Latest news with #immigrationraids
WIRED
11 hours ago
- Politics
- WIRED
The ‘Long-Term Danger' of Trump Sending Troops to the LA Protests
Jun 10, 2025 12:24 PM President Trump's deployment of more than 700 Marines to Los Angeles—following ICE raids and mass protests—has ignited a fierce national debate over state sovereignty and civil-military boundaries. LAPD officers and National Guard soldiers stand on patrol as demonstrators protest outside a jail in downtown Los Angeles following two days of clashes with police during a series of immigration raids on June 8, 2025. Photograph:As hundreds of United States Marines deploy in Los Angeles under presidential orders to protect federal property amid growing protests over immigration enforcement, constitutional scholars and civil rights attorneys warn of long-term implications for American democracy and civil-military relations. President Donald Trump revealed Monday that he had ordered the deployment of more than 700 activity-duty Marines out of Camp Pendleton—an extraordinary use of military force in response to civil unrest. The move, widely condemned by his critics, follows Trump's federalization of the National Guard. Some 3,800 guardsmen have since been deployed in California against the objections of its government, spurring debate among legal observers over the limits of the president's power to send troops into American streets. Trump ordered the deployments in response to thousands of Angelenos who took to the streets on Friday in protests. LA residents responded after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents carried out sweeping raids of local businesses, arresting, among others, dozens of day laborers who were vying for work outside a local Home Depot. Larger demonstrations soon formed and remained largely peaceful until residents were engaged by police with riot shields and crowd control weapons. Over the weekend, the clashes between police and protesters escalated across many neighborhoods with large immigrant populations. Numerous buildings were vandalized with anti-ICE messages, and several Waymo autonomous vehicles were set ablaze. Videos captured by protest attendees show police firing upon demonstrators with rubber bullets and other crowd control agents, including waves of asphyxiating CS gas. Members of the press shared images online showing injuries they incurred from the police assault. In widely shared footage, a Los Angeles police officer appears to intentionally target an Australian reporter, Lauren Tomasi, shooting her from feet away with a rubber bullet as she delivers a monologue into a camera. On Monday, CNN correspondent Jason Carroll was arrested live on air. California governor Gavin Newsom condemned Trump's troop deployment in posts on social media, calling the president's actions an 'unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' His attorney general, Rob Bonata, has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming the order violated the state's sovereignty, infringing on Newsom's authority as the California National Guard's commander in chief. In response to a request for comment, the Department of Defense referred WIRED to a US Northern Command press release detailing the deployment of Marines and National Guardsmen. Federal troops in the United States are ordinarily barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. This rule, known as 'posse comitatus,' may be suspended, however, by a sitting president in cases of civil unrest or outright rebellion. This exception—permitted under the Insurrection Act—allows the president to deploy troops when circumstances make it 'impracticable' for state authorities to enforce federal law by 'ordinary' means. While these powers are most often invoked at the request of a state government, the president may also invoke the act when a state chooses to ignore the constitutional rights of its inhabitants—as happened multiple times in the mid-20th century, when southern states refused to desegregate schools after the Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. President Trump, however, has so far not invoked the Insurrection Act, relying instead on a theory of 'inherent authority' advanced by the US Justice Department in 1971 during the height of the anti–Vietnam War protests. This interpretation of presidential power finds that troops may be deployed in an effort to 'protect federal property and functions.' Notably—unlike the Insurrection Act—this does not permit troops to engage in activities that are generally the purview of civilian law enforcement agencies. Trump also invoked statutory power granted to him by Congress under Title 10 of the US Code, which enabled him to federalize elements of California's National Guard. These activations typically occur when guardsmen are needed to support overseas military operations, as happened routinely this century during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Domestically, however, guardsmen are not usually federalized without the agreement of a state's governor—unless the Insurrection Act has been invoked. Legal experts interviewed by WIRED offered a range of opinions on the president's authority to deploy active-duty military troops or federalize the National Guard. While most believe it is likely within Trump's power to ignore Newsom's express objections, doing so without an invocation of the Insurrection Act, they say, is a decision fraught with legal complexities that carries serious implications, from altering—perhaps permanently—the fundamental relationship between Americans, states, and the federal government, to disturbing the delicate balance between civilian governance and military power. Liza Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, underscores the 'unprecedented' nature of Trump's approach. 'He's trying to basically exercise the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it,' she says. A key issue for Goitein is that the memorandum signed by Trump last week federalizing the National Guard makes no mention of Los Angeles or California. Rather, it states that the guardsmen are being mobilized to address protests that are both 'occurring' and 'likely to occur.' In essence, the memo 'authorizes the deployment of federal troops anywhere in the country,' Goitein says, 'including places where there are no protests yet. We're talking about preemptive deployment.' Goitein argues that the administration's justifications could undermine both judicial accountability and civil‑military boundaries. Under the Insurrection Act, federal troops can take on the responsibilities of local and state police. But without it, their authority should be quite limited. Neither the guardsmen nor the Marines, for instance, should engage with protesters acting peacefully, according to Goitein. 'He says they're there to protect federal property,' she says. 'But it looks a lot like quelling civil unrest.' Anthony Kuhn, a 28-year US Army veteran and managing partner at Tully Rinckey, believes, meanwhile, that there is really 'no question' that Trump would be justified in declaring a 'violent rebellion' underway in California, empowering him to ignore Newsom's objections. The images and video of protesters hurling rocks and other items at police and lighting cars on fire all serve as evidence toward that conclusion. 'I know people in California, the governor, the mayor, are trying to frame it as a protest. But at this point,' says Kuhn, 'it's a violent rebellion. You can draw your own conclusions from the pictures and videos floating around.' Kuhn argues that the intentions of the protesters, the politics fueling the demonstrations, don't matter. 'They're attacking federal facilities. They're destroying federal property. So in an attempt to restore the peace, the president has the authority under Title 10 to deploy troops. It's pretty straightforward.' In contrast, Rutgers University professor Bruce Afran says deploying military forces against Americans is 'completely unconstitutional' in the absence of a true state of domestic insurrection. 'There was an attack on ICE's offices, the doorways, there was some graffiti, there were images of protesters breaking into a guardhouse, which was empty,' he says. 'But even if it went to the point of setting a car on fire, that's not a domestic insurrection. That's a protest that is engaged in some illegality. And we have civil means to punish it without the armed forces.' Afran argues that meddling with the expectations of civilians, who naturally anticipate interacting with police but not armed soldiers, can fundamentally alter the relationship between citizens and their government, even blurring the line between democracy and authoritarianism. 'The long-term danger is that we come to accept the role of the army in regulating civilian protest instead of allowing local law enforcement to do the job,' he says. 'And once we accept that new paradigm—to use a kind of BS word—the relationship between the citizen and the government is altered forever.' 'Violent rioters in Los Angeles, enabled by Democrat governor Gavin Newsom, have attacked American law enforcement, set cars on fire, and fueled lawless chaos," Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, tells WIRED. "President Trump rightfully stepped in to protect federal law enforcement officers. When Democrat leaders refuse to protect American citizens, President Trump will always step in.' As the orders to mobilize federal troops have come down, some users on social media have urged service members to consider the orders unlawful and refuse to obey—a move that legal experts say would be very difficult to pull off. David Coombs, a lecturer in criminal procedure and military law at the University of Buffalo and a veteran of the US Army's Judge Advocate General's Corps, says it's hypothetically possible that troops could question whether Trump has the authority to mobilize state guardsmen over the objection of a state governor. 'I think ultimately the answer to that will be yes,' he says. 'But it is a gray area. When you look at the chain of command, it envisions the governor controlling all of these individuals.' Separately, says Coombs, when troops are ordered to mobilize, they could—again, hypothetically—refuse to engage in activities that are beyond the scope of the president's orders, such as carrying out immigration raids or making arrests. 'All they can do in this case, under Title 10 status, is protect the safety of federal personnel and property. If you go beyond that, then it violates the Posse Comitatus Act.' Federal troops, for instance, would need civilian police to step in. At the point, authorities want peaceful protesters to disperse. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that, in a letter on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem requested that military troops be directed to detain alleged 'lawbreakers' during protests 'or arrest them,' which legal experts almost universally agree would be illegal under ordinary circumstances. The letter was addressed to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and accused the anti-ICE protesters of being 'violent, insurrectionist mobs' aiming to 'protect invaders and military aged males belonging to identified foreign terrorist organizations.' Khun, who warns there's a big difference between philosophizing over what constitutes an unlawful order and disobeying commands, dismisses the idea that troops, in the heat of the moment, will have an option. 'It's not going to be litigated in the middle of an actual deployment,' he says. 'There's no immediate relief, no immediate way to prove that an order is unlawful.' Khun says that were he deployed into a similar situation, 'me and my junior soldiers would not respond to a nonviolent or peaceful protest.' Asked what protesters should expect, should they engage with federal troops trained for combat overseas, Kuhn says the Marines will hold their ground more firmly than police, who are often forced to retreat as mobs approach. In addition to being armed with the same crowd control weapons, Marines are extensively trained in close-quarters combat. 'I would expect a defensive response,' he says, 'but not lethal force.' Additional reporting by Alexa O'Brien.
CNA
17 hours ago
- Politics
- CNA
Trump pushing legal limits with deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles, say analysts
United States President Donald Trump has deployed more than 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles after days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids. California Governor Gavin Newsom has blasted the order as "purposely inflammatory", and the state on Monday (Jun 9) sued the Trump administration to block what it calls the 'unlawful' deployment of soldiers. Questions have emerged over whether Trump's activation of the troops is in line with the law, with analysts telling CNA it is a legal grey area. 'Legally, he's pushing the limits. But then again, we haven't tested this out before,' said Rick Mullaney, executive director of Jacksonville University's Public Policy Institute. HOW IS TRUMP JUSTIFYING THE DEPLOYMENT? Trump invoked a statute – Section 12406 of Title 10 of the US Code – in his order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service last Friday. The provision allows the president to federalise National Guard units in the event the US is invaded, if there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion', or when the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States'. While the federal law generally forbids the US military, including the National Guard, from being involved in civilian law enforcement, they can protect federal personnel and property. 'Trump's view is that (the troops) are protecting federal property and federal agents, (who are carrying out) the enforcement of federal law, and that this was necessary given the circumstances in Los Angeles,' Mullaney told CNA938. 'The law in this area is not well developed. This will test the law.' WILL THIS HOLD UP IN COURT? Rachel VanLandingham, a co-associate dean of research at the Southwestern Law School, said the statute that Trump cited to deploy troops is not well defined. 'It's so broadly written that it gives vast discretion to the president to decide when the conditions are ripe to federalise – that is, to take control of the National Guard and use them,' she noted. She added that as there was some violence in the protests – cars were set aflame and scuffles broke out with law enforcement – the Trump administration could use the incidents to justify their case, even if they were a minority. 'I think the courts, at the end of the day, will yield to the president,' said VanLandingham, who is also a retired lieutenant colonel who served primarily as a military attorney for over 20 years in the US Air Force. Analysts noted that the decision to deploy the National Guard usually comes from the ground up – local state officials determine if it is necessary, and the governor requests troops. VanLandingham pointed out it is primarily Newsom's responsibility and duty to keep the streets of Los Angeles safe, not the president's. 'Trump completely bypassed him in an unprecedented manner,' she told CNA's Asia First. 'This goes against hundreds of years of norms, of procedural safeguards, in an aversion against using federal troops - particularly active-duty troops - in a domestic law enforcement policing capacity, because it smacks of authoritarian overreach.' TRUMP'S CRACKDOWN ON IMMIGRATION Trump's authorisation of the troops came after protests rocked Los Angeles as immigration and customs enforcement officers executed search warrants and arrested immigrants in the county last Friday. The president has made clamping down on immigration a cornerstone of his second term since his return to the White House in January, and has not held back on 'pushing the limits of executive power', said Mullaney. 'Whether it's tariffs, higher education or immigration, the president has pushed those limits,' he said. He added that the deployments were a 'calculated strong move' as part of the Trump administration's efforts to deport illegal immigrants. 'The Trump administration … is sending a message to other sanctuary cities around the country, particularly in blue (Democrat) states, that are sympathetic and supportive of what's going on in Los Angeles,' he said. Protests have also sprang up in at least nine other US cities, including New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco, according to US news outlets. Observers said that while Trump has faced criticisms, particularly from the Democrats, some polls conducted by American media outlets before the Los Angeles protests showed a slight majority approving of the crackdown on undocumented immigrants. 'The Democrats will argue that Trump was quick on the trigger. Trump will argue that Newsom wasn't doing his job,' said Mullaney. 'Trump may or may not have the legal high ground, but he believes he has the political high ground, and he likely does.'
CNN
19 hours ago
- Politics
- CNN
A look at the ‘less lethal' weapons authorities used to crack down on Los Angeles protests
FacebookTweetLink Follow Late Sunday, as protesters against federal immigration raids clashed with law enforcement, the Los Angeles Police Department's Central Division sent out a warning: 'Less Lethal munitions have been authorized,' officials wrote on X, ordering crowds in Downtown Los Angeles to disperse. 'Less lethal munitions may cause pain and discomfort.' Over the weekend, police used a standard variety of tools to disperse crowds and quell protests that had devolved into violence: Protesters lit self-driving cars on fire. Two motorcyclists drove into a skirmish line of officers, injuring two. And LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell, condemning the 'disgusting' violence, alleged on Sunday evening a Molotov cocktail had been thrown at officers. Authorities responded with force. So far, CNN has documented the deployment of flash-bangs, tear gas, pepper balls, rubber bullets and bean bag rounds, as well as more traditional gear such as batons. These weapons – often described as 'less lethal,' 'less-than-lethal' or 'non-lethal' – are those 'explicitly designed and primarily employed to incapacitate … while minimizing fatalities, permanent injury to personnel, and undesired damage to property, facilities, materiel, and the environment,' according to a Department of Defense directive. Prev Next That does not mean they are harmless: After the 2020 protests in response to the police killing of George Floyd, researchers found many people suffered injuries from less lethal weapons – particularly rubber bullets. Here's a look at the equipment authorities have used: Authorities have used several tools that a 2025 report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service noted for their ability to incapacitate using blunt force. Foremost among these is the baton, which the CRS report described as the oldest kinetic less lethal weapon. Also called a nightstick, the baton is essentially a club with a handle, often used for crowd control. A CNN field crew witnessed officers pushing and striking protesters with batons Sunday afternoon. Also included are blunt-force projectiles, such as rubber bullets and bean bag rounds – both of which were seen in use this weekend. These weapons are used for long-range crowd control, according to the CRS report, and are meant to cause 'temporary blunt-force trauma to the skin.' Rubber bullets are larger than their lethal counterparts, and some include cores made of metal or wood. Though they are considered 'less-than-lethal,' there are cases where they have been found to disable, disfigure and even kill. Lauren Tomasi, the US correspondent for CNN affiliate Nine News in Australia, was reporting on the scene Sunday when she was struck in the leg by a rubber bullet. The bullet left her sore but she was otherwise unharmed, Tomasi's network said. Bean bag rounds are small, lead pellet-filled pouches, usually fired from a shotgun or a specialized launcher. Each pouch is typically filled with 1.4 oz of lead pellets. Law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles have also turned to chemical irritant devices, which rely on chemical compounds to irritate the sinuses, lungs and skin, causing enough pain to render an individual temporarily unable to function. Tear gas is one such tool, and commonly known. Also referred to as a 'riot control agent,' tear gas can cause excessive tearing, burning or blurred vision and a runny nose or a burning sensation inside the nose, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It can also cause difficulty swallowing, chest tightness, coughing, shortness of breath and a feeling of choking. Law enforcement agents usually disperse tear gas – which actually comes in a powder form – from grenades or a canister, per the CRS report. Pepper spray is similar but deployed using a hand-held canister for 'close-proximity encounters.' The compressed gas, the CRS report says, propels the chemical irritant at the target, who typically does not need medical attention afterwards. Pepper balls marry the effects of a chemical irritant with the delivery of a blunt-force projectile: Pepper spray balls, according to the CRS report, rupture on impact, releasing a chemical irritant similar to those used for tear gas. CNN footage captured law enforcement using pepper balls, spray and tear gas in an attempt to disperse protesters Sunday outside the Metropolitan Detention Center. CNN has also seen the repeated use of flash-bangs, which rely on a bright flash of light to obscure a target's vision and hearing. Flash-bangs – thrown either by hand or with a launcher – use an 'explosive propellant to emit a bright flash of light … and ear-piercing sound,' the CRS report says. While their principal purpose is to help police make a 'tactical entry' – disorienting barricaded suspects, for example – they are sometimes used for crowd control. CNN's Harmeet Kaur, AJ Willingham and Sarah-Grace Mankarious contributed to this report.
Japan Times
a day ago
- Politics
- Japan Times
Does U.S. law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
U.S. President Donald Trump deployed National Guard troops to California after days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids, saying the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and framing them as a possible "form of rebellion' against the authority of the U.S. government. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday mobilized 700 active duty Marines as part of the government's response to the protests. California sued the Trump administration on Monday to end the "unlawful" deployment of troops in Los Angeles County and return the state National Guard to California Gov. Gavin Newsom's command. What laws did Trump cite to justify the deployment? Trump cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the U.S. Armed Forces, in his Saturday order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service. A provision of Title 10 — Section 12406 — allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the U.S. is invaded, there is a "rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' What are National Guard troops allowed to do under the law cited in Trump's order? An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the U.S. military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Section 12406 does not override that prohibition, but it allows troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property. For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests. What does California's lawsuit say? California's lawsuit said the deployment of troops in the state without the governor's consent violates federal law and the U.S. Constitution's 10th Amendment, which protects states' rights. The state argues the deployment does not meet any of the requirements in Title 10 because there was no "rebellion,' no "invasion" and no situation that prevented the enforcement of U.S. laws in the state. Trump also did not consult with Newsom before deploying the National Guard, violating Section 12406's requirement that orders to deploy the National Guard "shall be issued through the governors of the States," according to the lawsuit. What is the lawsuit asking for? The lawsuit seeks a declaration from the court Trump's order is unlawful and an injunction blocking it from being enforced. How might a court view the dispute? There is little precedent for such a dispute. Section 12406 has only ever been invoked once before to deploy the National Guard, when President Richard Nixon called upon it to deliver the mail during the 1970 Postal Service Strike, according to Bonta. Five legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organizations cast doubt on Trump's use of Title 10 in response to the immigration protests and called it inflammatory and reckless, especially without Newsom's support. The protests in California do not rise to the level of "rebellion' and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said. Legal experts were split on whether a court would back Newsom's interpretation of the governor's role under Section 12406. Courts have traditionally given great weight to the word "shall' in interpreting other laws, which supports Newsom's position that governors must be involved in calling in the National Guard. But other experts said the law was written to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president's decision to deploy troops. What other laws could Trump invoke to direct the National Guard or other U.S. military troops? Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent. Senior White House officials, including Vice President JD Vance and senior White House aide Stephen Miller, have used the term "insurrection" when discussing the protests, but the administration has stopped short of invoking the act thus far. It has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the U.S. in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the trial of Los Angeles police officers who beat Black motorist Rodney King. But the last time a president deployed the National Guard in a state without a request from that state's governor was 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama. What about the Marines? Trump has more direct authority over the Marines than the National Guard, under Title 10 and in his constitutional role as commander in chief of the armed forces, legal experts said. But unless Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, the Marines are subject to legal restrictions that prevent them from taking part in "any search, seizure, arrest or other similar activity." The Defense Department said on Monday that the Marines were ready to support the National Guard's efforts to protect federal personnel and federal property in Los Angeles, emphasizing the relatively limited scope of their role at the moment.
Malay Mail
a day ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
‘Deranged' deployment: Trump floods LA with National Guard and Marines, California governor Newsom blasts move
WASHINGTON, June 10 — President Donald Trump's administration said Monday it was sending 700 US Marines and thousands more National Guard troops to Los Angeles, sparking a furious response from California's governor over the 'deranged' deployment. Trump had already mobilised 2,000 National Guard members to the country's second most populous city on Saturday, with some 300 taking up positions protecting federal buildings and officers on Sunday. On Monday — the fourth day of protests against immigration raids in the city that have seen some scuffles with law enforcement — the Trump administration announced the mobilisation of the 700 Marines as well as an 'additional' 2,000 National Guard. A senior administration official told AFP that 'active-duty US Marines from Camp Pendleton will be deployed to Los Angeles to help protect federal agents and buildings.' The official first gave a figure of 500 Marines, but later updated the number to 700. Deploying active duty military personnel like US Marines into a community of civilians within the United States is a highly unusual measure. The US military separately confirmed the deployment of 'approximately 700 Marines' from an infantry battalion following the unrest. They would 'seamlessly integrate' with National Guard forces that Trump deployed to Los Angeles on Saturday without the consent of California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom. The deployment was meant to ensure there were 'adequate numbers of forces,' it added. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell then announced the mobilisation of 'an additional 2,000 California National Guard to be called into federal service to support ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) & to enable federal law-enforcement officers to safely conduct their duties.' It was not immediately clear if the 'additional' 2,000 guardsmen were on top of the 2,000 that had already been mobilised, or only the 300 that were already in the streets of Los Angeles. Newsom wasted little time accusing the president of sowing 'chaos' in Los Angeles. 'Trump is trying to provoke chaos by sending 4,000 soldiers onto American soil,' the governor posted on X. Earlier, he slammed the 'deranged' decision by 'dictatorial' Trump to send in Marines. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had first mentioned that the Marines could be deployed on Saturday. — AFP
