Bass to lift curfew in downtown Los Angeles
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass is lifting a curfew on the city's downtown, capping off nearly two weeks of immigration protests that saw President Donald Trump federalize the National Guard and send in active-duty Marines despite opposition from Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Bass, a Democrat, blamed the chaotic tenor of the protests on the White House and reserved the right to resume the curfew if needed, she said in her Tuesday announcement.
'As we continue to adapt quickly to the chaos coming out of Washington, I'm prepared to reinstate it if necessary,' she wrote on X. 'The safety and stability of LA remains my top priority.'
Bass imposed the curfew — in effect from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. — on a one-square-mile chunk of the city last week, as demonstrations and some unrest raged over high-profile immigration raids in the region. She reduced the curfew hours on Monday, to start instead at 10 pm.
The president's response to the protests, which included ordering the Pentagon to deploy 700 Marines to Los Angeles, drew fierce opposition from Democrats, who argue it inflamed tensions and verged on authoritarianism.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from POLITICO.
With protests in the city abated, Trump has claimed his force was essential to keeping the peace.
'If I didn't put the National Guard into Los Angeles, the place would be burned down to the ground right now,' he wrote on Truth Social Monday. 'I did incompetent Governor Gavin Newscum, who doesn't have a clue, the favor of a lifetime. One of the WORST GOVERNORS IN HISTORY!'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: Trump is suddenly waging two wars—one with trade partners and one with Iran
Life can get complicated awfully fast. President Trump hoped his first year in office would bring victories on tax cuts, trade realignment, and deregulation. Five months in, however, he has not just one war on his hands, but two. First is the trade war with dozens of nations, which many economists say is bound to end up an unwinnable quagmire. And now, Trump has stepped into a risky Middle East war by green-lighting US attacks on three Iranian nuclear weapons sites, a step other presidents have considered and averted. The June 21 American attack on Iran may turn out to have been a risk worth taking. It came after a week of attacks on Iranian nuclear and military targets by Israel, which says Iran was days or weeks from having the capability to build a nuclear weapon. Iran's Islamic theocracy has long threatened Israel's destruction, and a nuke would give them the means to do it. Starting June 13, Israel mounted a brilliant campaign that neutered Iran's air-defense network, killed several military leaders, and damaged Iran's nuclear complex. But it needed American help to finish the job. Only American 'bunker buster' bombs had the heft to penetrate deeply buried facilities at the heart of Iran's nuclear program. Trump okayed the raid, and American warplanes dropped at least a dozen of the giant bombs on June 21. Trump says Iran's nuclear program is gone. Maybe. It could take days or weeks to determine if the bombs destroyed everything on the target list. The Pentagon may never know for sure. Iran could have moved some nuclear material or other parts of the program to reconstitute later. Trump obviously hopes the June 21 strikes are a one-and-done operation. That would allow him to refocus on a trade war that has key deadlines approaching and a huge tax bill that's bogging down in Congress. But Iran may not cooperate. 'Wars are easy to start, but difficult to end,' Byron Callan of Capital Alpha Partners wrote in a June 22 analysis. 'We are highly skeptical that Iran 'surrenders.'' Iran is in a weak position, yet it may influence the outcome of Trump's economic agenda, not to mention other Trump priorities such as immigration enforcement and anything else that depends on Trump holding a reasonable level of popular support at home. Wars can boost a president's popularity and political capital if they go well (and quickly), but they can also drag down a presidency if they bog down or go off the rails. President Lyndon Johnson, most famously, dropped his 1968 reelection bid as opposition to the Vietnam War biggest market concern, for now, is whether Iran will try to close the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway at the eastern end of the Persian Gulf that's a transit point for 20% of the world's oil. Iran could mine the strait, attack oil tankers, or conduct sabotage that could easily send oil prices, which were around $75 per barrel before the US attacks, over $100 and possibly higher. But closing the strait could be self-defeating for Iran. First, it would block its own oil from flowing into markets, depriving the government of badly needed cash. It would also trigger a prompt US response and possibly end with the destruction of much of Iran's navy, making Iran even weaker. 'The next move is up to the Iranians,' economist Ed Yardeni of Yardeni Research wrote in a June 22 analysis. "Our bet is that they will sue for peace. While the Mullahs and their generals may be fanatics, they aren't crazy. If that's the case, then the price of oil should fall and stock markets around the world should resume their ascents.' Iran has other moves, however. Instead of targeting the Strait of Hormuz, it could attack US ships and bases in the region with drones and missiles. There are several ways to go about that. One might be a symbolic fireworks show that lets Iran say it retaliated, without doing much harm. That may let both sides say they've done what they needed to do and are wrapping things up. But Iran has killed Americans before and it could do so again, which might leave Trump feeling he has no choice but to escalate further. In an escalation scenario, Iran would still have the option to go after the strait, which would keep oil prices elevated. Iran could also sit back for a while and plot something more cunning. Affiliated terrorist groups could plot overt or covert attacks on American assets in the Middle East or elsewhere. Iran backed the 1981 bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the 1996 bombing of an Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia, and numerous attacks against US troops in Iraq from 2003 to 2011, among other crimes. They'd relish a few more notches on the bloody belt. As the first US president to approve a direct attack on Iran, Trump risks an open-ended entanglement involving dead Americans, damaged American prestige, and a disapproving electorate. There are already signs that Iran salvaged some of the enriched uranium needed for nuclear bombs. If so, that would raise the question of whether the United States should attack again and whether it could even destroy all of Iran's uranium if it wanted to. It may be more likely following the US attacks that Iran decides to fully end all cooperation with international inspectors and nonproliferation regimes and sprint toward a nuclear weapon, even a crude one. 'It is possible an Iranian regime could pick up the pieces and get to a bomb in a couple of years,' Ilan Goldenberg, a former Defense Dept. Middle East analyst, wrote in Foreign Affairs. 'The best and most durable option for the United States all along was to pursue a diplomatic deal that verifiably restrained Iran's nuclear program. That option is much less likely.' Trump has entered the Middle East caldron just as his trade war is approaching a climactic moment. Trump set a July 9 deadline for dozens of countries to negotiate trade deals favorable to the United States or face punitive 'reciprocal' tariffs. But the whole world has seen that Trump backs down on tariff threats when markets slide, and the Iran standoff will make markets much twitchier than they'd otherwise be. That could force Trump to postpone the July 9 deadline. Markets would cheer, since tariffs damage corporate profitability, and any delay is a reprieve. But another delay would also prolong the uncertainty that's suppressing the US stock market and possibly weakening the economy. Trump also can't afford a sudden spike in oil and energy prices, which would create significant inflationary pressure if it lasted. Economists already think Trump's tariffs could add a percentage point to inflation, or more, and that's with relatively low energy prices. An energy spike would make tariff inflation more painful. It's not all downside for Trump. Iran's theocratic government might lose its nerve and decide its quest for the bomb isn't worth the trouble. If Trump did manage to rid the world of an Iranian nuclear menace, without much cost, it could stabilize the Middle East, a little, and solve one very dangerous problem. Any kudos for that, however, will only come after weeks, months, or even years of tension. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices. Connectez-vous pour accéder à votre portefeuille
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Florida lawmakers, law enforcement agencies respond to Trump's announcement of U.S. strikes on Iran
President Trump's announcement that the United States launched strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities has shocked the country and world, especially in Florida, where he has deep ties. Mr. Trump announced Saturday evening on social media that the U.S. had launched strikes against Iranian nuclear sites at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. Later that night, he addressed the nation from the White House about the strikes, describing the attack as a "spectacular military success" and warning of "far greater" attacks if Iran does not "make peace." On Sunday morning, senior Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan Caine, revealed new details about the U.S. operation — dubbed "Operation Midnight Hammer" — saying that it was the "largest B-2 operational strike in U.S. history" and inflicted "extremely severe damage and destruction" to the targets. From lawmakers to law enforcement and throughout the political spectrum, Floridians have responded to the strikes, either commending or condemning the president for his actions. Florida law enforcement increases security and patrols Throughout Florida, local law enforcement agencies have shared with the public that in the wake of the situation in the Middle East, they have been increasing security and patrols throughout the Sunshine State. Particularly in South Florida, which has one of the most significant Jewish populations in the U.S., municipal police departments and county sheriff's offices have been put on high alert, advising all Floridians to report any suspicious activities. The police departments of the cities of Hallandale Beach, North Miami, Sunny Isles Beach and Miami Beach have all specifically stated that they were increasing officer presence at synagogues, schools and other key locations associated with their Jewish communities to ensure safety and security. Florida lawmakers either stand with or push back against Trump Reactions have poured in from Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Florida as the situation between the U.S. and Iran continues. Republican Party members Marco Rubio, the former U.S. senator from Florida who now serves as the U.S. Secretary of State, appeared on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on Sunday morning, saying that the U.S. is ready to meet with Iran following the strike and warned Iran that closing the crucial Strait of Hormuz would be a "suicidal" move for the regime. Rubio continued, saying that he urges Iran to pursue diplomacy and that the U.S. has no current plans for further attacks on Iran unless "they mess around." He also told Brennan that the mission "was not an attack on Iran, it was not an attack on the Iranian people. This wasn't a regime change move. This was designed to degrade and or destroy three nuclear sites." "What happens next will now depend on what Iran chooses to do next," Rubio said. "If they choose the path of diplomacy, we're ready. We can do a deal that's good for them, the Iranian people, and good for the world. If they choose another route, then there will be consequences for that." Additionally, Rubio said Mr. Trump continues to prefer a diplomatic path, saying that the U.S. pushed Iran to make a deal to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions before the strikes. "We're prepared, right now, if they call right now and say, 'We want to meet, let's talk about this,'" Rubio told Brennan. "We're prepared to do that." Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis took to X on Sunday morning in response to the strikes, saying Mr. Trump "has been consistent and correct that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons." "...thanks to Operation Midnight Hammer, those nuclear ambitions have been reduced to a far-fetched dream," he said. DeSantis also said that despite how Iran responds, he and the state's efforts to bring Floridians back to the U.S. from Israel will continue. U.S. Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar also took to X, thanking Mr. Trump for "leading with strength and clarity" throughout the operation. "Iran must never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons," she said. "May God protect our troops and may peace prevail through strength." Democratic Party members Meanwhile, Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried issued a statement after learning of the U.S. strikes on Iran as she stepped off stage at the Florida Democratic Party's annual conference, saying that she saw "shock and fear" on her colleagues' faces while they tried to process "the gravity of what had just happened." "In a room of nearly 1,000 people, opinions and feelings ran deep on all sides of the issue," Fried said. "But what unites the majority of Americans — and much of the world — is the clear understanding that Donald Trump is not the leader we need at this moment." Fried continued, condemning the Trump administration for operating "lawlessly" and saying in part that the president "does not possess the wisdom of a great leader." She also criticized how Mr. Trump has been "politicizing a critical moment in world history" by allegedly excluding Democratic leadership and only including Republicans in the decision to strike Iran. "Iran must not have a nuclear weapon, but Donald Trump cannot be trusted to choose what is best for our country," Fried said. "I pray for the safety of our troops, and I call on the President to immediately bring this matter before Congress, as our Constitution requires." U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz said on X that he's always held the belief that Iran "cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon" as it has been "U.S. policy" with every administration, but also said he is a "firm believer in congressional authority [and] oversight." "Any offensive action must come to Congress for a vote," he said. "I hope this is contained, but we are living in unprecedented times — and it's critical [that] our leaders work on a bipartisan basis to protect our nation."
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Harris gives California governor's race a serious look
Kamala Harris is leaning toward entering the California gubernatorial race, sources familiar with the former vice president's thinking tell The Hill. While the sources caution that Harris hasn't made a final decision yet and is still considering all her options, they say she has made it clear that she is not done with public service and is giving the race strong consideration. Those who have spoken to Harris about the possibility of entering the race say it has given her a renewed sense of excitement and, as one source put it, 'a glimmer in her eyes.' 'She has a lot of people in her ear telling her that it makes the most sense and she can do the most good,' said one source who has spoken to Harris about a potential run. But another source close to Harris pushed back on the idea that she is inclined to enter the contest. The source said the topic of the gubernatorial race is dominating many of the conversations she is having simply because of the fast-approaching 2026 match-up. Either way, the sources say Harris is sticking to a self-imposed end-of-summer deadline in deciding whether to wade into the already-crowded governor's race, where the contest includes former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who was also a member of the Biden administration as secretary of Health and Human Services. The former vice president is planning to take some time off in July, when sources say she hopes to further reflect on the next step in her political career. Harris's office did not comment for this story. In recent weeks, Harris has been participating in a string of conversations about the political climate in the state and the issues on the minds of Californians, the sources say. She has been particularly interested in the issues facing younger voters and has been holding lengthy discussions about the future of artificial intelligence (AI). Harris has kept a relatively low profile in recent months after a devastating loss in the 2024 presidential election — a race she thought she could win. While California has been in the headlines for a rash of news events, including the protests over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in Los Angeles earlier this month and the wildfires that ravaged major swaths of the state in January, the extent of Harris's public involvement has been posts on social platform X. 'Los Angeles is my home,' Harris wrote in a statement earlier this month on the protests. 'And like so many Americans, I am appalled at what we are witnessing on the streets of our city. Deploying the National Guard is a dangerous escalation meant to provoke chaos.' 'In addition to the recent ICE raids in Southern California and across our nation, it is part of the Trump administration's cruel, calculated agenda to spread panic and division,' she added. Those close to the former vice president say she has been appalled by the Trump administration's bold moves, like deploying the National Guard. Harris has told confidants that she feels the president is governing by loyalty and retribution and that such actions will propel her to reenter public service. 'This moment almost requires her to do it,' one source close to Harris said. At the same time, if she chooses to enter the race, her confidants know she will have to contend with looming narratives about whether she helped conceal former President Biden's decline, something Republicans continue to press her on. Even one of her would-be opponents, Villaraigosa, has made it a talking point. 'Voters deserve to know the truth, what did Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra know, when did they know it, and most importantly, why didn't either of them speak out? This cover up directly led to a second Donald Trump term,' Villaraigosa wrote in a post on X last month that took aim at two potential rivals. Against the backdrop of these questions, there's a thought among some Democrats that a run for governor would be 'a consolation prize' with Harris having been close to winning the presidency less than a year ago. Her confidants cringe at that sentiment, and they say Harris brushes off such commentary. A decision by Harris to run for governor would be significant, political observers say, because it could take a 2028 presidential run off the table. 'I don't think she could, with a straight face, run for governor in 2026 without making an absolute pledge that she would not run for president in 2028,' said Garry South, a California-based Democratic strategist. An Emerson College poll in April revealed that 50 percent of Democratic voters in California would support Harris in a gubernatorial run. A separate survey from Politico/UC Berkeley Citrin Center also released in April revealed that 33 percent of Democratic voters in California would be 'joyful' about a Harris bid and 41 percent would be 'mostly excited.' Though those polls show she would be the clear front-runner in the race, some Democrats say they don't think that's enough for her to maintain a clear field. 'She would start out, at least initially, as the front-runner. There's no doubt about it because she has 100 percent name ID in California,' South said. 'I think there are real mixed feelings about her among California Democrats, and I think those mixed feelings would grow if she actually got into the race.' 'She doesn't come into this as an 800-pound gorilla,' he added. Even as some close to her say she's leaning toward running, some former aides and longtime observers in the state say they doubt Harris will run for governor because she has been, as one former aide put it, 'absent' from the events that have dominated the state. In the face of this month's protests in Los Angeles, for example, Harris was in the Hamptons attending the wedding of Huma Abedin and Alex Soros — two big names within Democratic circles. In April, Harris spoke at a gala before hundreds of donors in San Francisco and made no mention of state issues or political affairs. 'She's the kind of person that if she's going to do something, she's very serious about it, focused on it,' said Elizabeth Ashford, a California-based communications adviser who served as Harris's chief of staff when she was the state's attorney general. 'It just seems to me that this would be a summer of reintroducing herself as a Californian to Californians if that were really front of mind.' In the months since she left office, Harris has made most of her public appearances outside of California. Last month, the former vice president spoke at a closed-room real estate conference in Australia following a surprise Met Gala appearance in New York. She was in Las Vegas for a conference on AI in March and engaged with students at a Maryland community college in December. Her loss of the presidency in November raises questions for some California Democrats about how she will address the issue they say Democratic voters in the state care most about. 'I think California Democrats right now want somebody who's going to get in Trump's face,' said South, the California-based Democratic strategist. 'But I'm not sure that someone who just lost pretty badly to Donald Trump can posit themselves as the best counter against Donald Trump if they were to be governor of California.'
