Gavin Newsom Seeks Immediate Order To Block Donald Trump's Federal Troop Patrols In Los Angeles
Newsom wrote on X, 'Trump is turning the U.S. military against American citizens. The courts must immediately block these illegal actions.'
More from Deadline
Michael Stipe, Jason Isbell * Brandi Carlile Among Artists Featured On Album To Benefit Democracy Forward's Legal Challenges
Judge Rejects Sean "Diddy" Combs' Latest Motion For Mistrial In Sex-Trafficking Case - Update
Denise Rehrig Named Executive Producer Of ABC News Live's 'Prime With Linsey Davis'
Read Newsom's motion about Trump troop deployment.
In the motion filed on Tuesday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, Newsom and state officials argued that 'they seek to preserve (in part) the status quo by temporarily enjoining Defendants from ordering or deploying the active- duty members of the military and federalized National Guard soldiers to patrol communities or otherwise engage in general law enforcement activities beyond the immediate vicinity of federal buildings or other federal real property.'
They argued that the 'use of the military and the federalized National Guard deprives the State of vital resources, escalates tensions and promotes (rather than quells) civil unrest. By contrast, the public interest is served if the Court enjoins Defendants from further militarizing California's communities to allow State and local law enforcement to fulfill their duties to enforce State law. Moreover, a preliminary injunction will not harm Defendants: the Department of Homeland Security can continue to enforce immigration law and the DOD Defendants will merely be ordered to comply with the PCA and statutes governing the federalization of the National Guard.'
Newsom filed suit against Trump and the administration on Monday, arguing that the president overstepped his authority when he dispatched National Guard troops to the region to respond to protests of ICE immigration raids. Newsom said that Trump violated the law by not consulting with him first before the deployment.
More to come.
Best of Deadline
Sean 'Diddy' Combs Sex-Trafficking Trial Updates: Cassie Ventura's Testimony, $10M Hotel Settlement, Drugs, Violence, & The Feds
A Full Timeline Of Blake Lively & Justin Baldoni's 'It Ends With Us' Feud In Court, Online & In The Media
Where To Watch All The 'John Wick' Movies: Streamers That Have All Four Films
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
a minute ago
- Fast Company
Here's why Trump's proposed 401k executive order may be very bad news for your retirement
BY Listen to this Article More info 0:00 / 7:11 Amidst the other recent headlines about his signature, you may have missed the news that Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order in the coming days that will allow defined-contribution plans like your 401k to include private market investments. If you're not the sort of person who views a mutual fund prospectus as light beach reading, this may sound like the kind of boring story that only your crypto-obsessed brother-in-law might care about. But this is serious business that could have repercussions on your retirement —especially if you're not paying attention. This proposed policy could be sending us down the same bumpy road that knocked the tires off of company-sponsored pension plans, dramatically increasing retirement insecurity for most American workers. Here's what you need to know. What's in the executive order? The specific details of the forthcoming executive order (EO) remain hazy. But most experts agree that the president will probably use the EO as an opportunity to formalize the 2020 Pantheon Ventures/Partners Group opinion letter from the Department of Labor. This letter, issued during Trump's first administration, suggests that private equity investment options could be included in defined-benefit plans (i.e., 401k and 403b plans and the like) as part of a target-dated fund or other managed fund. The letter also emphasizes that plan participants should not be able to directly access private equity investments. It's likely this letter may serve as a blueprint for the EO that crosses Trump's desk in the near future. What's private equity? Private equity is an investment in a privately traded company by an accredited investor or group of investors who take on a controlling interest in the organization. Though typically lucrative, private equity investing is often characterized by a long time horizon and a lack of liquidity. Private equity firms often charge high fees and expenses, and they may not disclose conflicts of interest. Let's look at these specific characteristics: Private trading Private equity is an investment class that is not available to the general public. This is unlike shares in publicly traded companies that anyone can purchase on the open market. Accredited investors An individual may be considered an accredited investor if they have earned $200,000 (or $300,000 with a spouse) for each of the past two years, or if they have a net worth of over $1 million excluding their primary residence. This means you're only allowed to invest in private equity if you can be relatively sure you won't be completely wiped out if you make a single bad investment. Controlling interest Typically, private equity investors take a controlling interest in the company and work to actively manage the business in order to increase its value. Illiquidity Private equity investment requires a long time horizon and most private equity funds will impose limits on when an investor can withdraw their funds. These limits will often last years. Fee structure Private equity funds come with fees and expenses that can be confusing, opaque, or just plain undisclosed. Conflicts of interest Private equity firms can and do have interests that conflict with those of their investors and the funds they manage. Though the SEC has proposed stronger rules for Private Fund advisers, and the commission does enforce what it can, investors must remain vigilant for the possibility of conflicts of interest. So what's the problem with private equity? There are some very good reasons why defined-benefit plans have always been closed to private equity. At its best, private equity is an effective tool that can help companies restructure and position themselves for future growth. This is what Dell did in 2013. But too often, private equity functions more like the 'Bust Out' episode of The Sopranos, where Tony drives his friend Davey's sporting goods store into bankruptcy by maxing out debt to purchase inventory the mobsters peddle for a profit. Sears and Toys 'R' Us are two examples of companies that didn't survive their private equity adventures. Those two bankruptcies eliminated 70,000 jobs, and company pension plans were eventually frozen or terminated. Why add private equity to 401k plans? There are $12.2 trillion worth of assets in U.S. defined contribution retirement plans. Private equity would appreciate getting a foothold in an investment sector that has traditionally been cut off from non-accredited investors. Proponents of the idea claim that allowing 401k investors to include private equity in their defined contribution plans will give them the opportunity to enjoy the higher returns that are typically restricted to accredited investors. But detractors worry that private equity is too risky and illiquid an investment class to have in a workplace retirement plan—which is where an employee would take a hardship withdrawal during a tough economic time. Critics like Elizabeth Warren have called private equity predatory and demanded stronger regulations. Why not just ignore it? If investing in private equity isn't your cup of tea, it may seem reasonable to simply put the matter out of your mind. You just won't invest in any of the private equity target-dated funds and your 401k will continue chugging along. The only issue with this plan is the fact that opening the door to private equity in our defined contribution plans will also make the employers sponsoring those plans more vulnerable. Under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), employers have a fiduciary responsibility to make sure the investment options in your 401k are prudent and that any fees are not onerous. Plan sponsors have traditionally been leery of private equity in 401k retirement plans because of their illiquidity, complexity, opacity, and high fees, which leaves them open to ERISA lawsuits. Considering the fact that ERISA lawsuits against excessive 401k fees have risen to a near record high in the past year, employers have good reason to be worried. Yes, this does mean that everything is working as planned. Employers are supposed to take fiduciary responsibility for their employees' retirement plans, and when they don't, the workers can file ERISA lawsuits against them–and win. So far, so good. But the creation of ERISA 50 years ago, including the much-vaunted litigation portion of the law, may have contributed to the decline of pension plans. If it ain't broke . . . Placing even more complex fiduciary responsibility on the shoulders of employers could have similar unintended consequences that we can't yet see. Average 401k savings rates and balances have recently been at record highs. As pensions have declined, and more Americans are feeling nervous about the future of Social Security, do we really want to open up defined contribution retirement plans to a new class of under-regulated, risky investments? The average retirement investor simply has no need of private equity in their 401k. The super-early-rate deadline for Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies Awards is this Friday, July 25, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today. ABOUT THE AUTHOR The daughter of a financial planner, Emily Guy Birken never stood a chance: Try as she might to avoid her destiny (undergraduate degree in English with a focus on creative writing at Kenyon, MEd from The Ohio State University, teaching, motherhood), her innate fascination with money turned her into one of the most compelling and relatable writers on personal finance.. Based in Milwaukee and a regular guest on Wisconsin Public Radio, she has written for The Washington Post, USA Today, and many other publications and websites. In her "What to Expect When You're Investing" series for Fast Company, she has offered tips on getting your kids through college without going broke as well as advice on what to do if you run out of money in retirement. Whether explicating the hidden money lessons in the movie Groundhog Day or explaining why "spaving" is probably not a wise financial strategy for most of us, Emily offers data-driven insights with heaping portions of common sense and humor. More
USA Today
a minute ago
- USA Today
Making gas cans great again: White House asks for redesign after years of user frustration
Vapor-emissions regulations were ordered in 2009 after scientists noted the approximately 80 million gas cans were a surprising source of air pollution. The White House is trying to make gas cans fill great again. In a July 24 letter, the EPA has asked gas can manufacturers to redesign their much-maligned products to fix a long-standing problem: "People hate 'em," said Florida-based eBay gas can reseller Steven Watt, 63. "It's all about the spout." Federal regulations implemented in 2009 required portable gas cans for lawnmowers, chainsaws, ATVs and stranded vehicles to have special vents to stop vapors from escaping, contributing to ozone pollution. But many modern designs are often infuriatingly ineffective at actually filling tanks because the vents work so poorly. Instead of stopping vapors from flowing out the complicated spouts and relief valves, instead frustrated users often cause gasoline spills, which some critics say are far worse than a tiny amount of vapor escaping from an older design. Gas cans regulations developed to protect kids, reduce emissions Other regulations require the cans to be child-resistant and limit the risk of flash fires, and the EPA can't change those. But the EPA said manufacturers should figure out how to make their gas cans work both safely and effectively. Trump has sought a similar change to low-flow bathroom fixtures as part efforts to roll back regulations he considers anti-consumer and of dubious environmental benefit. "Part of powering the great American comeback means ensuring manufacturers have the clarity and encouragement to deliver products Americans want," EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a statement. "The confusion surrounding gas cans has been a frustration for years. We are proud to address this issue head on. Moving forward, Americans should have gas cans that are compliant, but most importantly, that are effective and consumer friendly," he said. Looking for alternatives The vapor-emissions regulations were first developed by regulators who noted that the approximately 80 million gas cans in the United States were a surprising source of air pollution: Emissions from a single old-style can could be 60 times higher than from a car's gas tank if both were left open side-by-side. But the new rules left many people looking for alternatives. Now, for the same price as new, Watt sells used "pre ban" cans ‒ those made before the regulations phased in in 2009 ‒ sourcing them from flea markets and recycling centers. He recently sold three of them to a man in Michigan for $300, although most of that was actually the shipping cost. Watt said he's always surprised by what people want to buy. But each year, he makes sure to stock up before hurricane season begins. He planned to pick up 50 used cans from a recycling center later in the day. "I sell a lot of stuff that's a mystery to me. I mean, it's not a collectible," he said of the old-style gas cans. "But I know that people who buy used ones like them."
Fast Company
a minute ago
- Fast Company
Turnout for July 26 Families First protests against Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' and Medicaid cuts expected in all 50 states: What to know
On Saturday, July 26, tens of thousands of people, including large numbers of families, are expected to join Families First protests and rallies against the Trump administration's policies. Those policies range from reversals of environmental protections to the newly passed 'big beautiful bill,' with its massive cuts to Medicaid, to the White House's immigration policy, which has led to raids and arrests carried out by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) across the country. Here's what to know. What's happening? Thousands of parents, grandparents, immigrants, caregivers, children, and religious leaders are planning to gather in peaceful demonstrations in all 50 states, with major events scheduled in Washington, D.C.; Tucson, Arizona; and Chicago. 'At a time when too many families are already struggling to afford what they need, these cuts will take away families' healthcare coverage, food, and essential care, and some families have already had loved ones disappeared by ICE,' Ai-jen Poo, executive director of Caring Across Generations, told Fast Company. 'Our families come first, and we'll continue showing up for one another.' What to expect According to organizers, Families First is a nationwide day of action with family-friendly rallies, youth art-making fairs, teach-ins, canned-food drives, and community events to raise awareness about the need for healthcare, safety, food, education, and climate action to protect children and families in the United States. Like many of the recent anti-Trump protests, Families First is expected to include people from all walks of life and parts of the country. As previously reported, protestors have included struggling middle-class families with young children; retirees worried about cuts to Social Security and Medicaid; teachers in schools where funding has been pulled and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs are under attack; and recently laid-off government workers targeted by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
