Latest news with #10U.S.C
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Trump Administration Needs Better Opposition
Donald Trump needs better enemies. More accurately, the American people need the president and his allies to have a higher quality opposition. In office, President Trump has embraced some truly terrible—and occasionally dangerous—policies, including federalizing National Guard troops and mobilizing U.S. Marines to deal with riots that really should be left to California officials to handle or fumble as their abilities allow. But his opponents insist on embracing lunacy and ineffectiveness and making the president look reasonable by comparison, effectively giving his actions a pass. "Donald Trump, without consulting with California's law enforcement leaders, commandeered 2,000 of our state's National Guard members to deploy on our streets. Illegally, and for no reason," complained Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom after the president turned local rioting into a federal issue. Newsom expanded on his objections in a glitch-filled speech that focused more on Trump than the riots. It played into the reputation for incompetence he's gained over years of ignoring his state's problems, including all of the missteps that led to the recent wildfires in and around Los Angeles. Those fires didn't exactly cover Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass in glory either, and neither has her response to the chaos. She's alternated between supporting demonstrators protesting the federal immigration raids that sparked the riots and vowing crackdowns on violence. One minute she touts her work with "community organizations, legal advocates, and local leaders to ensure that every resident knows their rights" and the next she reminds Angelenos that downtown is under curfew. That's unfortunate, because the feckless California officials raise legitimate concerns about the president's actions. There are good reasons to object to a president responding to local events with federal troops. "Preemptive nationwide deployment of the military is the very opposite of using the military as a 'last resort,'" warns Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program. "It is so wildly out of keeping with how the Insurrection Act and 10 U.S.C. § 12406 have been interpreted and applied that it should be entitled to no deference by the courts." The law that President Trump relied on—10 U.S.C. § 12406—allows the president to "call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State" to repel invasions, suppress rebellions, or enforce the law when regular forces are insufficient. Invoking that law over local disorder before state and local officials have had much of a chance to do anything is a stretch of the law's intent as well as a slap at federalism. The law says nothing authorizing the use of regular military forces, leaving the impression that the Marines Trump dispatched are just hitching a ride on his presidential memorandum to bypass the Posse Comitatus Act's restrictions on the domestic use of the military. Which means that Newsom and Bass had a great opportunity to show their chops and object to federal interference—if they were up to the demands of that role. They're not. Worse, though, are the rioters themselves. As Matthew Ormseth and James Queally described the scene for Los Angeles Times readers, "some in the crowd lobbed bottles and fireworks at the LAPD," "vandals set fire to a row of Waymos," and "people wearing masks flung chunks of concrete—and even a few electric scooters—at" California Highway Patrol officers. That speaks for itself—but not as loudly as the idiots throwing Molotov cocktails at police. Rioting understandably became the dominant news story, overshadowing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids that originally set off protests before they turned violent. Smarter protesters would have kept demonstrations peaceful and attention focused on arrests that we were told would target violent criminals but too often ensnare harmless people. "Federal immigration officials appeared to target day laborers in raids Monday at a Home Deport in Santa Ana," the Los Angeles NBC affiliate reported this week. Traditional gathering places for immigrants seeking work—and not so many vicious gangbangers—have been targeted across the country. "Stephen Miller, a top White House aide and architect of the president's immigration agenda, asked ICE officials to step up the pace of immigrant deportations, including in Home Depot parking lots and at 7-Eleven Stores," according to The Wall Street Journal. ICE has also gone after immigrants navigating the bureaucratic path to legal immigration and even citizens who were wrongly detained. Those outrages were pushed into the background when rioting inevitably grabbed the headlines. Not that Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson gives a damn about keeping the message straight. As violent protests spread across the country, he urged his constituents to "rise up" and "resist." Apparently, he doesn't want to miss out on the excitement of watching parts of his city burn. Not everybody is impressed by this version of opposition to the Trump administration. "I unapologetically stand for free speech, peaceful demonstrations, and immigration—but this is not that," Sen. John Fetterman (D–Penn.) warned this week. "This is anarchy and true chaos. My party loses the moral high ground when we refuse to condemn setting cars on fire, destroying buildings, and assaulting law enforcement." Fetterman has, somewhat surprisingly, emerged as a voice of sanity for his party. He's called Democrats to account over the antisemitism of the party's progressive wing and now for confusing tantrums in the street with effective opposition. A few more Democrats like him would go a long way towards rescuing the party from its self-inflicted wounds and giving the U.S. a functioning political opposition. The country could really use a functioning opposition. The Trump administration's turn towards economic nationalism, unilateral power, authoritarianism, and xenophobia cry out for criticism and alternative solutions. That criticism should be peaceful and those alternatives should be sensibly presented. Ideally, they should also advance liberty and limit government. For the moment, though, that may be too much to ask of Democrats. Many of them are still wrestling with the temptations of appearing to be either inept or dangerous lunatics. The post The Trump Administration Needs Better Opposition appeared first on
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's deployment of the California National Guard in Los Angeles stands on shaky legal ground
President Donald Trump has unilaterally summoned thousands of members of the California National Guard into federal service in response to the protests and riots that have broken out in Los Angeles over his immigration crackdowns. But the federal law that Trump has cited in support of that National Guard deployment would seem to forbid the very thing that Trump is now doing. According to Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, the president may call the National Guard into federal service under certain limited circumstances, such as when the United States "is invaded" or when "there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government." The law further states that the president may federalize National Guard members "of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute" the laws of the United States. However, the law adds: "Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States." Notice the unambiguous statutory command: "shall be issued through the governors of the States." If a governor has not issued the order—perhaps because the governor disagreed with the president's position and declined to support it—then the terms of the law have not been met. Which brings us to the case of Newsom v. Trump. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has not only refused to issue such an order, but Newsom, acting in his official capacity as governor, has also now filed suit against Trump, charging that the president's unilateral actions are illegal under federal law. Newsom's statutory argument seems correct to me. As the complaint in Newsom v. Trump notes, "President Trump's Memo purporting to call into federal service members of the California National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 without issuing this order through Governor Newsom is contrary to law and outside of the authority granted to the President under that statute." To my surprise, however, Newsom's complaint failed to cite Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court precedent which says that the federal government may not commandeer state officials into enforcing federal law. Printz centered on the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, which required state and local police to help enforce federal gun control laws. The Supreme Court ruled that requirement unconstitutional. "The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems," the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, "nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." So, not only does 10 U.S.C. § 12406 say that the California National Guard cannot be federalized unless the order "shall be issued" by California's governor, but Printz further says that California's governor cannot be directed "to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." Under Printz, in other words, Newsom cannot be compelled to issue the order that Trump needs Newsom to issue in order for the California National Guard to be lawfully federalized. Printz seems like the sort of precedent that Newsom ought to be citing. To be sure, there are other potential scenarios under which Trump may lawfully deploy National Guard forces to L.A. without first obtaining Newsom's support. For example, if Trump asked the governor of a "red" state to issue such an order, and if that Republican governor complied, then Trump could conceivably deploy the National Guard forces from that red state to Los Angeles. (Note: This scenario does not address the separate legal question about whether an "invasion" or "rebellion" is actually occurring in L.A.) There is also the specter of the Insurrection Act lurking in the background. If properly invoked by the president, that sweeping law would permit Trump to federalize National Guard forces without the consent of any governor. There are reports that Trump may be contemplating this drastic step. The case of Newsom v. Trump has landed on the docket of a federal district court judge named Charles Breyer. If that name sounds familiar, it might be because you've heard of his brother, retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. Breyer has scheduled the first hearing in Newsom v. Trump for later today. We'll see what happens next. If you watched the first season of the brilliant Star Wars spinoff show Andor, you no doubt remember the three-episode arc set on the planet Aldhani, in which a small band of scruffy-looking rebels pulled off a daring robbery at an imperial military base. According to Andor creator Tony Gilroy, that fictional heist was partially inspired by historian Simon Sebag Montefiore's tremendous book Young Stalin, which detailed how the future tyrant got his revolutionary start by carrying out "bank robberies, protection-rackets, extortion, arson, piracy, murder." It was this "political gangsterism," Montefiore explained, "that impressed [Vladimir] Lenin and trained [Joseph] Stalin in the very skills that would prove invaluable in the political jungle of the Soviet Union." Partially inspired by Andor, I recently started rereading Young Stalin for the first time in over a decade, and the book is even better than I remembered. If you're in the market for a gripping and illuminating work of history, I highly recommend it. The post Trump's L.A. National Guard Deployment Stands on Shaky Legal Ground appeared first on
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump tells judge he does not need Newsom's permission to crack down on rioters, deploy National Guard
The Justice Department on Wednesday doubled down on its assertion that President Donald Trump has the authority to call up U.S. National Guard troops in California, describing Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's emergency lawsuit to block his action as a "crass political stunt" that risks "endangering American lives." At issue in the case is whether Trump, as commander in chief, has the authority to federalize the National Guard against the express wishes or consent of a state governor. Both sides are slated to appear in court Friday while a judge weighs California's request for injunctive relief. In the new court filing, lawyers for the administration said Trump, as president, has "no obligation" to consult with, or even to notify, Newsom before federalizing the National Guard. 'State Of Rebellion': Expert Weighs In On Newsom Challenge To Trump Deploying National Guard "The extraordinary relief plaintiffs request would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief's military directives – and would do so in the posture of a temporary restraining order, no less," lawyers for the Trump administration said in the filing. "That would be unprecedented. It would be constitutionally anathema," they added. "And it would be dangerous." Read On The Fox News App That argument is unlikely to sit well with Newsom. And it comes one day after California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Tuesday sued the Trump administration over what the state described as the president's unlawful action in federalizing the National Guard, which they noted was carried out without Newsom's consent. Bonta argued in the lawsuit that Trump's actions were both inappropriate and illegal, since he did not first seek Newsom's permission to federalize the troops. National Guard units fall under the dual control of state and federal governments, and any action to mobilize the units typically goes through the respective state governor first. The judge overseeing the case declined the state's request for a temporary restraining order blocking Trump's actions but ordered both parties to court Friday to consider the request for broader injunctive relief. Republican Attorneys General Accuse California Of Excusing 'Lawlessness' At issue is 10 U.S.C. § 12406, or the law that Trump invoked in his memo late last week to call up the National Guard. The law allows presidents to deploy the National Guard and other troops at the federal level in the event of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the U.S. government. In that case, the law says the president "may call into federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws." But lawyers for Newsom told the court that Trump lacked the power to federalize the troops under Section 12406, since the immigration protests, in their view, did not amount to a rebellion. Trump Nominates Former Defense Attorney Emil Bove For Federal Appeals Court Vacancy "At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection. Nor have these protests risen to the level of protests or riots that Los Angeles and other major cities have seen at points in the past, including in recent years," they told the court. A group of 26 Republican state attorneys general from filed an amicus brief siding with Trump one day earlier, arguing that his decision to federalize the National Guard to address ICE riots and protests that broke out in parts of the state was the "right response." "In California, we're seeing the results of leadership that excuses lawlessness and undermines law enforcement," the attorneys general wrote in the statement, first provided to Fox News Digital. "When local and state officials won't act, the federal government must." Fox News Digital's Ashley Oliver contributed to this article source: Trump tells judge he does not need Newsom's permission to crack down on rioters, deploy National Guard
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
California's National Guard lawsuit against Trump has a big problem
After President Donald Trump deployed the California National Guard into Los Angeles over the weekend against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the state is fighting back. Attorney General Rob Bonta announced California is suing the administration, arguing that Trump lacked the authority to federalize the National Guard in this case and was infringing on state sovereignty. Trump's decision to send in the National Guard may be morally (and politically) problematic. The difficulty facing California's lawsuit is that federal law appears to give not just President Trump, but any president, broad authority to federalize the National Guard, whether or not a governor wants him to do so. The primary legal question is whether the Trump administration had the power to federalize the National Guard against the wishes of the state's governor. The presidential memorandum Trump issued Saturday deploying the National Guard invoked a little-used federal law, 10 U.S.C. § 12406. The power that Section 12406 confers on presidents is broad but not unlimited. It gives the president the power to federalize the National Guard when there is 'a rebellion or danger of rebellion' against federal authority, or when the president cannot, using the usual mechanisms, execute federal laws. Once the National Guard arrives, however, it can only support other law enforcement officers. They can help to protect federal law enforcement officers and federal property, but they cannot, for instance, perform searches and seizures. Why such limits? Because the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the military from acting as a domestic law enforcement agency, except in extraordinary circumstances. And Section 12406 does not suspend the protections of the Posse Comitatus Act. To invoke his authority under Section 12406, Trump concluded that, '[t]o the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' California has argued that there is no such rebellion. One problem for the state's lawsuit is that there is of course no settled definition of what a rebellion is. In addition, federal judges tend to defer to presidents when it comes to questions of national security. Federal judges, who are not chosen by voters, are generally wary of second-guessing the judgment of an elected president when it comes to questions of whether or not we are in danger of a rebellion. California also argues that because Section 12406 requires that orders to federalize the National Guard be issued 'through the governors,' that means that a president cannot take this action against the wishes of the state's governor. However, the plain language of the statute does not include an explicit requirement of a governor's consent. In addition, reading such a requirement into the statute would provide any state governor with veto power over a president's decision under this federal law. That hardly seems consistent with congressional intent. Finally, California argues that Trump's actions violate the 10th Amendment, which says that all powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people. But the plain terms of Section 12406 do appear to give the president the power to federalize the National Guard. The legal landscape would change significantly if the president tries to invoke his power under the Insurrection Act. If he does, the protections in the Posse Comitatus Act are suspended, and the National Guard, and other branches of the military, can act to directly enforce domestic law. We are not there yet, but if Trump takes that step, it would be a dramatic escalation of an already historic standoff between the federal government and the state. This article was originally published on
The Intercept
10-06-2025
- Politics
- The Intercept
Trump Deploys Marines to a 'Manufactured Crisis,' Defense Official Says
Marines are headed to Los Angeles as the Trump administration ratchets up tensions that threaten to turn largely peaceful protests there into a full-blown crisis. It's a rare and aggressive step to involve active-duty troops in civilian law enforcement activities. A defense official, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, called the activation of the Marines a 'provocation' designed to foster to a 'manufactured crisis.' Experts question the legality of the mobilization of the Marines. On Saturday, President Donald Trump took the already extraordinary action of calling up more than 2,000 National Guard troops to tamp down demonstrations in California. In doing so, he exercised rarely used federal powers that bypassed Gov. Gavin Newsom's authority. He followed it up two days later with an even more extreme move. While it is unclear under what authority Trump and the Defense Department did so, U.S. Northern Command activated 700 Marines from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division, assigned to Twentynine Palms, California. They are being shipped out to support Task Force 51 — a deployable command post used in crisis response — 'who are protecting federal personnel and federal property in the greater Los Angeles area,' according to a statement issued by NORTHCOM. 'The level of escalation is completely unwarranted, uncalled for, and unprecedented — mobilizing the best in class branch of the U.S. military against its own citizens,' Newsom's office said in a statement. 'Military presence is not needed. The state is already working with local partners to surge 800+ additional state and local law enforcement officers into Los Angeles to clean up President Trump's mess,' Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Newsom, told The Intercept by email. Experts say that the introduction of the Marines further strains civil-military relations and risks violation of the Posse Comitatus Act: a bedrock 19th-century law seen as fundamental to the democratic tradition in America. The Posse Comitatus Act bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement. 'This is obviously an extreme escalation that is going to pour gasoline on an already combustible situation.' 'This is obviously an extreme escalation that is going to pour gasoline on an already combustible situation,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's liberty and national security program. 'It's almost inevitable that the Marines are going to be laying hands on civilians and exercising the kinds of coercive powers that would normally be illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act.' The Trump administration is attempting to justify its escalatory tactics by claiming people protesting his anti-immigration agenda constitute a rebellion or threaten to become one. The directive signed by Trump, calling up the Guard, cites '10 U.S.C. 12406,' a provision within Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services that allows the federal deployment of National Guard forces if 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' 'Task Force 51 is now comprised of approximately 2,100 National Guard soldiers in a Title 10 status and 700 active-duty Marines,' according to NORTHCOM and have 'been trained in de-escalation, crowd control, and standing rules for the use of force.' The Marines 'have the same task and purpose as the National Guard,' said another defense official who spoke with The Intercept on the condition of anonymity in order to speak freely. 'You can think of them as an additional force to do the same thing. They just happen to be active-duty Marines. But all of the troops in total who are doing this are all activated under Title 10.' Goitein disputes that Marines can be employed under the same authority as the National Guard. 'Legally, they can't rely on the same authority. They're not in the same position legally,' she said. Title '10 U.S.C. 12406 applies to the National Guard. It doesn't apply to the active-duty armed forces.' Goitein also pointed to the cultural difference and the public perceptions that separate National Guard troops from the active-duty armed forces. 'Active-duty troops, like these Marines, are full-time professional soldiers. The National Guard, at least historically, have been citizen-soldiers who are in their communities during the week and training on weekends,' she told The Intercept. 'For Californians, Los Angelenos, who are facing these Marines, it feels different and to some degree it is different.' A few hundred of the 2,000 National Guard troops called up to serve in Los Angeles are already in the city as federal agents and people protesting immigration raids faced off for a fourth day on Monday. Protests, as of the afternoon, were largely orderly and peaceful. 'Mobilizing Marines against their neighbors is a profoundly dangerous escalation. This deployment is plainly illegal, and it points to the reason why we have laws against these deployments in the first place,' Sara Haghdoosti, the executive director of Win Without War, told The Intercept. 'Not only is it an authoritarian power grab, it also threatens the physical health of people exercising their constitutional rights to protest and to the moral health of Marines now ordered to suppress those rights.'
