Big Fans Of State Sovereignty Except When California Does It
The dangerous standoff he's created in LA between civilians and the military is the real-life manifestation of a running bit in Trump's psyche, a feud between himself and blue-voting municipalities that, up until this point, he largely stoked via Truth Social posts and, starting in January, executive orders attacking sanctuary cities and those who govern them.
In order to justify the deployment of the military against civilian protesters as anything bigger than him finding an opening for his blue city retribution, it appears he's enlisted some of his allies in the administration, and in Congress, to perform a bit of shameless spin when it comes to state sovereignty.
When Trump first ordered the federalization of the California National Guard, Newsom surfaced an old tweet from Trump's DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, which she posted while governor of South Dakota in 2024. The tweet is a clip from an interview Noem did with Fox News' resident MAGA man Sean Hannity during which she argued that if President Biden 'federalizes the National Guard, that would be a direct attack on states' rights.' (They were expressing disapproval of a theoretical move Biden could take to order the Texas National Guard to stand down when Texas Governor Greg Abbott mobilized it for border enforcement.)
Newsom reposted the tweet on Sunday.
Noem is, of course, now living and dying by President Trump's decision to federalize the National Guard without consulting a state governor, going so far, per a document obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle, as to suggest that Guard members go beyond their current unprecedented deployment and extra-legally join ICE in conducting immigration arrests.
Trump's pals in Congress, meanwhile, are having to twist themselves a bit more to make the hypocrisy stick.
Take libertarian-in-chief Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), the man who is constantly lamenting federal overreach and professing his strong desire to shrink the size of the federal government. In response to questions about Trump's decision to federalize National Guard troops and send them into LA, Paul said he supported the decision. He also gave the game away: that the true point of deploying troops was not about mitigating protests but about forcing California, a sanctuary state, to bend to the President's will.
'I've always preferred local law enforcement to federal but this is a time in which it looks as though the state government is resisting enforcing federal law,' he said.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) — the world's biggest fan of states' rights when it comes to their ability to impose draconian abortion bans in Roe's wake — was all in on the deployment when speaking to reporters on Tuesday.
'President Trump has put his hand on the table and said 'Not on my watch,' and we applaud that so we're standing with him,' Johnson said.
'Look, that's not my lane. I'm not going to give you legal analysis on whether Gavin Newsom should be arrested, but he ought to be tarred and feathered,' he continued.
Some vulnerable House Republicans have reportedly been vocalizing their lack of enthusiasm for a White House-created, Mike Johnson-supported plan that would see Congress green-light a handful of DOGE cuts in the form of a rescissions package. Turns out some of the devastating cuts to foreign aid programs are not just hard to stomach, but rubber stamping them might prove problematic for these representatives' reelection prospects. Specifically, at least a dozen House Republicans have expressed concerns about cuts to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a George W. Bush-era program. Per Politico:
In recent days, White House officials have conveyed to GOP leaders that they will not only maintain life-saving treatments under PEPFAR but will also — in response to concerns from more than a dozen House Republicans — preserve some prevention programs as well, according to three people granted anonymity to discuss the private assurances.
After a recent visit to Hiroshima, Japan, DNI Director Tulsi Gabbard put out a video on Twitter Tuesday warning that the world is closer to nuclear war than ever before. In it she accused 'political elites' who can hide in 'shelters' of trying to stoke conflict between world powers with access to nuclear weapons.
'As we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before, political elite and warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers,' Gabbard said in the video.
'Perhaps it's because they are confident that they will have access to nuclear shelters for themselves and for their families that regular people won't have access to,' she said. 'It's up to us, the people, to speak up and demand an end to this madness.'
A judge granted the Trump administration's motion for summary judgment Tuesday evening, finding that the President's removal power allowed him (via DOGE) to axe the U.S. African Development Foundation's board, and that the board members had already been removed when they voted to appoint a new president. We had covered this saga a bit in March as Trump was early on his aggressive push to remake the executive branch, demolishing many agencies in the process. The USADF had managed to hold off DOGE — at least for awhile. Judge Richard Leon had telegraphed Tuesday's decision in recent court hearings. This is not one of the independent agencies that had removal protections and is unlikely to end in a showdown over agency power.
— Kate Riga
Stephen Miller Demanded ICE Target Home Depots
Punishing Blue Cities Was Always On The Agenda
Trump Admin Calls In National Guard Against LA Protestors
White House Pushes Texas to Redistrict, Hoping to Blunt Democratic Gains
Fake Images and Conspiracy Theories Swirl Around L.A. Protests
GOP senator on Trump's military parade: 'I wouldn't have done it'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
a few seconds ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump is creating a task force for the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is establishing a task force on the 2028 Olympic Games being held in Los Angeles. Trump will sign an executive order on Tuesday to make the task force official, the White House said. Trump has said that the Los Angeles Summer Games are among the events he's most looking forward to in his second term. The 2028 Games will be the first Olympics to be hosted by the U.S. since the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City, Utah. Trump 'considers it a great honor to oversee this global sporting spectacle,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement, calling sports one of the president's 'greatest passions.' LA28 president and chair Casey Wasserman said the task force "marks an important step forward in our planning efforts and reflects our shared commitment to delivering not just the biggest, but the greatest Games the world has ever seen in the summer of 2028.'
Los Angeles Times
a few seconds ago
- Los Angeles Times
Rwanda agrees to take deportees from the U.S. after a previous migrant deal with the U.K. collapsed
KIGALI, Rwanda — Rwanda on Tuesday became the third African nation to agree to accept deportees from the United States under the Trump administration's plans to send migrants to countries they have no ties with to get them off American soil. Rwandan government spokesperson Yolande Makolo told The Associated Press in a statement that the East African country would accept up to 250 deportees from the U.S., with 'the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement' under the agreement. Makolo didn't provide a timeline for any deportees to arrive in Rwanda or say if they would arrive at once or in several batches. She said details were still being worked out. The U.S. sent 13 men it described as dangerous criminals who were in the U.S. illegally to South Sudan and Eswatini in Africa last month and has said it is seeking more agreements with African nations. It said those deportees' home countries refused to take them back. The U.S. has also deported hundreds of Venezuelans and others to Costa Rica, El Salvador and Panama under President Trump's plans to expel people who he says entered the U.S. illegally and are 'the worst of the worst.' Rwanda attracted international attention and some outrage when it struck a deal in 2022 with the U.K. to accept migrants who had arrived in the U.K. to seek asylum. Under that proposed deal, their claims would have been processed in Rwanda and, if successful, they would have stayed there. The contentious agreement was criticized by rights groups and others as being unethical and unworkable and was ultimately scrapped when Britain's new Labour government took over. Britain's Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that the deal was unlawful because Rwanda was not a safe third country for migrants. The Trump administration has come under scrutiny for the African countries it has entered into secretive deals with to take deportees. It sent eight men from South Sudan, Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar and Vietnam to South Sudan in early July after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for their deportations. They were held for weeks in a converted shipping container at an American military base in Djibouti as the legal battle over their deportations played out. South Sudan, which is tipping toward civil war, has declined to say where the men are being held or what their fate is. The U.S. also deported five men who are citizens of Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen and Laos to the southern African kingdom of Eswatini, where the government said they will be held in solitary confinement in prison for an undetermined period of time. A human rights lawyer in Eswatini said the men are being denied access to legal representation there and has taken authorities to court. Eswatini is Africa's last absolute monarchy, and the king rules over government and political parties are effectively banned. Both South Sudan and Eswatini have declined to give details of their agreements with the U.S. Rwanda, a relatively small country of some 15 million people, has long stood out on the continent for its recovery from a genocide that killed over 800,000 people in 1994. It has promoted itself under longtime President Paul Kagame as an example of stability and development, but human rights groups allege there are also deadly crackdowns on any perceived dissent against Kagame, who has been president for 25 years. Government spokesperson Makolo said the agreement with the U.S. was Rwanda doing its part to help with international migration issues because 'our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation.' 'Those approved (for resettlement in Rwanda) will be provided with workforce training, healthcare, and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade,' she said. There were no details about whether Rwanda had received anything in return for taking the deportees. Gonzaga Muganwa, a Rwandan political analyst, said 'appeasing President Trump pays.' 'This agreement enhances Rwanda's strategic interest of having good relationships with the Trump administration,' he said. The U.K. government estimated that its failed migration deal with Rwanda cost around $900 million in public money, including approximately $300 million in payments to Rwanda, which said it was not obligated to refund the money when the agreement fell apart. Ssuuna and Imray write for the Associated Press. Imray reported from Cape Town, South Africa.
Scientific American
a few seconds ago
- Scientific American
NASA's Plan for a Nuclear Reactor on the Moon Could Be a Lunar Land Grab
NASA could soon go nuclear on the moon. The space agency's acting administrator, Sean Duffy, has issued a directive to expedite building a nuclear reactor on the lunar surface. Duffy, a former Fox News host, is also head of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and he took over leadership of NASA in July after the Trump administration pulled its nomination of the private astronaut and businessman Jared Isaacman. The directive, first reported by Politico, would accelerate NASA's long-simmering —and, to date, largely fruitless—efforts to develop nuclear reactors to support space science and exploration. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. The space agency has pursued various projects over the years, most recently in 2022, when it by awarded three $5 million contracts to companies crafting designs for small, space-ready reactors meant for lunar operations in the mid-2030s. Inspired in part by a space policy directive issued by President Trump during his first term, those were intended to produce 40 kilowatts of power—enough to sustain a small office building—and would weigh less than six metric tons. Duffy's directive is more ambitious, calling for NASA to solicit proposals for reactors that would yield at least 100 kilowatts of power and be ready for launch by late 2029. The space agency is tasked with appointing an official to oversee the effort within 30 days, and to issue its solicitation within 60 days. Lunar nights are very long—two Earth weeks—and perilously cold, making nuclear power desirable for surface operations. But according to the directive the greater impetus for the fast-tracked plan is a burgeoning partnership between China and Russia to build a nuclear-powered outpost near the moon's south pole by the mid-2030s. The sun never crests high above the horizon there, leaving some craters in permanent shadow—and valuable deposits of water ice lacing their eternally dark floors. Despite its cryogenic chill this lunar region is hotly contested, with NASA's Artemis program also targeting crewed landings there as early as 2027 as part of the Artemis III mission. Besides providing abundant electricity for surface operations, a nuclear reactor on the moon could also allow for a strategic lunar land grab. Ownership of otherworldly territory is prohibited according to the U.N. Outer Space Treaty, but the treaty also obliges spacefaring powers to exercise 'due regard' in their activities, meaning that they should not encroach on or interfere with sensitive infrastructure built there by others. A nuclear reactor placed on the lunar surface, therefore, could allow the declaration of what Duffy's directive calls a 'keep-out zone.' Although the Trump administration's acceleration of NASA's nuclear-power efforts may be welcomed by many space-exploration advocates, it comes alongside other proposals from the White House that seek to radically reshape the space agency and could be at cross purposes. These include plans for extraordinarily deep cuts to NASA's science programs, as well as an active and ongoing culling of the space agency's work force. The president's budget request for fiscal year 2026 notably zeroes out funding for a joint program between NASA and the Department of Defense to develop nuclear rocketry; it would also wind down the space agency's ability to build and deploy radioisotope power sources, which offer nuclear-derived heat and electricity sans complex and heavy reactors for robotic missions to the outer planets and other sunlight-sparse parts of the solar system. The biggest question facing NASA's latest nuclear foray, however, may be what these notional new reactors would actually power. Many experts say a 2027 launch for Artemis III is unlikely, citing factors such as the ongoing difficulties of developing a requisite lunar lander based on SpaceX's Starship rocket. With each logistical misstep or schedule delay, additional Artemis missions that would put more meaningful and power-hungry infrastructure on the moon slip further over the horizon, potentially making the entire program more vulnerable to additional rounds of budget cuts—or even outright cancellation by future administrations. It's Time to Stand Up for Science Before you close the page, we need to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and we think right now is the most critical moment in that two-century history. We're not asking for charity. If you become a Digital, Print or Unlimited subscriber to Scientific American, you can help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both future and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself often goes unrecognized.
