National Guard arrives in LA on Trump's orders to quell protests against immigration raids
Los Angeles
on Sunday on orders from president
Donald Trump
, in response to clashes in recent days between federal
immigration
authorities and protesters seeking to block them from carrying out deportations.
Members of California's National Guard were seen mobilising at the federal complex in central Los Angeles that includes the Metropolitan Detention Centre, one of several sites that have seen confrontations involving hundreds of people in last two days.
The troops included members of the 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, according to a social media post from the Department of Defence that showed dozens of National Guard members with long guns and an armoured vehicle.
Mr Trump has said he is deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell the protests, which he called 'a form of rebellion'.
READ MORE
The deployment was limited to a small area in central Los Angeles. The protests have been relatively small and limited to that area. The rest of the city of four million people is largely unaffected.
Their arrival follows
clashes near a Home Depot
in the heavily Latino city of Paramount, south of Los Angeles.
As protesters sought to block Border Patrol vehicles, some hurling rocks and chunks of cement, federal agents unleashed tear gas, flash-bang explosives and pepper balls.
Tensions were high after a series of sweeps by immigration authorities the previous day, as the weeklong tally of immigrant arrests in the city climbed past 100.
A prominent union leader was arrested while protesting and accused of impeding law enforcement.
Members of the National Guard stand guard in front of the Federal building in downtown Los Angeles, California. Photograph: Frederic J Brown/AFP via Getty Images
On Sunday, homeland security secretary
Kristi Noem
said the National Guard would 'keep peace and allow people to be able to protest but also to keep law and order'.
In a signal of the administration's aggressive approach, defence secretary
Pete Hegseth
also threatened to deploy active-duty marines 'if violence continues' in the region.
The move came over the objections of governor
Gavin Newsom
, marking the first time in decades that a state's national guard was activated without a request from its governor, according to the Brennan Centre for Justice.
Mr Newsom, a Democrat, said Mr Trump's decision to call in the National Guard was 'purposefully inflammatory'.
He described Mr Hegseth's threat to deploy marines on American soil as 'deranged behaviour'.
Mr Trump's order came after clashes in Paramount and neighbouring Compton, where a car was set on fire.
[
Riot police and anti-ICE protesters clash in Los Angeles after immigration raids
Opens in new window
]
Protests continued into the evening in Paramount, with several hundred demonstrators gathered near a doughnut shop, and authorities holding up barbed wire to keep the crowd back.
Crowds also gathered again outside federal buildings in central Los Angeles, including a detention centre, where police declared an unlawful assembly and began to arrest people. – AP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Republicans advance Trump tax-cut Bill, opening way for debate
Donald Trump 's flagship tax and spending Bill moved closer to final Congressional approval on Thursday after Republican holdouts in the House of Representatives agreed to advance the legislation. The rebellion by a handful of members of Mr Trump's own party held up the Bill's progress for several hours, but the House finally voted 219-213 to take the legislation to a final vote later on Thursday. 'We have the votes,' Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House, told reporters. 'We're still going to meet the deadline.' The legislation, which Mr Trump dubs the 'big, beautiful Bill', extends vast tax cuts from his first administration, paid for in part by steep cuts to Medicaid, the public health insurance scheme for low-income and disabled Americans, and other social welfare programmes. READ MORE The Bill would also roll back Joe Biden -era tax credits for clean energy, while increasing investment in the military and border protection. With a narrow majority in the House, Republicans can only afford to lose three votes on the Bill. Mr Trump, who has set a deadline of July 4th to sign the Bill into law, earlier lashed out at the Republican holdouts on his Truth Social network. 'Largest Tax Cuts in History and a Booming Economy vs. Biggest Tax Increase in History, and a Failed Economy. What are the Republicans waiting for??? What are you trying to prove??? MAGA IS NOT HAPPY, AND IT'S COSTING YOU VOTES!!!,' Mr Trump said. On Wednesday, Mr Trump met privately at the White House with Republican dissidents to prevent them from torpedoing the Bill. Several conservative and centrist Republican lawmakers have raised concerns about the legislation that was approved by the Senate this week. Some are unhappy that the Bill — which implements a big chunk of Mr Trump's domestic agenda — does not go far enough to rein in the US debt, or cut back clean energy subsidies. Others are worried about cuts to healthcare programmes. A version of the sweeping legislation was narrowly passed in the Senate after three Republicans sided with Democrats against the Bill, forcing US vice-president JD Vance to cast a tie-breaking vote. That sent the legislation back to the House, which must approve the Bill before Mr Trump signs it into law. An earlier version of the legislation passed the House by a single vote in May. Fiscally conservative lawmakers, including many Freedom Caucus members, object to the cost of the legislation, which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says will add $3.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. The group has circulated a three-page memo detailing what it described as 'failures' of the Senate Bill. More moderate members have argued that the cuts to Medicaid, which would strip an estimated 12 million people of their health insurance, are too steep. The White House has dismissed the CBO's projections and argued that the Bill would more than pay for itself in the long term by generating stronger economic growth. - Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Trump says Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell should ‘resign immediately'
US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that Jerome Powell , the chair of the Federal Reserve, should 'resign immediately,' escalating an earlier call less than a week ago encouraging him to do so. The president has repeatedly lambasted Mr Powell recently for not cutting interest rates, saying he was costing the country a 'fortune' in debt-servicing costs. In a social media post on Wednesday, Mr Trump linked to an article about comments from Bill Pulte, the head of the US Housing Finance Agency, who wrote on social platform X that the Fed chair should be investigated for 'his political bias, and his deceptive Senate testimony'. At issue is Mr Powell's insistence that the Fed can afford to be patient about cutting interest rates with the economy still on solid footing and inflation risks rising again because of Mr Trump's tariffs . READ MORE On Tuesday, Mr Powell hinted that the Fed would have been able to lower rates if it were not for those policies. In his statement on X, Mr Pulte, who leads the agency that regulates mortgage firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, accused Mr Powell of making false statements at a congressional hearing about the swelling costs of a planned renovation of the Fed's headquarters. [ Fed holds rates unchanged as Donald Trump calls chairman Jerome Powell 'stupid' Opens in new window ] At that hearing, Powell pushed back on media reports that the plans included features like a VIP diningroom and new marble table. The administration's attacks on Mr Powell are not new. Just in the past week, Trump has called Mr Powell a 'stubborn mule' and penned him a handwritten note to apply pressure on the Fed to lower interest rates. How the wealthy are buying up land to avoid inheritance tax Listen | 22:03 The president has also previously threatened to remove Powell from his role as chair before his term expires in 2026, but the Supreme Court recently signalled he is not able to do so. This article originally appeared in The New York Times . 2025 The New York Times Company
Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
Why is the United Nations not doing more to stop the starvation in Gaza?
The prognosis for life in Gaza is unimaginably bleak. A Donald Trump -brokered permanent ceasefire that sees the return of the remaining hostages taken by Hamas on October 7th, 2023 cannot come soon enough. In theory, this will see the cessation of Israel's bombardments. Whether there will be a return to UN-managed humanitarian aid distribution, replacing the death traps of the Israeli and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation aid stations, remains to be seen. Whatever happens, even if tens of thousands of Palestinians were to avoid death by starvation in the coming weeks and months, Gaza will live in rubble for at least a generation, with the permanent effects of malnutrition, war injuries, disease, familial death and PTSD. Basic housing, healthcare, education or social services will not be restored for years, if ever. There is no long-term Israeli vision for Gaza that involves its reconstruction under any form of Palestinian self-government. As Hamas appears to be replenishing itself to the point where some commentators believe that it has as many active fighters now (through new recruits) as it had before October 7th, the worldview of many on the Israeli right has become a self-fulfilling prophecy: any Palestinian or foreign-led protectorate government in Gaza will inevitably become infiltrated by Hamas and cannot be allowed. The Israeli plan, if there is one, appears a deliberate attempt to starve, slaughter, weaken and traumatise Gaza to the point where two million Gazans consider 'voluntary' resettlement elsewhere. We will not find out for years whether the International Court of Justice determines that Israel's actions have met the legal threshold of genocide. Where is the UN in all this? Why can it not do more? There are, in fact, two UNs: the first is the intergovernmental system, where the 193 Member States debate and pass resolutions on various matters under mandates given to them by themselves. The second is the operational system, under which the secretary general oversees the various secretariat departments and appoints the heads of UN agencies. The latter system has largely done (and continues to do) all it can, as the UN operational system can only do what the member states allow. Senior UN officials, such as human rights commissioner Volker Türk, have documented Israel's grave breaches of international humanitarian law, while continuously calling on Hamas to release the hostages. The UN special rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, who is not a UN official and whose pronouncements carry moral rather than legal weight, has used the term 'acts of genocide'. READ MORE [ Francesca Albanese: 'The struggle against the Mafia has marked me and my sense of justice' Opens in new window ] Nevertheless, the UN operational system has been humiliated and sidelined by an Israeli regime that loathes it, believing without evidence that Unrwa was implicated in the October 7th attacks via Hamas infiltration. For the Israeli right, allowing UN agencies to feed and shelter the Gazan population inevitably means feeding and sheltering Hamas. This leaves the UN's ability to work freely in Gaza in serious doubt. But more can be done within the intergovernmental system. While chapter VII of the UN charter authorises member states to use force in their own legitimate self-defence, UN military action 'to restore international peace and order' must be authorised by the security council. This has been done on 12 occasions since 1945, almost always with the tacit approval of the member state most concerned. What has never happened in its 80-year history is for the security council to authorise UN military action against a member state engaged in the mass killing, starvation or ethnic cleansing of either its own people or people living in disputed territory under its occupying control. To do so would require not only the approval of the security council, but also member states to supply military assets and personnel to ensure a successful military outcome, as well as support for a post-military political process. This is the context in which the UN finds itself in Gaza. As long as the Trump administration supports Israel's war aims, the US will wield its veto in the security council and permit only resolutions that call for humanitarian access and the safe return of hostages, rather than mandating action. It is, therefore, to the UN General Assembly, where resolutions are passed by simple majority, that those hoping for greater UN intervention in Gaza must turn. While the assembly has condemned Israel's 'starvation as a method of warfare', it has shied away from considering a stronger interventionist response. It shouldn't. The UN charter clearly gives it the authority to mandate peace operations and it has a track record of doing so ( as in Indonesia in 1962). While the consent of the 'host country' is required for such peace operations deployment, Israel is not the host country in Gaza, which the assembly itself recognises as Palestinian territory. The 1950 United for Peace Resolution gives the assembly the authority to consider peace and security resolutions when the security council has vetoed same. As a result, therefore, the assembly should request the security council to adopt a resolution condemning Israel's violations of international humanitarian law and Hamas's continued illegal detention of Israeli hostages, and mandating Chapter VII UN military action to forcibly open humanitarian aid corridors. Any veto would have to be explained to the assembly within 10 days. Secondly, the assembly should adopt a further resolution appointing a special representative of the secretary general for Gaza, indicating its intention to establish a peacekeeping force to ensure aid distribution and the co-ordination of reconstruction efforts. It should call upon member states to voluntary impose a trade embargo and other economic sanctions on Israel should it resist. Finally, the resolution should request other intergovernmental bodies such as the EU or the Commonwealth to explore military options to open aid corridors. [ Hagai El-Ad: Sanctions against individual settlers are hopelessly inadequate. The real settler organisation is Israel Opens in new window ] Precedents for the UN co-operating with other intergovernmental bodies in the implementation of military activity exist, most notably in Bosnia in the 1990s, where the UN authorised Nato to impose a no-fly zone. Would the EU, the Commonwealth or any individual UN member state be prepared to conduct military operations to open Gaza aid corridors, citing the approval of the general assembly? Unlikely. But such a resolution could just move the political dial and put pressure on Israel to meet its international humanitarian obligations. What is the alternative? Niall McCann worked worldwide in various electoral capacities for the United Nations Development Programme, as well as the United Nations Mission in Liberia, from 2005-2022. He is co-author of The UN at Country Level – A p ractical guide to the United Nations Operational System
