Judge asks if troops in Los Angeles are violating Posse Comitatus Act
California National Guard stand guard along a street near protesters and Trump supporters in Santa Ana, Calif. on Tuesday, June 10, 2025. (AP Photo Jae C. Hong)
By OLGA R. RODRIGUEZ
California's challenge of the Trump administration's military deployment in Los Angeles returned to a federal courtroom in San Francisco on Friday for a brief hearing after an appeals court handed President Donald Trump a key procedural win.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer put off issuing any additional rulings and instead asked for briefings from both sides by noon Monday on whether the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits troops from conducting civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil, is being violated in Los Angeles.
Newsom said in his complaint that 'violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is imminent, if not already underway' but Breyer last week postponed considering that allegation.
The hearing comes a day after the 9th Circuit appellate panel allowed the president to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed in response to protests over immigration raids.
The appellate decision halted a temporary restraining order from Breyer, who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Breyer also asked the lawyers on Friday to address whether he or the appellate court retains primary jurisdiction to grant an injunction under the Posse Comitatus Act.
California has sought a preliminary injunction returning control to Newsom of the troops in Los Angeles, where protests have calmed down in recent days.
Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops have been necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said their presence on the streets of a U.S. city inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources.
The demonstrations have appeared to be winding down, although dozens of protesters showed up Thursday at Dodger Stadium, where a group of federal agents with their faces covered, traveling in SUVs and cargo vans, had gathered at a parking lot. The Los Angeles Dodgers organization asked them to leave, and they did.
On Tuesday, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass lifted a curfew in downtown Los Angeles that was first imposed in response to vandalism and clashes with police after crowds gathered in opposition to agents taking migrants into detention.
Trump federalized members of the California National Guard under an authority known as Title 10.
Title 10 allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when the country 'is invaded,' when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government,' or when the president is otherwise unable 'to execute the laws of the United States.'
Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said allows presidents to control state National Guard troops only during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.'
'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' wrote Breyer, a Watergate prosecutor who was appointed by President Bill Clinton and is the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.
The Trump administration argued that courts can't second-guess the president's decisions. The appellate panel ruled otherwise, saying presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, but said that by citing violent acts by protesters in this case, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for federalizing the troops.
For now, the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit proceeds. It's the first deployment by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since troops were sent to protect Civil Rights Movement marchers in 1965.
Trump celebrated the appellate ruling in a social media post, calling it a 'BIG WIN' and hinting at more potential deployments. '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.
Newsom, for his part, has also warned that California won't be the last state to see troops in the streets if Trump gets his way. 'The President is not a king and is not above the law. We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens,' Newsom said.
Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance was traveling to Los Angeles on Friday to meet with U.S. Marines who also have been deployed to protect federal buildings, his office announced.
© Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yomiuri Shimbun
30 minutes 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.'
Yomiuri Shimbun
an hour ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Ukraine Asks Allies to Allocate 0.25% of GDP to Boost Its Weapon Production
KYIV, June 21 (Reuters) – President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has called on Ukraine's Western partners to allocate 0.25% of their GDP to helping Kyiv ramp up weapons production and said the country plans to sign agreements this summer to start exporting weapon production technologies. In remarks released for publication by his office on Saturday, Zelenskiy said Ukraine was in talks with Denmark, Norway, Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Lithuania to launch joint weapon production. 'Ukraine is part of Europe's security and we want 0.25% of the GDP of a particular partner country to be allocated for our defence industry and domestic production,' Zelenskiy said. As the war with a bigger and better-equipped Russia has intensified in recent weeks, Ukraine's need for new weapons and ammunition is constantly growing. This year Kyiv had secured $43 billion to finance its domestic weapon production, Zelenskiy said. Member nations of the NATO military alliance are expected to meet next week in The Hague, to discuss higher defence spending. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has proposed that countries should each agree to spend 5% of their GDP on defence and security measures. Zelenskiy said he was likely to visit the NATO summit, adding that several meetings with Western leaders had been set up on the sidelines. He also said that he hoped to meet U.S. President Donald Trump. Last week, Zelenskiy attended the Group of Seven summit in Canada as he sought to discuss stronger sanctions against Russia and more military support for Ukraine with Trump there. But he failed to meet with the U.S. President as Trump left a day early for Washington to address the Israel-Iran conflict. Ukraine currently covers about 40% of its defence needs with domestic production, and the government is constantly looking for ways to increase production further. Kyiv plans to launch joint weapon production outside of the country and will start exporting some of its military production technologies, Zelenskiy said. 'We have launched a program 'Build with Ukraine' and in summer we will sign relevant agreements to start exporting our technologies abroad in the format of opening production lines in European countries,' Zelenskiy said. The discussions focused on producing different types of drones, missiles, and potentially artillery, he said.
Yomiuri Shimbun
an hour ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Europeans Seek ‘Digital Sovereignty' as US Tech Firms Embrace Trump
BERLIN, June 21 (Reuters) – At a market stall in Berlin run by charity Topio, volunteers help people who want to purge their phones of the influence of U.S. tech firms. Since Donald Trump's inauguration, the queue for their services has grown. Interest in European-based digital services has jumped in recent months, data from digital market intelligence company Similarweb shows. More people are looking for e-mail, messaging and even search providers outside the United States. The first months of Trump's second presidency have shaken some Europeans' confidence in their long-time ally, after he signaled his country would step back from its role in Europe's security and then launched a trade war. 'It's about the concentration of power in U.S. firms,' said Topio's founder Michael Wirths, as his colleague installed on a customer's phone a version of the Android operating system without hooks into the Google ecosystem. Wirths said the type of people coming to the stall had changed: 'Before, it was people who knew a lot about data privacy. Now it's people who are politically aware and feel exposed.' Tesla TSLA.O chief Elon Musk, who also owns social media company X, was a leading adviser to the U.S. president before the two fell out, while the bosses of Amazon AMZN.O, Meta META.O and Google-owner Alphabet GOOGL.O took prominent spots at Trump's inauguration in January. Days before Trump took office, outgoing president Joe Biden had warned of an oligarchic 'tech industrial complex' threatening democracy. Berlin-based search engine Ecosia says it has benefited from some customers' desire to avoid U.S. counterparts like Microsoft's MSFT.O Bing or Google, which dominates web searches and is also the world's biggest email provider. 'The worse it gets, the better it is for us,' founder Christian Kroll said of Ecosia, whose sales pitch is that it spends its profits on environmental projects. Similarweb data shows the number of queries directed to Ecosia from the European Union has risen 27% year-on-year and the company says it has 1% of the German search engine market. But its 122 million visits from the 27 EU countries in February were dwarfed by 10.3 billion visits to Google, whose parent Alphabet made revenues of about $100 billion from Europe, the Middle East and Africa in 2024 – nearly a third of its $350 billion global turnover. Non-profit Ecosia earned 3.2 million euros ($3.65 million) in April, of which 770,000 euros was spent on planting 1.1 million trees. Google declined to comment for this story. Reuters could not determine whether major U.S. tech companies have lost any market share to local rivals in Europe. DIGITAL SOVEREIGNTY The search for alternative providers accompanies a debate in Europe about 'digital sovereignty' – the idea that reliance on companies from an increasingly isolationist United States is a threat to Europe's economy and security. 'Ordinary people, the kind of people who would never have thought it was important they were using an American service are saying, 'hang on!',' said UK-based internet regulation expert Maria Farrell. 'My hairdresser was asking me what she should switch to.' Use in Europe of Swiss-based ProtonMail rose 11.7% year-on-year to March compared to a year ago, according to Similarweb, while use of Alphabet's Gmail, which has some 70% of the global email market, slipped 1.9%. ProtonMail, which offers both free and paid-for services, said it had seen an increase in users from Europe since Trump's re-election, though it declined to give a number. 'My household is definitely disengaging,' said British software engineer Ken Tindell, citing weak U.S. data privacy protections as one factor. Trump's vice president JD Vance shocked European leaders in February by accusing them – at a conference usually known for displays of transatlantic unity – of censoring free speech and failing to control immigration. In May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio threatened visa bans for people who 'censor' speech by Americans, including on social media, and suggested the policy could target foreign officials regulating U.S. tech companies. U.S. social media companies like Facebook and Instagram parent Meta have said the European Union's Digital Services Act amounts to censorship of their platforms. EU officials say the Act will make the online environment safer by compelling tech giants to tackle illegal content, including hate speech and child sexual abuse material. Greg Nojeim, director of the Security and Surveillance Project at the Center for Democracy & Technology, said Europeans' concerns about the U.S. government accessing their data, whether stored on devices or in the cloud, were justified. Not only does U.S. law permit the government to search devices of anyone entering the country, it can compel disclosure of data that Europeans outside the U.S. store or transmit through U.S. communications service providers, Nojeim said. MISSION IMPOSSIBLE? Germany's new government is itself making efforts to reduce exposure to U.S. tech, committing in its coalition agreement to make more use of open-source data formats and locally-based cloud infrastructure. Regional governments have gone further – in conservative-run Schleswig-Holstein, on the Danish border, all IT used by the public administration must run on open-source software. Berlin has also paid for Ukraine to access a satellite-internet network operated by France's instead of Musk's Starlink. But with modern life driven by technology, 'completely divorcing U.S. tech in a very fundamental way is, I would say, possibly not possible,' said Bill Budington of U.S. digital rights nonprofit the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Everything from push notifications to the content delivery networks powering many websites and how internet traffic is routed relies largely on U.S. companies and infrastructure, Budington noted. Both Ecosia and French-based search engine Qwant depend in part on search results provided by Google and Microsoft's Bing, while Ecosia runs on cloud platforms, some hosted by the very same tech giants it promises an escape from. Nevertheless, a group on messaging board Reddit called BuyFromEU has 211,000 members. 'Just canceled my Dropbox and will switch to Proton Drive,' read one post. Mastodon, a decentralized social media service developed by German programmer Eugen Rochko, enjoyed a rush of new users two years ago when Musk bought Twitter, later renamed X. But it remains a niche service. Signal, a messaging app run by a U.S. nonprofit foundation, has also seen a surge in installations from Europe. Similarweb's data showed a 7% month-on-month increase in Signal usage in March, while use of Meta's WhatsApp was static. Meta declined to comment for this story. Signal did not respond to an e-mailed request for comment. But this kind of conscious self-organizing is unlikely on its own to make a dent in Silicon Valley's European dominance, digital rights activist Robin Berjon told Reuters. 'The market is too captured,' he said. 'Regulation is needed as well.'
