triggers, or FRTs, are aftermarket triggers that enable semi-automatic guns to fire as fast as fully automatic weapons. In 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ordered the company to halt sales and declared that FRTs would be considered machine guns under federal law, which consequently made them subject to tighter restrictions. Rare Breed Triggers disputed the ATF's stance and continued selling its FRTs, leading the federal government to file a lawsuit against the company in 2023. At the same time, the National Association for Gun Rights sued the ATF in federal court in Texas, challenging its classification of the FRT-15 as a machine gun. The May 16 settlement ended the litigation between the U.S. government and Rare Breed Triggers. "The Department's agreement with Rare Breed Triggers avoids the need for continued appeals in United States v. Rare Breed Triggers and continued litigation in other, related cases concerning the same issue," an announcement by the Department of Justice read. Under the lawsuit, ATF can stop enforcing the law against FRTs and can redistribute the devices previously seized by the agency. "Forced reset triggers turn semi-automatic firearms into weapons of war capable of inflicting devastating impacts on Maryland communities," said AG Brown. "The Trump administration's decision to send these previously seized firearms back to Maryland, where they are illegal, makes our neighbors and children more vulnerable to mass shootings." Suing over forced reset triggers With the lawsuit announced Monday, the states hope to prevent FRTs from being redistributed. "We're seeking a preliminary injunction to block the redistribution of forced reset triggers into our states," New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said Monday morning. "This is just part of what we're doing in New Jersey and in the states we're representing to reduce gun violence." Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings said the state banned rapid-fire devices in 2022. Maryland criminal law also bans rapid-fire activators. "These devices enable firearms to fire up to 900 bullets per minute," Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown said. "The increased rate of fire allows carnage and chaos to reign on the streets. Everyone nearby becomes vulnerable to serious injury or death." Maryland sues gun manufacturer over machine gun converter In a similar move, Maryland and Baltimore sued gun manufacturer Glock in February, alleging the company violated the state's Gun Industry Accountability Act. The lawsuit alleged that Glock contributed to the gun violence crisis by promoting the use of switches, a device that converts a pistol into a machine gun. During the Maryland General Assembly, lawmakers proposed a bill banning a list of weapons that can be converted from semi-automatic weapons to fully automatic using an attachment referred to as an auto-sear, or "switch." Just last week, Baltimore Police arrested a group of teens who they said had multiple guns and ammunition, along with an auto-sear attachment.
CNBC
8 minutes ago
- CNBC
Ron Insana says Trump's spending bill unlikely to generate the economic boom he promised
As he did in his first term as president, President Donald Trump is once again predicting an economic boom the likes of which the U.S. has never before seen. In reviewing the publicly available economic data since Ronald Reagan, the period in which the U.S. grew the fastest with the most job creation did not occur in Trump's first term and is unlikely to do so in this term, the reasons why to be explained shortly. First, a brief review of recent economic history where the biggest economic boom actually took place. Former President Bill Clinton's eight years in office produced nearly 4% annual growth, over 240,000 jobs added per month and an inflation rate that averaged less than 3%, considered very low for that time. The unemployment rate when Clinton first took office was 7.3% and bottomed at 3.8% by April 2000. By contrast, in Trump's first term, the economy added under 200,000 jobs per month, roughly equal to that of former President Barack Obama, while GDP growth averaged 2.3%, again, roughly equal to Obama's last three years in office, while inflation was less than a quarter percentage point lower than in Obama's second term. (Trump's numbers, of course, were skewed by the Covid crisis, which featured the steepest and shortest recession in U.S. history.) All that leads me to the notion that a boom, the likes of which we have not seen, is unlikely even if the "Big Beautiful Bill" passes through Congress and lands on Trump's desk. And here's why. Nothing new to help growth First, the bill largely extends existing tax rates that were put in place in 2017, without further lowering corporate taxes, as once promised, from 21% to 15%. There are no major additional tax cuts included in the bill. The bill simply makes much of the existing code permanent. No change, no gain. It's true that taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security payments may be eliminated, but that could also lead to employers seeking out ways, in the first two cases anyway, to pay lower wages if tips and overtime go untaxed. Beyond that, there's not much new in the bill that would accelerate economic growth, nor would a failure of the bill's passage lead to a 68% tax increase for everyone in America, as the president has warned . Published analyses have suggested that 68% of Americans could see a 7% increase in their taxes, but not a 68% increase in what they pay. Given the prospects for rising inflation amid recently imposed tariffs, and a subsequent slowing in consumer spending, some of which is already taking place, the economy appears to be downshifting rather than speeding up. Job growth , as we saw on Friday, has moderated for several months in a row and while not reflective of a recession, we're also witnessing a jump in jobless claims, announced layoffs and, according to some published reports, consumers maxing out credit cards to buy the basics. Add to that the reductions in support for the poorest Americans, whether its access to Medicaid or food stamps, and the ingredients for a further slowdown are embedded in the bill, especially for those who can least afford to have government assistance reduced in a meaningful way. Big changes needed The Department of Government Efficiency spending cuts are also affecting government stimulus in so far as key funding in technology, medicine and education are being slashed, threatening the very areas that make the U.S. economy competitive and very much growth-oriented. The bill, by most accounts, also adds from $2.4 trillion to $3.3 trillion to the budget deficit over the next decade. With the current national debt standing at a record $36.2 trillion, higher federal borrowing needs could further push up borrowing costs as investors, especially international ones, now nervous about America's fiscal position could demand higher yields to compensate them for the risk, however unlikely, that the U.S. runs into trouble in paying its bills. During the Clinton administration, tax rates were higher, and yet growth was stronger, 22.7 million jobs were added and the budget deficit turned to surplus by the end of his term. None of those metrics are supported by existing or proposed policy initiatives today. The Clinton boom was second only to that of FDR, whose economy grew strongly as Roosevelt took over, quite literally, at the very bottom of the Great Depression. In modern times, Clinton's economy was stronger than that of any president who came before or after him. None of the policies currently being pursued by this administration offer the same prospects for growth though, even like Clinton, this president has a major technological revolution underway. That big, beautiful bill would require some big, bountiful changes if it hopes to stimulate growth in a way in which all Americans, rather than perhaps a handful of billionaires, will share meaningfully in any future prosperity.
Business Insider
8 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Tesla stock gets a fresh downgrade, with the Musk-Trump fight fueling uncertainty and risk of 'brand damage'
Tesla stock got a fresh downgrade on Monday following a dramatic public feud between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump last week. Analysts at Baird downgraded shares of Tesla from "Buy" to "Neutral," saying the Musk-Trump spat has heightened the potential for brand damage. "The recent incident between Musk and President Trump exemplifies key-person risk associated with Musk's political activities," senior research analyst Ben Kallo wrote in a client note Monday. "While we have no indication of how the relationship may change or what either will do, we see the situation as adding uncertainty to TSLA's outlook." The note added that "brand damage has occurred and, when coupled with increasing competition, will fuel bearish narratives regarding demand." Shortly after leaving the White House earlier this month, Musk took to social media to criticize Trump's "big beautiful" tax and spending bill that has been moving through Congress. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk said on X. As Musk's criticisms ramped up, Trump eventually responded, with the president threatening to cut Musk's government contracts with his companies, like SpaceX. But Baird said the public feud is just one reason for its downgrade. Rising competition from China in the EV space could eat into Tesla's market share, the firm said, and tariffs could disrupt its supply chains in the near term. Investors' expectations for Tesla's robotaxi rollout are also too high, Baird said. "Musk has said there will be hundreds of thousands of vehicles on the road by 2H next year," Kallo wrote. "We model 6K, and while we don't think the volume of cars matters in the near term as much as establishing a presence in the arena, we do think the robotaxi business will be harder (and likely less profitable) than the lofty expectations held by several investors." Tesla shares have risen nearly 70% in the last 12 months but have fallen 26% so far in 2025.
