Latest news with #12406
The Intercept
16-07-2025
- Politics
- The Intercept
The Military Occupied LA for 40 Days and All They Got Was This One Arrest
Thousands of federal troops have been deployed to Los Angeles since June 7 on the orders of President Donald Trump. In the first 40 days of this military operation on U.S. soil, they have done vanishingly close to nothing. The more than 5,000 National Guard soldiers and Marines who have operated in Southern California — under the command of the Army's Task Force 51 — were sent to 'protect the safety and security of federal functions, personnel, and property.' In practice, this has mostly meant guarding federal buildings across LA from protests against the ongoing Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids sweeping the city. Since Trump called up the troops on June 7, they have carried out exactly one temporary detainment, a Task Force 51 spokesperson told The Intercept. On Tuesday, Trump administration officials announced that about 2,000 troops deployed to LA would be released. Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell described this action-packed deployment as Task Force 51 supporting 'more than 170 missions in over 130 separate locations from nine federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Agency, the US Marshal Service, ICE and the Department of Homeland Security' in a briefing in early July. Task Force 51 failed to provide any other metrics regarding troops' involvement in raids, arrests, or street patrols in response to questions by The Intercept. 'The militarization of Los Angeles and the deployment of nearly 5,000 soldiers is completely unnecessary.' The deployments are expected to cost the public hundreds of millions of dollars. Troops were sent to LA over the objections of local officials and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Officials and experts decried the show of military force to counter overwhelmingly peaceful and relatively limited protests as a dangerous abuse of power and a misuse of federal funds. 'We've said it time and again since day one, the militarization of Los Angeles and the deployment of nearly 5,000 soldiers is completely unnecessary and done out of pure theater,' Diana Crofts-Pelayo, Newsom's deputy director of communications, told The Intercept, referencing the president and a top aide and the architect of his anti-immigrant agenda. 'Trump and Stephen Miller are to blame here — they are creating their own chaos, military escalation, and tearing up hardworking families with their indiscriminate raids.' The directive signed by Trump, calling up the California National Guard, cited '10 U.S.C. 12406,' a provision within Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services that allows the federal deployment of National Guard forces if 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' This weekend, Vice President J.D. Vance was vacationing at Disneyland in Anaheim, California, about 25 miles from LA, the city supposedly still in or on the verge of rebellion. 'If the region was such a threat that Trump felt the need to deploy the military against its own citizens, why has the Vice President visited the area twice over the past several weeks, including taking his family to Disneyland this past weekend?' asked Crofts-Pelayo. In addition to guarding federal buildings, troops have also recently participated in raids alongside camouflage-clad ICE agents. An assault on MacArthur Park, a recreational hub in one of Los Angeles's most immigrant-heavy neighborhoods on July 7, for example, included 90 armed U.S. troops and 17 military Humvees. Its main accomplishment was rousting a summer day camp for children. No arrests were made. 'To have armored vehicles deployed on the streets of our city, to federalize the National Guard, to have the U.S. Marines who are trained to kill abroad, deployed to our city — all of this is outrageous and it is un-American,' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass announced in the wake of the joint ICE-military operation. 'It's clear that this is all part of a political agenda to terrorize immigrants and signal that they need to stay at home when there are entire sectors of our economy that rely on immigrant workers.' Read our complete coverage During the MacArthur Park raid, codenamed Operation Excalibur, the military was to provide 'static interagency site protection' and 'mounted mobile security' according to leaked materials exposed by former Intercept reporter Ken Klippenstein who said that the 'planning went bust.' California National Guard soldiers also backed ICE raids on state-licensed marijuana nurseries last week. The troops took part in the military-style assaults on two locations, one in the Santa Barbara County town of Carpinteria, about 90 miles northwest of Los Angeles, and one in the Ventura County community of Camarillo, about 50 miles from L.A. ICE detained more than 200 people, including U.S. citizens, during the joint operations. One man, Jaime Alanís Garcia, died due to the raid in Camarillo. After calling up the National Guard on June 7, the Trump administration went further, as Northern Command activated 700 Marines from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division and sent them to Los Angeles. On July 1, Task Force 51 announced that it would release approximately 150 members of the California National Guard from their LA duty. That same day, NORTHCOM said that the 2/7 Marines were leaving Los Angeles but would be replaced by the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment. All told, there are still 4,700 troops operating under Title 10 in Los Angeles, consisting of approximately 4,000 National Guard Soldiers and 700 Marines, according to Army North. Since the deployments began, around 5,500 troops, in total, have been sent to LA, according to Becky Farmer, a NORTHCOM spokesperson. 'Title 10 forces have been involved in one temporary detainment until the individual could be safely transferred.' A spokesperson for Task Force 51 told The Intercept that, in Los Angeles, 'Title 10 forces have been involved in one temporary detainment until the individual could be safely transferred to federal law enforcement.' The lone detention was reportedly conducted by Marines sent to guard the Wilshire Federal Building, a 17-story office building on Wilshire Boulevard in LA. Video of the incident shows Marines in full combat gear and automatic weapons zip-tying an unresisting man — clad in shorts, a T-shirt, and sunglasses — on the ground. At one point, the detainee, with his hands bound behind him, is surrounded by no fewer than six Marines and two other officials who appear to be federal security guards. The man, Marcos Leao, was not involved in any protest. The former Army combat engineer, who gained U.S. citizenship through his military service, told Reuters that he was in a rush to get to an appointment in the Veterans Affairs office inside the Federal Building. When he crossed a strand of caution tape, he found an armed Marine sprinting toward him. For weeks, U.S. Army North has not responded to requests for additional information about the incident. A federal judge in California on Friday blocked the Trump administration from 'indiscriminately' arresting people, saying that it had likely broken the law by dispatching 'roving patrols' of agents to carry out mass arrests. Two temporary restraining orders issued by Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California directed the government to stop racial profiling as part of its immigration crackdown. In her 52-page ruling, Frimpong declared that the government 'may not rely solely, alone or in combination,' on race or ethnicity; on a person speaking Spanish or English with an accent; or the type of work performed to establish reasonable suspicion to stop and detain people. 'What the federal government would have this Court believe — in the face of a mountain of evidence presented in this case — is that none of this is actually happening,' Frimpong wrote. While federal troops, including Marines from Camp Pendleton in California, are ostensibly protecting ICE agents in Los Angeles, ICE agents are now involved in protecting Marines at Camp Pendleton as well as those at Marine Corps bases in Quantico, Virginia, and in Hawaii, as part of a pilot program also involving U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. ICE agents are now involved with 'identity verification and access screening operations' at Camp Pendleton in order 'to deter unauthorized installation access by foreign nationals.' The overlapping missions of military forces and civilian law enforcement in the U.S. have blurred lines, sown confusion, and pushed the U.S. further down the path of becoming a police state. Task Force 51 stresses that troops serving under Title 10 duty 'are not authorized to directly participate in law enforcement activities,' although they 'may temporarily detain an individual for protection purposes — to stop an assault of, to prevent harm to, or to prevent interference with federal personnel performing their duties.' Some troops have voiced trepidation about their deployment. Little-noticed interviews with soldiers serving in Los Angeles, published by the military itself, offer a glimpse of apprehension among Guardsmen sent to quell protests in the city. 'At first it was a little scary not knowing what I'm jumping into,' said Specialist Nadia Cano of the California Army National Guard in late June, noting troops were 'doing training possibly to be on mission with law enforcement and other federal government agencies.' At about the same time, Private First Class Andrew Oliveira, also of the Guard, began his interview with a military reporter with a statement that spoke to his state of unease. 'I think we all feel a little bit anxious about why we're here,' he said. Experts say that the introduction of military troops into civilian law enforcement support further strains civil-military relations and risks violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, a bedrock 19th-century law seen as fundamental to the democratic tradition in America. The Posse Comitatus Act bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump tells judge he does not need Newsom's permission to crack down on rioters, deploy National Guard
The Justice Department on Wednesday doubled down on its assertion that President Donald Trump has the authority to call up U.S. National Guard troops in California, describing Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's emergency lawsuit to block his action as a "crass political stunt" that risks "endangering American lives." At issue in the case is whether Trump, as commander in chief, has the authority to federalize the National Guard against the express wishes or consent of a state governor. Both sides are slated to appear in court Friday while a judge weighs California's request for injunctive relief. In the new court filing, lawyers for the administration said Trump, as president, has "no obligation" to consult with, or even to notify, Newsom before federalizing the National Guard. 'State Of Rebellion': Expert Weighs In On Newsom Challenge To Trump Deploying National Guard "The extraordinary relief plaintiffs request would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief's military directives – and would do so in the posture of a temporary restraining order, no less," lawyers for the Trump administration said in the filing. "That would be unprecedented. It would be constitutionally anathema," they added. "And it would be dangerous." Read On The Fox News App That argument is unlikely to sit well with Newsom. And it comes one day after California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Tuesday sued the Trump administration over what the state described as the president's unlawful action in federalizing the National Guard, which they noted was carried out without Newsom's consent. Bonta argued in the lawsuit that Trump's actions were both inappropriate and illegal, since he did not first seek Newsom's permission to federalize the troops. National Guard units fall under the dual control of state and federal governments, and any action to mobilize the units typically goes through the respective state governor first. The judge overseeing the case declined the state's request for a temporary restraining order blocking Trump's actions but ordered both parties to court Friday to consider the request for broader injunctive relief. Republican Attorneys General Accuse California Of Excusing 'Lawlessness' At issue is 10 U.S.C. § 12406, or the law that Trump invoked in his memo late last week to call up the National Guard. The law allows presidents to deploy the National Guard and other troops at the federal level in the event of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the U.S. government. In that case, the law says the president "may call into federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws." But lawyers for Newsom told the court that Trump lacked the power to federalize the troops under Section 12406, since the immigration protests, in their view, did not amount to a rebellion. Trump Nominates Former Defense Attorney Emil Bove For Federal Appeals Court Vacancy "At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection. Nor have these protests risen to the level of protests or riots that Los Angeles and other major cities have seen at points in the past, including in recent years," they told the court. A group of 26 Republican state attorneys general from filed an amicus brief siding with Trump one day earlier, arguing that his decision to federalize the National Guard to address ICE riots and protests that broke out in parts of the state was the "right response." "In California, we're seeing the results of leadership that excuses lawlessness and undermines law enforcement," the attorneys general wrote in the statement, first provided to Fox News Digital. "When local and state officials won't act, the federal government must." Fox News Digital's Ashley Oliver contributed to this article source: Trump tells judge he does not need Newsom's permission to crack down on rioters, deploy National Guard
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
California's National Guard lawsuit against Trump has a big problem
After President Donald Trump deployed the California National Guard into Los Angeles over the weekend against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the state is fighting back. Attorney General Rob Bonta announced California is suing the administration, arguing that Trump lacked the authority to federalize the National Guard in this case and was infringing on state sovereignty. Trump's decision to send in the National Guard may be morally (and politically) problematic. The difficulty facing California's lawsuit is that federal law appears to give not just President Trump, but any president, broad authority to federalize the National Guard, whether or not a governor wants him to do so. The primary legal question is whether the Trump administration had the power to federalize the National Guard against the wishes of the state's governor. The presidential memorandum Trump issued Saturday deploying the National Guard invoked a little-used federal law, 10 U.S.C. § 12406. The power that Section 12406 confers on presidents is broad but not unlimited. It gives the president the power to federalize the National Guard when there is 'a rebellion or danger of rebellion' against federal authority, or when the president cannot, using the usual mechanisms, execute federal laws. Once the National Guard arrives, however, it can only support other law enforcement officers. They can help to protect federal law enforcement officers and federal property, but they cannot, for instance, perform searches and seizures. Why such limits? Because the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the military from acting as a domestic law enforcement agency, except in extraordinary circumstances. And Section 12406 does not suspend the protections of the Posse Comitatus Act. To invoke his authority under Section 12406, Trump concluded that, '[t]o the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' California has argued that there is no such rebellion. One problem for the state's lawsuit is that there is of course no settled definition of what a rebellion is. In addition, federal judges tend to defer to presidents when it comes to questions of national security. Federal judges, who are not chosen by voters, are generally wary of second-guessing the judgment of an elected president when it comes to questions of whether or not we are in danger of a rebellion. California also argues that because Section 12406 requires that orders to federalize the National Guard be issued 'through the governors,' that means that a president cannot take this action against the wishes of the state's governor. However, the plain language of the statute does not include an explicit requirement of a governor's consent. In addition, reading such a requirement into the statute would provide any state governor with veto power over a president's decision under this federal law. That hardly seems consistent with congressional intent. Finally, California argues that Trump's actions violate the 10th Amendment, which says that all powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people. But the plain terms of Section 12406 do appear to give the president the power to federalize the National Guard. The legal landscape would change significantly if the president tries to invoke his power under the Insurrection Act. If he does, the protections in the Posse Comitatus Act are suspended, and the National Guard, and other branches of the military, can act to directly enforce domestic law. We are not there yet, but if Trump takes that step, it would be a dramatic escalation of an already historic standoff between the federal government and the state. This article was originally published on
Axios
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Axios
National Guard in LA: What they can do after Trump called them in to quell protests
Amid days of fiery protests against federal immigration enforcement in Los Angeles, President Trump signed an order deploying the National Guard — despite objection from the state's Democratic leaders. The big picture: Trump's Saturday memorandum called up 2,000 National Guard troops for 60 days, but it stopped short of a possibly more dramatic escalation: invoking the Insurrection Act. Context: The demonstrations again have pitted Trump against Governor Gavin Newsom (D), one of the president's top foes who has called the deployment of troops in the LA area "unlawful" and "a serious breach of state sovereignty." Newsom said that the state would sue the Trump administration over its deployment of the National Guard, calling it an "unconstitutional act" in an interview with MSNBC. As of Sunday, dozens of people had been arrested amid the unrest that was becoming "increasingly worse and more violent," LAPD officials said. What did Trump's National Guard memorandum do? Trump's presidential memorandum federalizing troops cited 10 U.S.C. 12406, a provision that allows the president to call members of a state's National Guard whenever, among other situations, there a "a rebellion" or "the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The White House's memorandum said that to the extent that protests "directly inhibit the execution of the laws," they constitute a rebellion. It marks the first time in some six decades, dating back to the civil rights movement, that the president has activated a state's National Guard without the state's governor requesting it, the Brennan Center for Justice's Elizabeth Goitein told The New York Times. Around 300 members of the California Army National Guard's 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team had deployed throughout the greater LA area as of Sunday. Zoom in: The president tasked units with temporarily protecting ICE and other personnel performing "[f[ederal functions" and to protect federal property. He also authorized Hegseth to use regular troops "as necessary" to augment the protection of federal functions and property. Between the lines: Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, wrote in his analysis of Trump's memorandum that the National Guard will have limited enforcement capabilities and will not be able to engage in ordinary law enforcement activity. "[T]his provision provides no additional substantive authority that the federal government did not already possess," he wrote, pointing to a law that bars federal troops from engaging in civilian law enforcement except when authorized. What is The Posse Comitatus Act? The Posse Comitatus Act, which is more than 140 years old, was originally passed to ensure the federal military wouldn't be used to intervene in establishing Jim Crow after Reconstruction, per the Brennan Center. A "posse comitatus" in American law is a group of people mobilized by a sheriff to stifle lawlessness and means"the power of the county." In practice, it means federal military personnel can't participate in civilian law enforcement — though there are statutory exceptions, according to the Brennan Center. When Guard members are called into federal service, they become part of the federal armed forces and are thereby covered by the Act. Will Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? The Insurrection Act provides the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, allowing the president to deploy military members for civilian law enforcement. According to the Brennan Center, there are three sections of the Act covering different situations in which troops can be deployed — two of which do not require a request from the affected state and permit deployment even against the state's wishes. Flashback: The Act has been invoked at several points in American history, most recently in 1992. In that case, President George H.W. Bush responded to a request for aid from California officials amid civil unrest prompted by the acquittal of four white police officers who were filmed beating a Black motorist Rodney King. What he's saying: Trump in his first term flirted with the idea of using the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement and to crush protests. And ahead of his second term, he seemingly continued to lean in. Trump said he would deploy U.S. military "if a city or state refuses to take the actions necessary to defend the life and property of their residents" during nationwide protests in 2020 sparked by the murder of George Floyd. What we're watching: U.S. Northern Command said in a Sunday statement some 500 Marines are also prepared to deploy if necessary, a move Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth previously floated.
New York Post
08-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Trump wields little-used law to deploy National Guard to LA riots despite Gov. Newsom's protests: ‘Unable to handle the task'
President Trump has ordered the California National Guard to secure Los Angeles from the anti-ICE rioters, despite the vocal objections of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass. It's the first time in 60 years that the commander-in-chief deployed a state's National Guard without the governor's blessing, and members of the Trump administration are saying the move is justified because the protests represent a 'violent insurrection' against the country. 'This is a violent insurrection,' White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller posted Saturday night. Vice President JD Vance also used the word in describing the riots: 'Insurrectionists carrying foreign flags are attacking immigration enforcement officers, while one half of America's political leadership has decided that border enforcement is evil,' he said on X. California Democrats seethed over the rare move from a US president. The last time the National Guard was federalized in Los Angeles was in 1992 over the Rodney King riots, when the president had the state's backing. 5 Rioters wreaked havoc on Los Angeles in response to immigration enforcement activity in the area. REUTERS 'The federal government is sowing chaos so they can have an excuse to escalate. That is not the way any civilized country behaves,' Newsom said on X. The rarely used power stems from '10 U.S.C. 12406,' part of the US Code on Armed Services that allows the federal government to mobilize the National Guard in the event of 'a rebellion, or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' 'The federal government is taking over the California National Guard and deploying 2,000 soldiers in Los Angeles — not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle,' Newsom added in another X post. 'Don't give them one. Never use violence. Speak out peacefully.' Bass, who previously put out a statement blasting the ICE arrests of illegal migrants in Los Angeles, said she tried to convince Trump's border czar Tom Homan not to put the National Guard on the streets. 'I'm very concerned about the potential civil unrest if there was federal intervention,' she told KNX radio. But Trump rebuked California's leaders over the riots in a Truth Social post in the wee Sunday morning hours. 'We have an incompetent Governor (Newscum) and Mayor (Bass) who were, as usual (just look at how they handled the fires, and now their VERY SLOW PERMITTING disaster. Federal permitting is complete!), unable to … handle the task,' he wrote. 5 President Trump has lashed out at California Democrats over the chaos. POOL/AFP via Getty Images President Lyndon B. Johnson, in 1965, was the last commander in chief to federalize a state's National Guard without the governor's OK. In that instance, the troops were deployed to protect civil rights protesters in Alabama. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said Saturday that the National Guard deployment was justified because the protests were interfering with ICE agents who were trying to combat a 'dangerous invasion' that was spurred by 'foreign terrorist organizations' — referencing the Mexican traffic cartels that have been designated terror groups by the Trump administration. 'The violent mob assaults on ICE and Federal Law Enforcement are designed to prevent the removal of Criminal Illegal Aliens from our soil; a dangerous invasion facilitated by criminal cartels (aka Foreign Terrorist Organizations) and a huge NATIONAL SECURITY RISK,' he wrote. He added the US Marines from Camp Pendleton in San Diego were being stood up for possible deployment. Newsom called the possibility of using active duty troops against American citizens, 'deranged.' 'Deranged = allowing your city to burn & law enforcement to be attacked,' Hegseth shot back. Meanwhile, Homan told NBC News that 'someone is going to lose their life' in the protests and suggested that Newsom and Bass could be referred to the Justice Department for criminal charges over their handling of the riots. 5 Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass hit back at President Trump's claim about the National Guard reining in the mayhem. AP 5 California Gov. Gavin Newsom accused the Trump administration of deliberately inflaming the situation. REUTERS National Guard troops were seen arriving in Los Angeles County earlier in the day on Sunday. Newsom dredged up an old clip of Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem warning former President Joe Biden against federalizing the National Guard to prevent Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) from using the troops to secure the border. Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.), whose congressional district encompasses Paramount, claimed that local law enforcement has the situation 'under control' and doesn't need assistance from the National Guard. 5 Rep. Nanette Barragán claims that local law enforcement has gotten the riots under control. AP 'I have spoken to the sheriffs on the ground, who have said they have things under control, there is no need for the National Guard, they have the manpower that they need,' she told CNN's 'State of the Union' Sunday. 'This is really just an escalation of the president coming into California. We haven't asked for the help. We don't need the help. This is him escalating it, causing tensions to rise,' she continued. 'It's only going to make things worse.'
