Trump Administration Live Updates: Juneteenth Goes Uncelebrated by White House as President Grouses About Holidays
A federal appeals court on Thursday cleared the way for President Trump to keep using the National Guard to respond to immigration protests in Los Angeles, declaring that a judge in San Francisco erred last week when he ordered Mr. Trump to return control of the troops to Gov. Gavin Newsom of California.
In a unanimous, 38-page ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the conditions in Los Angeles were sufficient for Mr. Trump to decide that he needed to take federal control of California's National Guard and deploy it to ensure that federal immigration laws would be enforced.
A lower-court judge had concluded that the protests were not severe enough for Mr. Trump to use a rarely-triggered law to federalize the National Guard over Mr. Newsom's objections. But the panel, which included two appointees of Mr. Trump and one of former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., disagreed with the lower court.
'Affording appropriate deference to the president's determination, we conclude that he likely acted within his authority in federalizing the National Guard,' the court wrote, in an unsigned opinion on behalf of the entire panel.
The ruling was not a surprise. During a 65-minute hearing on Tuesday, the panel's questions and statements had telegraphed that all three judges — Mark J. Bennett, Eric D. Miller and Jennifer Sung — were inclined to let Mr. Trump keep controlling the Guard for now, while litigation continues to play out over California's challenge to his move.
Mr. Trump praised the decision, saying in a Truth Social post late Thursday that it supported his argument for using the National Guard 'all over the United States' if local law enforcement can't 'get the job done.'
Mr. Newsom, in a response on Thursday, focused on how the appeals court had rejected the Trump administration's argument that a president's decision to federalize the National Guard could not be reviewed by a judge.
'The president is not a king and is not above the law,' Mr. Newsom said in a statement. 'We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.'
The Trump administration had urged the appeals court to find that the judiciary could not review Mr. Trump's decision to take control of a state's National Guard under the statute he invoked, which sets conditions like if there is a rebellion against governmental authority that impedes the enforcement of federal law.
The appeals court declined to go that far.
Supreme Court precedent 'does not compel us to accept the federal government's position that the president could federalize the National Guard based on no evidence whatsoever, and that courts would be unable to review a decision that was obviously absurd or made in bad faith,' the appeals court wrote.
But, the judges said, the violent actions of some protesters in Los Angeles had hindered immigration enforcement, and that was sufficient for the judiciary to defer to Mr. Trump's decision to invoke the call-up statute.
The appeals court also rejected the state's contention that the call-up order was illegal because Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, sent the directive to a general in charge of the National Guard, even though the statute says any such edict must go 'through' the governor. The court said the general was Governor Newsom's agent, and that was good enough.
'Even if there were a procedural violation, that would not justify the scope of relief provided by the district court's' order stripping Mr. Trump of control of the guard, the ruling added.
The state could choose to ask the full appeals court to rehear the matter, or it could directly ask the Supreme Court to intervene. But the state might also just move on from the current part of the dispute, since the ruling on Thursday pertains to a short-lived temporary restraining order that will soon be obsolete anyway.
Either way, litigation in the case is set to return on Friday to the San Francisco courtroom of a Federal District Court judge, Charles Breyer, for a hearing. He is weighing whether to issue a more durable preliminary injunction restricting what Mr. Trump can do with some 4,000 National Guard troops or 700 active-duty Marines his administration has also deployed into the city.
Judge Breyer's temporary restraining order concerned only the National Guard and whether it was lawful for Mr. Trump to mobilize them under federal control. At the hearing on Friday, he is also set to address a state request to limit troops under federal control to guarding federal buildings, and to bar them from accompanying Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on the workplace raids that sparked the protests.
That request centers on a 19th-century law, the Posse Comitatus Act, that generally makes it illegal to use the military for domestic law enforcement. The Trump administration has argued that the troops are not themselves performing law enforcement tasks, but rather are protecting civilian agents who are trying to arrest undocumented migrants.
Mr. Hegseth suggested that he might not obey a ruling from the lower court, telling senators on the Armed Services Committee on Wednesday that he doesn't 'believe district courts should be setting national security policy.'
Conditions in Los Angeles have calmed significantly over the past week, and Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles announced on Tuesday that she was ending the downtown curfew, a week after it had first been imposed. She said local law enforcement efforts have been 'largely successful' at reimposing order.
California officials have said from the beginning that local and state police could handle the protesters, and that Mr. Trump's decision to send in federal troops only inflamed matters. But speaking with reporters outside the White House on Wednesday, Mr. Trump said he felt empowered to send troops anywhere violent protests erupt.
'We did a great job. We quelled that thing,' the president said of the demonstrations in Los Angeles. 'And the fact that we are even there thinking about going in, they won't bother with it anymore. They'll go someplace else. But we'll be there, too. We'll be wherever they go.'
Greg Jaffe contributed reporting.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
31 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Support for renewables shrinks as fossil fuel interest grows
Support for renewables shrinks as fossil fuel interest grows Republicans and Democrats alike are less likely to support renewable energy than they were five years ago, according to a survey released June 5 by the Pew Research Center. Floodlight examines the survey results, which mirror growing pockets of opposition to solar farms, reignited political support for coal plants and moves by President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans to kill federally funded clean energy projects. This shift in opinion dates back to when Democratic President Joe Biden took office, said Brian Kennedy, Pew senior researcher and one of the study's authors. "This isn't a new trend," he said. Still, Kenneth Gillingham, professor of environmental and energy economics at the Yale School of the Environment, was surprised. "I see this shift … as a successful effort to link climate change and renewable energy to broader culture war issues," Gillingham said. He added that in the past, "prominent" Republicans supported renewables and sought solutions to climate change, but those stances could now be seen as "disloyal" to Trump. The survey of 5,085 U.S. adults taken April 28 to May 4 revealed that while 79% of Americans favored expanding wind and solar production in 2020, that number has dropped to 60%. And 39% of Americans today support expansion of oil, coal and natural gas - almost double the 20% that supported it in 2020. Combustion of fossil fuels - in transportation, energy generation and industrial production - is the No. 1 cause of climate change. Much of the change in opinion is driven by Republicans, whose support of oil and gas grew from 35% in 2020 to 67% today. But Democrats also indicated less support for renewable energy and more for fossil fuels than five years ago. While many results reflect Trump's policies opposing most renewables and boosting fossil fuels, Pew found a few notable exceptions: 69% of all respondents favor offshore wind - a technology Trump has specifically targeted. Both Democrats and Republicans indicated stronger support for nuclear power, with Republicans' favorable opinions increasing from 53% in 2020 to 69% in 2025. Democrats' support rose from 37% to 52%. The Trump administration has signaled support for a nuclear renaissance, despite its high cost. There were wide partisan splits on several topics. In March, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced it would scale back environmental regulations. Pew asked whether it was possible to do that and still protect air and water quality: 77% of Republicans said yes and 67% of Democrats said no. Pew didn't ask the respondents why their attitudes have shifted. But Kennedy said in Pew's past surveys, Republicans have expressed concern about the economic impacts of climate change policies and transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. Mike Murphy, a Republican consultant and electric vehicle backer, said when the environmental benefits of clean technologies are touted, it polarizes Republicans. Instead, Murphy said messages should be about pocketbook issues - like lower fuel costs - and jobs. "It's hard for pro-climate people to understand," said Murphy, who has advised dozens of state and national GOP campaigns including John McCain's 2008 presidential bid. "(They think) we just need to shout louder and hit people over the head about climate, climate, climate. The key is you want to talk about jobs and national security and other events that naturally resonate a lot more with right-of-center people." That's what Murphy's groups, the EV Politics Project and the American EV Jobs Alliance, are trying to do to depoliticize electric vehicles. "Whenever electric cars are seen through a climate lens," Murphy said, "their appeal narrows." It's a strategy also being used by the Electrification Coalition, a left-of-center pro-EV group. Ben Prochazka, the coalition's executive director, echoed Murphy's strategy, adding that EVs have "become overly politicized and caught in the culture wars, impacting markets and ultimately hurting our ability to realize their many benefits for all Americans." Prochazka noted that once introduced to EVs, consumers support them: "EV drivers love their vehicles, with more than eight out of ten reporting that their next car will also be electric." Perhaps those practical messages are getting through. In the Pew survey, electric vehicles were the one item that saw an uptick in support - 4 percentage points in the past year. But popular support might not be enough to stop Congress from killing a $7,500 electric vehicle credit, which Murphy said would be "policy disaster." Republicans, he said, are in a "real squeeze," because "they don't have enough money for the tax cuts the president has promised." Murphy said: "It's easier for Republicans to cut Biden electric cars … than it is for them to cut more Medicaid." Gillingham is still optimistic that solar, wind and other greenhouse gas-reducing technologies will move forward - because they are the cheapest. "The continued decline in the price of renewable energy and battery technologies, as well as other new technologies, is a reason to continue to have hope that the worst impacts of climate change can be addressed," he said. Published by Canary Media, Renewable Energy World Floodlight is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powers stalling climate action. This story was produced by Floodlight and reviewed and distributed by Stacker. © Stacker Media, LLC.
Washington Post
34 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump calls for special prosecutor to investigate 2020 election, reviving longstanding grievance
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Friday called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election won by Democrat Joe Biden, repeating his baseless claim that the contest was marred by widespread fraud. 'Biden was grossly incompetent, and the 2020 election was a total FRAUD!' Trump said in a social media post in which he also sought to favorably contrast his immigration enforcement approach with that of the former president. 'The evidence is MASSIVE and OVERWHELMING. A Special Prosecutor must be appointed. This cannot be allowed to happen again in the United States of America! Let the work begin!'
San Francisco Chronicle
35 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump calls for special prosecutor to investigate 2020 election, reviving longstanding grievance
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Friday called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election won by Democrat Joe Biden, repeating his baseless claim that the contest was marred by widespread fraud. 'Biden was grossly incompetent, and the 2020 election was a total FRAUD!' Trump said in a social media post in which he also sought to favorably contrast his immigration enforcement approach with that of the former president. 'The evidence is MASSIVE and OVERWHELMING. A Special Prosecutor must be appointed. This cannot be allowed to happen again in the United States of America! Let the work begin!' Trump's post, made as his Republican White House is consumed by a hugely substantial foreign policy decision on whether to get directly involved in the Israel-Iran war, is part of an amped-up effort by him to undermine the legitimacy of Biden's presidency. Earlier this month, Trump directed his administration to investigate Biden's actions as president, alleging aides masked his predecessor's 'cognitive decline.' Biden has dismissed the investigation as 'a mere distraction.' The post also revives a long-running grievance by Trump that the election was stolen even though courts around the country and a Trump attorney general from his first term found no evidence of fraud that could have affected the outcome. The Department of Homeland Security's cybersecurity arm pronounced the election 'the most secure in American history.' It was unclear what Trump had in mind when he called for a special prosecutor, but in the event Attorney General Pam Bondi heeds his call, she may face pressure to appoint someone who has already been confirmed by the Senate. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment Friday. The Justice Department in recent years has appointed a succession of special counsels — sometimes, though not always, plucked from outside the agency — to lead investigations into politically sensitive matters, including into conduct by Biden and by Trump. Last year, Trump's personal lawyers launched an aggressive, and successful, challenge to the appointment of Jack Smith, the special counsel assigned to investigate his efforts to undo the 2020 presidential election and his retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida. A Trump-appointed judge agreed, ruling that then-Attorney General Merrick Garland had exceeded his bounds by appointing a prosecutor without Senate approval and confirmation, and dismissed the case. That legal team included Todd Blanche, who is now deputy attorney general, as well as Emil Bove, who is Blanche's top deputy but was recently nominated to serve as a judge on a federal appeals court. ___
