US Appeals Court Allows Trump Control Of National Guard In LA
A US appeals court on Thursday ruled that President Donald Trump could continue control of National Guard troops in Los Angeles, over the objections of California Governor Gavin Newsom.
Trump ordered the deployment of thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines into Los Angeles this month in response to protests over federal immigration sweeps -- a move opposed by city leaders and Newsom.
Trump was within his rights when he ordered 4,000 members of the National Guard into service for 60 days to "protect federal personnel performing federal functions and to protect federal property," the three-judge panel wrote in their 38-page unanimous ruling.
"Affording appropriate deference to the President's determination, we conclude that he likely acted within his authority in federalizing the National Guard," they said
The president celebrated the decision in a post on Truth Social Thursday night, calling it a "BIG WIN."
"All over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done," Trump wrote.
The state of California had argued that Trump's order was illegal because it did not follow the procedure of being issued through the governor.
The judges said Trump's "failure to issue the federalization order directly 'through' the Governor of California does not limit his otherwise lawful authority to call up the National Guard."
But they said the panel disagreed with the defendants' primary argument that the president's decision to federalize members of the California National Guard "is completely insulated from judicial review."
Governor Newsom responded to the decision saying Trump "is not a king and not above the law."
"Tonight, the court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court," he posted on X.
"We will not let this authoritarian use of military soldiers against citizens go unchecked."
California is not without options. The state could request the case to be reheard or it could petition the Supreme Court for intervention.
The ruling comes against a backdrop of heightened tensions in Los Angeles, which has become ground zero of Trump's immigration crackdown across the United States.
The city has seen scattered violence but mostly peaceful protests in recent weeks, ignited by an escalation in federal immigration sweeps that have targeted migrant workers in garment factories, car washes and other workplaces.
Local media reported further raids across the city on Thursday targeting Home Depot stores, a home improvement retailer where day laborers often gather in parking lots seeking work.
The protests, though largely peaceful, saw sporadic and spectacular violence. Damage included vandalism, looting, clashes with law enforcement and several torched driverless taxis.
Last week, a lower court judge had ordered Trump to return control of the California National Guard to Newsom, saying the president's decision to deploy them to protest-hit Los Angeles was "illegal."
Trump, who has repeatedly exaggerated the scale of the unrest, also sent 700 US Marines to Los Angeles despite the objections of local officials, claiming that they had lost control of the "burning" city.
It was the first time since 1965 that a US president deployed the National Guard over the wishes of a state governor.
Trump appointed two of the judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel, and former president Joe Biden appointed the third, the New York Times reported Thursday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Int'l Business Times
37 minutes ago
- Int'l Business Times
Marco Rubio Reportedly Part Of Trump's Inner Circle As He Weighs Whether To Strike Iran
Secretary of State Marco Rubio is reportedly part of President Donald Trump's inner circle as he ponders whether to strike Iran. NBC News reported that others who are part of the inner circle are Vice President JD Vance, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles and deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller. Trump also relies on Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff on matters he covers and has been "crowdsourcing" with allies outside the White House and his administration about what decision he should make, the outlet added. Others involved in high-level discussions are Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Erik Kurilla, the commander of U.S. Central Command; and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. At the same time, Trump has reportedly sidelined two high-ranking officials who would generally be involved in such matters: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Defense Department spokesman Sean Parnell rejected the claim, saying it's "completely false." "The Secretary is speaking with the President multiple times a day each day and has been with the President in the Situation Room this week," he said in a statement. However, a recent report by the Washington Post details that Hegseth has been excluded from high-level deliberations. "Nobody is talking to Hegseth," an official told the outlet. Despite the Pentagon's claim that Hegseth remains closely involved, three current U.S. officials confirmed that key briefings and war planning are being led by Generals Kurilla and Caine, with no operational coordination involving Hegseth or his staff. Gabbard has also been reportedly sidelined. Quoting several senior administration officials, NBC News recalled that she was not invited to attend a meeting of top officials earlier this month at Camp David to discuss the matter. In fact, Trump reportedly revealed to close aides that he has been considering dissolving the office ran by Gabbard, alleging that she does not add to his administration. The idea stemmed from a brief video posted on social media by Gabbard earlier this month, in which the former Hawaii representative rattled off about how "political elite and warmongers" are "carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers," adding that the world is "on the brink of nuclear annihilation." The video, which had not been approved by the White House, reportedly infuriated President Trump, who believed Gabbard was expressing disapproval of Israel's incoming attacks on Iran. The president's frustration with Gabbard reportedly worsened when, while aboard Air Force One, a reporter asked him about her statement that Iran was not attempting to build a nuclear weapon, which she delivered to Congress in March. "I don't care what she said," Trump replied. "I think they were very close to having a weapon." Originally published on Latin Times
Int'l Business Times
an hour ago
- Int'l Business Times
World Bank And IMF Climate Snub 'Worrying': COP29 Presidency
The hosts of the most recent UN climate talks are worried international lenders are retreating from their commitments to help boost funding for developing countries' response to global warming. This anxiety has grown as the Trump administration has slashed foreign aid and discouraged US-based development lenders like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund from focussing on climate finance. Developing nations, excluding China, will need an estimated $1.3 trillion a year by 2035 in financial assistance to transition to renewable energy and climate-proof their economies from increasing weather extremes. But nowhere near this amount has been committed. At last year's UN COP29 summit in Azerbaijan, rich nations agreed to increase climate finance to $300 billion a year by 2035, an amount decried as woefully inadequate. Azerbaijan and Brazil, which is hosting this year's COP30 conference, have launched an initiative to plug the shortfall that includes expectations of "significant" contributions from international lenders. But so far only two -- the African Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank -- have responded to a call to engage the initiative with ideas, said COP29 president Mukhtar Babayev. "We call on their shareholders to urgently help us to address these concerns," he told climate negotiators at a high-level summit in the German city of Bonn this week. "We fear that a complex and volatile global environment is distracting" many of those expected to play a big role in bridging the climate finance gap, he added. His team travelled to Washington in April for the IMF and World Bank's spring meetings hoping to find the same enthusiasm for climate lending they had encountered a year earlier. But instead they found institutions "very much reluctant now to talk about climate at all", said Azerbaijan's top climate negotiator Yalchin Rafiyev. This was a "worrisome trend", he said, given expectations these lenders would extend the finance needed in the absence of other sources. "They're very much needed," he said. The United States, the World Bank's biggest shareholder, has sent a different message. On the sidelines of the April spring meetings, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged the bank to focus on "dependable technologies" rather than "distortionary climate finance targets." This could mean investing in gas and other fossil fuel-based energy production, he said. Under the Paris Agreement, wealthy developed countries -- those most responsible for global warming to date -- are obligated to pay climate finance to poorer nations. But other countries, most notably China, do make their own voluntary contributions. Finance is a source of long-running tensions at UN climate negotiations. Donors have consistently failed to deliver on past finance pledges, and committed well below what experts agree developing nations need to prepare for the climate crisis. The issue flared again this week in Bonn, with nations at odds over whether to debate financial commitments from rich countries during the formal meetings. European nations have also pared back their foreign aid spending in recent months, raising fears that budgets for climate finance could also face a haircut. At COP29, multilateral development banks (MDBs) led by the World Bank Group estimated they could provide $120 billion annually in climate financing to low and middle income countries, and mobilise another $65 billion from the private sector by 2030. Their estimate for high income countries was $50 billion, with another $65 billion mobilised from the private sector. Rob Moore, of policy think tank E3G, said these lenders are the largest providers of international public finance to developing countries. "Whilst they are facing difficult political headwinds in some quarters, they would be doing both themselves and their clients a disservice by disengaging on climate change," he said. The World Bank in particular has done "a huge amount of work" to align its lending with global climate goals. "If they choose to step back this would be at their own detriment, and other banks like the regionally based MDBs would likely play a bigger role in shaping the economy of the future," he said. The World Bank did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
DW
an hour ago
- DW
Iran-Israel war: Will India need to pick a side? – DW – 06/20/2025
The escalating conflict in the Middle East presents India with tough choices — balancing energy security, economic stability and its delicate diplomacy between Israel and Iran. India maintains amicable relations with both Israel and Iran, which is the result of a delicate balancing act stretching back many years. Now, New Delhi finds itself in a precarious position as the Israel-Iran conflict seems to be escalating into a broader confrontation with mounting death tolls and rising uncertainty. India's diplomatic tightrope Over the last decade, India has strengthened ties with Israel, particularly in defense and technology. India has acquired advanced weaponry, including Barak 8 defense missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), loitering munitions and sophisticated radar systems. In last month's short-lived conflict between India and Pakistan, New Delhi reportedly utilized various Israeli-origin weapons, underscoring the importance of the strategic defense partnership. At the same time, India values its historical and cultural connections with Iran, as well as its strategic role in regional connectivity, energy security, and geopolitical balance. Tehran is also New Delhi's second-largest supplier of crude oil. Israeli civilian sites hit by barrage of Iranian missiles To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Importantly, Iran acts as India's gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia. The Chabahar Port project on the Gulf of Oman, developed jointly by India and Iran, is central to this strategy, providing India with direct access to this region while bypassing Pakistan. Shanthie Mariet D'Souza, a regional expert monitoring current events, said that "India needs to maintain its balancing act to protect its security ties with Israel and protect its strategic interests and economic commitment to the Chabahar Port." "With such contrasting objectives, strategic ambiguity serves the purpose of India being dragged into the conflict, which is bound to widen if the war drags on," D'Souza, founder of the Mantraya Institute for Strategic Studies, told DW. Safeguarding New Delhi's interests Last week, India's Ministry of External Affairs issued a statement expressing deep concern at the recent developments between Iran and Israel. "India urges both sides to avoid any escalatory steps. Existing channels of dialogue and diplomacy should be utilised to work towards a de-escalation of the situation and resolving underlying issues," said the statement. "India enjoys close and friendly relations with both countries and stands ready to extend all possible support," it added. Sticking to its policy of strategic ambiguity and nonalignment, India distanced itself from a recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) statement denouncing Israel's attacks on Iran. The SCO is a 10-member bloc created by China and Russia to counter the Western-led global is also a SCO member, despite its regional rivalry with China. Responding to the escalation between Israel and Iran, the SCO expressed "serious concern" and strongly condemned the Israeli military strikes. Indians seek jobs in Israel amid high unemployment To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video P R Kumaraswamy, a professor of Middle Eastern studies specializing in Israeli politics at Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University, told DW that India's strategic silence on the Israel-Iran conflict, mirrored by its decisive refusal to endorse the SCO, reflects a "calculated, nuanced and matured approach" rooted in its national interests and geopolitical balancing. "This approach, akin to its neutrality during the Ukraine-Russia war, also recognizes the sentiments in several Arab capitals as they are caught between Israeli actions and a nuclear Iran as their neighbor," said Kumaraswamy. "Strategic autonomy can also be pursued through calculated and minimalist responses without any rhetorical declarations." D'Souza, however, said such a policy will be useful as long as the conflict between Israel and Iran is short. "If it drags on, every move of India will be analyzed and assessed, and its impartiality will be tested, which will be a test case for India's diplomacy," she said. "It will come under pressure if the conflict prolongs. However, being a votary of diplomacy and dialogue is a prudent policy that will maintain India's principle of non-alignment," she added. Will India's hand be forced? Earlier this week, India launched "Operation Sindhu" to evacuate Indian nationals, starting with 110 Indian students from northern Iran. These students were assisted in crossing into Armenia by road under the supervision of Indian diplomats. Iranians protest Israeli strikes To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Following the successful evacuation from Iran, India extended the operation to include its nationals in Israel. Indian citizens who wish to leave Israel are being evacuated through land borders and then brought to India by air, according to India's Foreign Ministry. Former diplomat Anil Wadhwa said India would resist the pressure to take a clear side in the conflict unless New Delhi's vital interests like energy, connectivity, or security, are directly threatened. "Strategic autonomy has been prioritized by India. In the Middle East itself, opinions are divided over Iranian nuclear activities. India, therefore, works on a bilateral basis with its Middle East partners to develop trust and enhance its interests," Wadhwa told DW. "India will not want to be drawn into bloc-based confrontations. It is building trust through tailored partnerships," he added. Edited by: Keith Walker
