Marines detain U.S. citizen entering LA federal building amid protests
The man was trying to enter a Veterans Affairs office inside the Wilshire Federal Building in the city's Sawtelle neighborhood when he was stopped earlier this week by Marines sent to protect the property amid protests over immigration raids.
This marks the first time during the current unrest that military troops have detained a U.S citizen.
The 27-year-old U.S. Army veteran was released after a short time.
"They treated me very fairly," Marcos Leao told the New York Times following the incident, adding headphones at first prohibited him from hearing the Marines giving him verbal commands to stop.
U.S. Northern Command confirmed to The Hill, the Marines "temporarily detained a civilian earlier today" under Title 10 of the United States Code governing detention by the armed forces.
Around 200 Marines moved into Los Angeles on Friday, joining thousands of California National Guard troops to help protect federal assets and agents sent to the city to carry out arrests on behalf of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
President Donald Trump sent around 700 Marines to the area Monday, but they have thus far been staged outside the city. Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., has opposed the move.
On Friday, Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., sent a written letter to Trump, signed by all U.S. Senate Democrats demanding the president remove military troops from Los Angeles.
A U.S. District Court Judge in San Francisco on Thursday ruled the president's National Guard troop deployment was illegal. An appeals court later reversed that decision.
Los Angeles officials on Tuesday instituted a local curfew in parts of the city, following over 100 arrests that day amid protesters clashing with police.
On Saturday, millions of people are expected to take part in at least 1,500 protests across the United States. The "No Kings" demonstrations are scheduled to coincide with a major Flag Day military parade in Washington, D.C. and Trump's 70th birthday.
The movement describes itself as "rejecting authoritarianism, billionaire-first politics, and the militarization of our democracy."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
a few seconds ago
- Politico
Why Trump's newly announced tariffs aren't a done deal
THE LAW ON LIBERATION DAY — On Thursday, Donald Trump announced sweeping new tariffs against U.S. trading partners that will go into effect next week. The announcement came on the same day that an appeals court grappled with the question of whether Trump's tariffs are even legal. Indeed, there is a strong argument that the tariffs are illegal and unconstitutional. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which on Thursday held oral argument on two major tariff challenges — one from a group of small businesses and the other from a coalition of twelve states led by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield — seems like it may ultimately agree. Rayfield was pleased with how it went. 'If you were an outside observer watching the hearing and you had to pick a party to stay in the shoes of, I think you would prefer to be in the state's shoes after Thursday's hearing,' Rayfield said in an interview with POLITICO this afternoon. That seems to be the consensus among close observers. 'Federal appeals court judges on Thursday sharply questioned President Donald Trump's authority,' POLITICO's Kyle Cheney and Doug Palmer wrote. Reuters put it similarly, while the Associated Press reported that the judges 'expressed broad skepticism' toward the government's arguments. The New York Times' account said that Brett Shumate, the lawyer arguing for the government, 'at times faced an icy reception.' This is not that surprising if you have been following this legal saga closely. The Constitution explicitly gives the power to impose tariffs to Congress. Congress has passed several trade laws that provide the president with the power to impose tariffs in certain circumstances, but they do not grant the sweeping and unreviewable power that the Trump administration has claimed — and indeed requires in order to support Trump's tariffs as a legal matter. Meanwhile, the statute that has actually been invoked by the Trump administration — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — has never been used to impose tariffs over the course of the nearly half-century that it has been on the books, and it makes no mention of tariffs in the text. It was in fact passed to limit the president's emergency economic powers. On top of that, the key case cited by the government in its favor does not actually support their position (usually a bad thing). Thus far, two lower courts have ruled against the administration on this issue — a unanimous three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of International Trade and a federal district court judge in Washington, D.C. Both rulings have been stayed pending appeal. Thursday's argument concerned the first of those rulings and was conducted in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. If the government loses in the Federal Circuit, it is still possible that the Supreme Court's conservative justices could agree to hear the case and ultimately rule in Trump's favor. On the merits, that outcome would be hard to square with the conservative majority's stated commitment to textualism as a mode of statutory interpretation, as well as the major questions doctrine that was developed in recent years by the conservative justices, who used it in 2023 to strike down much of the Biden administration's student-loan forgiveness effort. In the student-loan forgiveness case, the conservative justices relied crucially on the fact that the program was estimated to cost taxpayers roughly $500 billion, according to a budget model from the University of Pennsylvania. They concluded that this warranted a particularly rigorous and stringent mode of statutory interpretation. The estimated cost to taxpayers in that case pales in comparison to the estimated cost for Americans resulting from Trump's tariffs, according to a model at Yale University. That model currently estimates that Trump's latest tariff framework will result in an average per household income loss of $2,400 this year alone, that it will result in a 0.5 percentage loss in real GDP this year and next year, and that the economy will lose nearly half a million jobs by the end of 2025. None of this has stopped the administration from plowing forward. At this point, the administration may be hoping for a victory at the Supreme Court (assuming they lose at the Federal Circuit) or, perhaps, simply planning to do as much as they can to advance their tariff policy before a day comes when it is definitively thrown out by the courts. They have already been aided in this regard by the Supreme Court, intentionally or otherwise. In mid-June, the two businesses that prevailed in federal district court in Washington asked the Supreme Court to short-circuit the appeals process and take the case up immediately for review. 'In light of the tariffs' massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the Nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the President claims, challenges to the IEEPA tariffs cannot await the normal appellate process (even on an expedited timeline),' the companies' lawyers wrote. The companies' request was far from crazy, particularly given the fact that the conservative justices have moved quickly in a variety of major court challenges to the Trump administration's actions since Trump's inauguration. Three days later, however, the Supreme Court denied their request, with no explanation. Perhaps not coincidentally, those expedited rulings have favored the Trump administration, while in the case of Trump's tariffs, a critical mass of conservative justices may ultimately be compelled to rule against Trump — if, that is, they actually adhere to the interpretive and constitutional principles that they claim to follow. In the meantime — and as the administration has been struggling in the courts to defend its policy — the Trump administration is evidently moving forward undeterred. Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@ Or contact tonight's author at akhardori@ What'd I Miss? — Trump demands firing of BLS chief after soft jobs report: President Donald Trump called for the ouster of the head of the Labor Department's statistical arm this afternoon after the latest monthly jobs report came in well under expectations. 'I have directed my Team to fire this Biden Political Appointee, IMMEDIATELY,' Trump wrote in a social media post. 'She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified.' Trump reprised prior accusations that the Bureau of Labor Statistics under Commissioner Erika McEntarfer surreptitiously put out overly rosy jobs numbers at the tail end of the Biden administration that were subsequently revised in order to influence the election. Economists have roundly dismissed these claims as a misunderstanding of the agency's revision processes. — Huckabee, Witkoff visit US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation amid global outcry: Senior U.S. officials visited a distribution center for the American-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation today, pledging to report back to President Donald Trump about the foundation's operations and devise a plan to address starvation in the strip amid growing global outcry over the humanitarian crisis. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee and special envoy Steve Witkoff made a rare trip to Gaza today amid heightened pressure — including from within MAGA circles — to reconsider the administration's support for Israel's war on Hamas and intervene in Gaza's hunger crisis. — Corporation for Public Broadcasting shutting down: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting announced today it was shutting down its operations after President Donald Trump rescinded funding for the nonprofit, which it used to support public radio and TV stations around the country. The CPB — which was established by Congress decades ago as an independent nonprofit — said it will begin 'an orderly wind-down' after Trump signed a measure last month to claw back $1.1 billion in grants appropriated to CPB over the next two fiscal years. — Ghislaine Maxwell transferred to less restrictive prison after DOJ meeting: Days after sitting down with one of the highest-ranking members of the Justice Department, Ghislaine Maxwell has been transferred to a less restrictive minimum security federal prison camp in Texas, her attorney said. Maxwell's attorney David Oscar Markus said today she had been moved to Federal Prison Camp Bryan, a facility for female inmates in Southeast Texas. He declined further comment. Until this week, Maxwell, the onetime girlfriend of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, had been serving a 20-year sentence for her 2021 conviction for sex trafficking crimes in Florida, at FCI Tallahassee, a low-security prison. — Trump, escalating war of words with Russia's Medvedev, mobilizes two nuclear submarines: President Donald Trump said today he mobilized two nuclear submarines 'to be positioned in the appropriate regions' in response to threatening comments by Russia's former president Dmitry Medvedev. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he was taking that action 'just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that. Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances.' Medvedev on Thursday referenced Russia's nuclear capabilities amid an escalating battle on social media sparked by Trump's latest efforts to increase economic pressure on the Kremlin in hopes of reviving diplomatic efforts to end the war in Ukraine. AROUND THE WORLD RAISING THE BAR — Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni reacted with fury today as the EU's top court raised the threshold for member countries to reject asylum-seekers. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) said EU nations may only create national lists of safe countries outside the bloc if they fully justify their assessments with public sources. According to the court, a country can only be considered 'safe' for repatriation if 'the entire population' is protected across all regions. Meloni called the court's decision 'surprising' and a power grab by EU judges. 'Once again, the judiciary, this time at the European level, claims spaces that do not belong to it, in the face of responsibilities that are political,' she said. SLOVENIA STEPS OUT— Slovenia became the first EU country to ban all weapons trade with Israel, citing the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The government also prohibited the transit of weapons to or from Israel through Slovenia, the administration in Ljubljana said in a statement Thursday. Slovenia said that it decided to act independently from the EU, as 'due to internal disagreements and disunity,' the bloc is unable to take action against Israel. Though the European Commission proposed partially suspending Israel's association agreement with the EU this week, member countries have yet to agree on it. Nightly Number RADAR SWEEP WEEKEND WARRIORS — Under the threat of Chinese invasion, more and more Taiwanese civilians are signing up for civil defense classes. US intelligence predicts that China will be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027 as China builds up its aircrafts and warships. Armed with airsoft guns that fire plastic pellets, men and women train on the weekends in converted garages and empty warehouses to prepare a civil resilience. Beyond armed defense, officials and private organizations have amped up drills for attacks on critical infrastructure and cyberattacks. Yian Lee reports on the 'soft militarization' of Taiwanese civilians for Bloomberg. Parting Image Jacqueline Munis contributed to this newsletter. Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.
CNN
a few seconds ago
- CNN
Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship faces skepticism from another appeals court
Donald Trump Supreme CourtFacebookTweetLink Follow A federal appeals court appeared ready on Friday to become the second such court in the country to rule that President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship is unlawful. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based First US Circuit Court of Appeals spent two hours looking skeptically at Trump's Day One order in a series of cases in which lower courts said the policy violated the Constitution, decades-old Supreme Court precedent and federal law. 'We have an opinion of the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard,' Chief Judge David Barron said at one point, referring to an 1898 Supreme Court case known as United States v. Wong Kim Ark that affirmed the idea that most people born on American soil are entitled to citizenship. Other members of the panel similarly said they were required to stick with the holding in that case, including Judge Julie Rikelman, who said the Trump administration was essentially asking the court to adopt the dissenting opinion issued in the 19th century case. 'We have to apply the majority decision, not the dissenting opinion,' she told DOJ attorney Eric McArthur. A ruling against the administration would represent the second time this summer that an appeals court, after reviewing the merits of Trump's order, concluded that it was unlawful. Last month, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals sided against Trump in a separate case. The rulings could ultimately be appealed up to the Supreme Court. The First Circuit judges did not indicate on Friday when they would issue a decision. Signed by Trump on January 20, the executive order, titled 'PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP,' said that the federal government will not 'issue documents recognizing United States citizenship' to any children born on American soil to parents who were in the country unlawfully, or were in the US lawfully, but temporarily. In the set of cases before the Boston-based appeals court, three lower courts issued separate preliminary injunctions earlier this year that prevented Trump from implementing any part of his policy. (Other lower-court decisions similarly jammed up the policy). Among those rulings was a nationwide injunction, which barred Trump from enforcing his order anywhere in the country. The panel of judges had previously declined to lift those rulings while the cases unfolded and the case was appealed up to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis. The high court – without reviewing the merits of Trump's order – made it more difficult for litigants to win nationwide orders blocking executive branch policies. While the First Circuit judges – all of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents – asked a few questions on Friday that were somewhat critical of technical arguments being pushed by some of the challengers in the cases, they showed no support for Trump's attempt to rewrite how birthright citizenship works in the US. 'The rule is that everybody who is born here is a citizen or subject,' Rikelman said at one point.
Bloomberg
a few seconds ago
- Bloomberg
Trade War Turmoil, Rising Unemployment Send Markets Diving
For anyone who was around on 'Liberation Day' in April, market reaction to US President Donald Trump's overnight tariff fusillade —replete with new levies, new targets and new delays —was predictable. But it wasn't just Trump's latest spray of trade threats that sent markets diving to their lowest point in months. As Trump's initial 90-day self-imposed delay of 'reciprocal' tariffs comes to an end, and in the aftermath of gross domestic product data showing the economy slowing, there was fresh bad news for the president on Friday. Grim employment numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) appeared to hammer another nail into the coffin of what had been a few years of record US employment.
