U.S. Marines deployed to LA in rare move as more protests expected
National Guard members keep watch outside the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building, during a protest against federal immigration sweeps, in Los Angeles, California, U.S., June 12, 2025. REUTERS/David Swanson
By Brad Brooks, Jorge Garcia, Idrees Ali and Phil Stewart
U.S. Marines were deployed to Los Angeles on Friday, the military said, in a rare domestic use of its forces after days of protests over immigration raids and as nationwide demonstrations were expected on Saturday, in the biggest backlash since President Donald Trump returned to power.
About 200 Marines will protect a federal building in Los Angeles, Army Major General Scott Sherman said on Friday. The administration has authorized a total of 700 Marines to be deployed in the city.
Neither the Marines nor National Guard troops in the city have temporarily detained anyone, he added.
"I would like to emphasize that the soldiers will not participate in law enforcement activities," he said during a briefing.
It is uncommon for active-duty troops to be used domestically during civil disturbances.
The last time the military was used for direct police action was in 1992, when the California governor at the time asked then President George H.W. Bush to invoke the Insurrection Act to help respond to Los Angeles riots over the acquittal of police officers who beat Black motorist Rodney King.
A court decided on Thursday that Trump can keep his deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles for now.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision temporarily paused a lower court ruling that blocked the mobilization, although it does not mean the court will ultimately side with him.
"We saved L.A. Thank you for the Decision!!!" Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.
The Trump administration "far overreached its authority," the California Attorney General's office said, adding that it remained confident in its case ahead of making arguments to court on Tuesday.
In the city's downtown, construction workers were out early on Friday adding plywood to storefronts, with many already boarded-up.
Little Tokyo, hardest hit by the protests, remains largely covered in anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement graffiti spray-painted by demonstrators during the previous nights' marches, though few buildings had damage beyond that.
"This is all terrible for business," said the proprietor of one restaurant, whose windows were being boarded up and would only speak on condition of anonymity. "My business is great when things are calm, but neither the protesters nor the police are letting that happen."
SOLDIERS ON THE STREETS
Cities across the U.S. were bracing for demonstrations on Saturday, when those also opposed to a weekend military parade in Washington are expected to take to the streets.
"They've defied our courts, deported Americans, disappeared people off the streets, attacked our civil rights, and slashed our services," the group No Kings, which is organizing the day of action, wrote on its website.
Trump is carrying out a campaign promise to deport immigrants, employing forceful tactics consistent with the norm-breaking political style that got him elected twice.
Democrats, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, have said the use of military force was unnecessary and an example of Trump's authoritarianism.
In Los Angeles, troops have stood guard at a federal detention center downtown where many of the protests have taken place in a show of solidarity for immigrants detained inside.
The Guard had accompanied ICE agents on operations to detain immigrants.
City officials in Los Angeles and state officials in California have opposed the ramp-up of federal immigration enforcement since it began last Friday.
"Peace begins with ICE leaving Los Angeles," Mayor Karen Bass, who has imposed a nighttime curfew over one square mile (2.5 square km) of downtown Los Angeles, said on Thursday.
Protests have been mostly peaceful, punctuated by incidents of violence, and restricted to a few city blocks.
The Los Angeles Police Department said 33 people were arrested downtown overnight for failing to disperse as protests continued in the city for a seventh day, and 13 arrests were made for violating the curfew.
Demonstrations have also taken place in other cities this week, including New York and Chicago, and there have been some disturbances.
Four detainees escaped from a privately operated immigration detention center in Newark, New Jersey, on Thursday amid reported unrest inside the facility, a Department of Homeland Security official said on Friday.
"DHS has become aware of 4 detainees at the privately held Delaney Hall Detention Facility escaping," the official said in a statement.
Video posted to social media by the New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice, an advocacy group, showed protesters outside the facility attempting to block law enforcement vehicles from entering.
Delaney Hall drew national attention last month when the mayor of Newark and a Democratic congresswoman were arrested while trying to enter.
Americans are divided over Trump's decision to activate the military.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Thursday showed 48% of respondents agreed with a statement that the president should "deploy the military to bring order to the streets" when protests turned violent, while 41% disagreed.
© Thomson Reuters 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
an hour ago
- Japan Times
Bombing Iran, Trump gambles on force over diplomacy
For nearly a half-century the United States has squabbled with Iran's Islamic Republic but the conflict has largely been left in the shadows, with U.S. policymakers believing, often reluctantly, that diplomacy was preferable. With President Donald Trump's order of strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, the United States — like Israel, which encouraged him — has brought the conflict into the open, and the consequences may not be clear for some time to come. "We will only know if it succeeded if we can get through the next three to five years without the Iranian regime acquiring nuclear weapons, which they now have compelling reasons to want," said Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst and supporter of the 2003 Iraq war who is now vice president for policy at the Middle East Institute. U.S. intelligence had not concluded that Iran was building a nuclear bomb, with Tehran's sensitive atomic work largely seen as a means of leverage, and Iran can be presumed to have taken precautions in anticipation of strikes. Trita Parsi, an outspoken critic of military action, said Trump "has now made it more likely that Iran will be a nuclear weapons state in the next five to 10 years." "We should be careful not to confuse tactical success with strategic success," said Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. "The Iraq war was also successful in the first few weeks but President (George W.) Bush's declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' did not age well," he said. Yet Trump's attack — a week after Israel began a major military campaign — came as the cleric-run state is at one of its weakest points since the 1979 Islamic Revolution toppled the pro-Western shah. Since the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas, which enjoys Iran's support, Israel — besides obliterating much of Gaza — has decimated Lebanon's Hezbollah, a militant group that would once reliably strike Israel as Tehran's proxy. Iran's main ally among Arab leaders, Syria's Bashar Assad, was also toppled in December. Supporters of Trump's strike argued that diplomacy was not working, with Iran standing firm on its right to enrich uranium. "Contrary to what some will say in the days to come, the U.S. administration did not rush to war. In fact, it gave diplomacy a real chance," said Ted Deutch, a former Democratic congressman who now heads the American Jewish Committee. "The murderous Iranian regime refused to make a deal," he said. Top Senate Republican John Thune pointed to Tehran's threats to Israel and language against the United States and said that the state had "rejected all diplomatic pathways to peace." Trump's attack comes almost exactly a decade after former President Barack Obama sealed a deal in which Iran drastically scaled back its nuclear work — which Trump pulled out of in 2018 after coming into office for his first term. Most of Trump's Republican Party and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long seen Iran as an existential threat, attacked Obama's deal because it allowed Tehran to enrich uranium at levels well beneath weapons grade and the key clauses had an end date. But Trump, billing himself a peacemaker, just a month ago said on a visit to Gulf Arab monarchies that he was hopeful for a new deal with Iran, and his administration was preparing new talks when Netanyahu attacked Iran. This prompted an abrupt U-turn from Trump. "Trump's decision to cut short his own efforts for diplomacy will also make it much harder to get a deal in the medium and long runs," said Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, which advocates restraint. "Iran now has no incentive to trust Trump's word or to believe that striking a compromise will advance Iran's interests." Iran's religious rulers also face opposition internally. Major protests erupted in 2022 after the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, who was detained for defying the regime's rules on covering hair. Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote on social media that Trump's strikes could either entrench the Islamic Republic or hasten its downfall. "The U.S. bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities is an unprecedented event that may prove to be transformational for Iran, the Middle East, U.S. foreign policy, global non-proliferation and potentially even the global order," he said. "Its impact will be measured for decades to come."
Nikkei Asia
3 hours ago
- Nikkei Asia
US strikes Iran nuclear sites, Trump claims 'spectacular' success
U.S. President Donald Trump addresses the nation from the White House in Washington, following U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities on June 21. © Reuters KEN MORIYASU WASHINGTON -- U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday evening announced that the U.S. military had conducted strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, including the underground fuel enrichment plant in Fordow. "We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan," the president wrote on his Truth Social network. "All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow," he said.
Yomiuri Shimbun
3 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Trump Attacks Watergate Laws in Massive Shift of Ethics System
Then-Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman was 32 when, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, she voted in 1974 for three articles of impeachment against President Richard M. Nixon. She spent the next few years as part of a Congress that passed wave after wave of laws to rein in future presidents. A half-century later, Holtzman, a New York Democrat, is watching as President Donald Trump takes aim at post-Watergate reforms on transparency, spending, conflicts of interest and more. By challenging and disregarding, in letter or in spirit, this slew of 1970s laws, Trump is essentially closing the 50-year post-Watergate chapter of American history – and ushering in a new era of shaky guardrails and blurred separation of powers. 'We didn't envision this,' Holtzman said. 'We saw Nixon doing it, but he hadn't done it on this vast a scale. Trump is saying, 'Congress cannot tell me what to do about anything.'' In 1976, for example, Congress created a 10-year term for FBI directors; Trump has forced out two FBI directors. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 aimed to prevent presidents from dismantling agencies; Trump has essentially done just that. Lawmakers in 1978 installed independent inspectors general in government offices; Trump has fired many of them and is seeking to replace them with loyalists. Trump has also disregarded post-Watergate safeguards intended to prevent the unjustified firings of federal workers. His U.S. DOGE Service has skirted rules on government secrecy and personal data. He has declared numerous emergencies despite Congress's efforts to rein them in. This broad rejection of the post-Watergate laws underlines the country's shift from an era focused on clean government and strict ethics to the rise of a president whose appeal stems in part from his willingness to violate such rules and constraints. 'There has been a collapse, at least temporarily, of the kind of outrage and ethical standards that were prevalent during the days of Watergate,' said Richard Ben-Veniste, who headed the special counsel's Watergate Task Force. 'The excesses of Watergate now seem naive. They have been overtaken by a system that is based on quid pro quo.' Many of Trump's moves face legal challenges, and they may be reversed by the courts – or the Supreme Court could enshrine them. Some scholars welcome Trump's effort to claw back presidential power, saying the post-Watergate Congresses, caught up in an anti-Nixon fervor, improperly sought to rewrite the Constitution in the legislative branch's favor. 'Congress should not be able to fundamentally change the constitutional balance between the two branches,' said John Yoo, a senior Justice Department official under President George W. Bush, referring to the legislative and executive. 'Several of the Watergate reforms went too far. The presidency functioned better, and the separation of powers functioned better, before.' White House spokesman Harrison Fields said Trump is not dismantling ethics but reviving them in a system that had become corrupted. 'President Trump is restoring the integrity of the Executive Branch following four years of relentless abuse through weaponization, lawfare, and unelected bureaucrats running the nation via autopen,' Harrison said in a statement. 'The President and his administration are the most transparent in American history, seamlessly executing the will of the American people in accordance with their constitutional authority.' Nixon's resignation on Aug. 9, 1974, was a seismic political event, as Americans at the time were far less hardened to scandal and more willing to denounce wrongdoing by their party's leaders. In November of that year, Democrats swept to historic majorities in Congress, carried on a wave of pro-reform sentiment. They crafted restraints on presidential authority that had not occurred to anyone before Nixon's startling use of government power against his adversaries. Nixon's team had broken into Democratic headquarters, spied on domestic targets, secretly taped White House visitors, misused campaign funds and even developed an 'enemies list' with a plan to 'use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies,' as White House counsel John Dean put it. Presidents of both parties have chafed at those restrictions but largely followed them. Until now. Some Democrats say Trump, by disregarding many of the statutes, is going further than Nixon, who at least paid lip service to his obligation to follow the law. 'Nixon was essentially a criminal, but an ordinary criminal who accepted the fact that the laws applied to him and that if he tried to violate them he would be subject to punishment,' said David Dorsen, an assistant chief counsel of the Senate Watergate Committee. 'Trump considers himself above the law, so that the system is to be rejected by him when he feels like it should be.' It is far from clear that Trump is seeking to eviscerate the Watergate laws specifically. He has always taken an expansive view of his own power, and that has set up a natural collision with the rules written by lawmakers trying to rein in what they saw as rogue presidents. That collision is unfolding on numerous fronts. Watergate-era lawmakers, furious at Nixon for refusing to spend money they had authorized, passed a law forbidding 'impoundment.' Trump ignored that when he temporarily froze government grants, and he has all but dismantled an agency created by Congress, the U.S. Agency for International Development. In response to Nixon's push to replace civil servants with political loyalists, Congress created the Merit Systems Protection Board in 1978 to hear cases of federal employees claiming unjust termination. Trump, who wants to force out thousands of workers, has dismissed a key member of the board and sought to neutralize it. Among the most notable post-Watergate reforms was the creation in 1978 of inspector general offices to pursue wrongdoing throughout the government. The law has been bolstered repeatedly since then and number of IGs has expanded to more than 70, with some Republican lawmakers among their strongest supporters. Trump fired 16 inspectors general shortly after taking office, in apparent violation of the law that requires 30 days' notice and a detailed rationale for such dismissals. Previous presidents, including Ronald Reagan, have also sought to fire IGs, but not in such a sweeping, peremptory manner. For many of Trump's critics, his rejection of the post-Watergate worldview goes beyond individual laws to a broader disregard of the principle that a president should not use the federal government to advance his personal interests. When Trump dines with people who enriched his family by buying his meme coin, or rewards his top campaign donor with a powerful federal job, they say, he is obliterating the red line drawn after Watergate. 'The background was a president who, on every front that you looked, was engaged in an abuse of power,' Holtzman said of the Watergate reforms. But now, she added, 'You have Elon Musk, who can spend almost $300 million to elect a president – when we passed a law specifically to limit expenditures because of the abuses we saw in Watergate.' The courts are weighing almost all of Trump's moves; he has won some victories, and legal experts say it is likely the Supreme Court will approve at least some of what he is doing. The judiciary has become far more supportive of presidential power in the years since Watergate. Yoo said it is notable that Trump is insisting on his right to fire any executive branch employee, including those Congress sought to shield with specified terms. 'If he succeeds in that, it would end the Watergate experiment in creating these independent bureaucracies,' said Yoo, who teaches at the University of California at Berkeley. 'On issue after issue, he has either taken these Watergate laws and interpreted them way beyond what the Congress originally wanted or just directly challenged their constitutionality, and you're seeing them go up to the Supreme Court right now,' Yoo said. Still, it was clear long before Trump that some of the most far-reaching Watergate reforms were floundering. The courts struck down several campaign finance rules, for example, saying they violated the First Amendment. In 1999, Congress chose not to renew its independent counsel law, which was a response to Nixon's notorious 'Saturday Night Massacre.' After Nixon fired Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox – along with Attorney General Elliot Richardson and his deputy – Congress decreed that a three-judge panel would appoint such prosecutors in the future. But the system proved unwieldy. The Clinton administration alone faced seven independent counsel probes, many lasting for years or focused on minor allegations. By 1999, lawmakers of both parties were happy to let the statute expire and return to a system of special counsels appointed by the attorney general. The political culture has clearly shifted in dramatic ways since the late 1970s. Holtzman said her colleagues had hoped the threat of impeachment, which ultimately forced Nixon to resign, would deter future presidents if the new laws did not. Since then, President Bill Clinton was impeached once and Trump twice. But all three Senate trials resulted in acquittal largely along party lines. And Trump's impeachment did not prevent him from retaking the White House in decisive fashion last year. 'Naively, we thought the impeachment itself would stand as a warning to future presidents, and it hasn't,' Holtzman said. Rufus Edmisten, who was a deputy chief counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee, said Congress's willingness to assert itself in a bipartisan way has all but evaporated since the hot day in the summer of 1973 when he delivered a congressional subpoena to a sitting president. 'We're right back to another Watergate, except worse,' Edmisten said. 'Having been in the middle of all kinds of things for 10 years, especially Watergate, I cringe when I think how Congress has become a lapdog. It's taken a back seat in the separation of powers order of things. It's almost an afterthought.'
