Latest news with #NoKingsDay
Chicago Tribune
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Route 66: Feeling less alone at an Oklahoma protest
ELK CITY, Okla. — Few, if any, thought they were going to change minds by standing on a patch of grass along Route 66 and holding signs decrying Donald Trump's presidency. All 77 Oklahoma counties voted to return him to the White House. Here in Beckham County, at the state's western edge, he carried 84% of the vote. Still, many of the 40 people who gathered Saturday for Elk City's piece of the nationwide 'No Kings Day' protests said, at least for that moment, they felt less alone. 'When you live in a rural area and you're a blue dot, you can feel very isolated,' said Shelly Larson, 61, a native Oklahoman who has been counted among the town's 11,000 residents for the last five decades. 'Just knowing there are others, it's good for the soul.' More than 1,500 protests are believed to have been staged in cities and towns across the country Saturday, timed to coincide with Trump's 79th birthday and the military parade his administration organized in the nation's capital to mark the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary. Organizers of the Elk City protest said they registered it on the 'No Kings' website and spread the word on Facebook. 'We wanted to let people know they're not the only ones thinking against the norm,' said Chris Roland, 41, who lives east of Elk City but works in town. 'It can be scary out here.' To illustrate the point, realtor Karen Holmes, 36, grabbed her phone and pulled up a community Facebook page in which one anonymous member wrote in response to the protests: 'Just shoot them duh.' 'People are moving because they're afraid to live here,' Holmes said. Two police officers kept watch on the protest from a business balcony across Route 66. Some motorists revved their engines as they passed by. One car slowed to a crawl as it passed; a woman in the passenger seat stared menacingly from her open window but said nothing. Other motorists honked in support, with one man raising his left arm in a fist as he drove our road trip: Route 66, 'The Main Street of America,' turns 100 Retired rancher GeoReta Jones, 77, said someone drove by shortly after the protest started at 11 a.m. The person stopped the car, she said, approached the group and started crying, saying they didn't know there were others in town who felt the same as they did. 'The isolation people feel is terrifying,' Jones said, joined by her sister and her niece, a retired district judge who held a sign that read: 'Due Process Protect the Third Branch'. 'I fear violence against judges,' said Jill Weedon, 58, who retired in November after 25 years on the bench. 'Our system doesn't work when judges are afraid to do their jobs.' Nearby, 69-year-old Linda McCormack held up a sign that read: 'I AM A REPUBLICAN BUT I AM NOT INSANE'. McCormack and her husband, 77, said this was their first protest. 'There are people willing to be seen and not be shamed into being quiet,' she said before calling Trump's 'big beautiful bill' a 'big ugly pile of cow (manure).' 'If I don't agree with it,' she added, 'I don't care what party it is.' As the protest neared its end, cars continued to pass along Route 66. Some honked. Some sped by. Church bells played the Lee Greenwood song, 'God Bless the U.S.A.'
New York Post
8 hours ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Trump can keep control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles, appeals court rules
An appeals court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. 5 Members of the California National Guard and police officers wear gas masks as they form a barier at a loading dock of the Roybal Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles on June 12, 2025. AFP via Getty Images In its decision, the court concluded that 'it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority' in federalizing control of the guard. It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. 5 A protester holds flowers near members of the California National Guard guarding a federal building during 'No Kings Day' protests in Los Angeles on June 14, 2025. REUTERS 5 California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks to the media after a federal judge halted President Donald Trump's orders to deploy the state's National Guard on June 12, 2025. JOHN G MABANGLO/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock The ruling comes from a panel of three judges on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, two of whom were appointed by Trump during his first term. During oral arguments Tuesday, all three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. 5 President Donald Trump sits in the Oval Office of the White House alongside members of his cabinet on June 10, 2025. 5 Protesters wave a Mexican flag on top of a destroyed car during the Los Angeles riots on June 8, 2025. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which only allows presidents can take control during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and is brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second-guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.
The Star
9 hours ago
- Politics
- The Star
US court lets Trump retain control of California National Guard for now
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Marines stand watch as people protest against U.S. President Donald Trump's policies and federal immigration sweeps during a No Kings Day demonstration in Los Angeles, California, U.S., June 14, 2025. REUTERS/David Ryder/File Photo WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court let Donald Trump on Thursday retain control over California's National Guard while the state's Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Republican president's use of the troops to quell protests and unrest in Los Angeles. A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals extended a pause it placed on U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer's June 12 ruling that Trump had called the National Guard into federal service unlawfully. Breyer's ruling was issued in a lawsuit against Trump's action brought by Governor Gavin Newsom. Breyer ruled that Trump violated the U.S. law governing a president's ability to take control of a state's National Guard by failing to coordinate with the governor, and also found that the conditions set out under the statute to allow this move, such as a rebellion against federal authority, did not exist. Breyer ordered Trump to return control of California's National Guard to Newsom. Hours after Breyer acted, the 9th Circuit panel put the judge's move on hold temporarily. Amid protests and turmoil in Los Angeles over Trump's immigration raids, the president on June 7 took control of California's National Guard and deployed 4,000 troops against the wishes of Newsom. Trump also ordered 700 U.S. Marines to the city after sending in the National Guard. Breyer has not yet ruled on the legality of the Marine Corps mobilization. At a court hearing on Tuesday on whether to extend the pause on Breyer's decision, members of the 9th Circuit panel questioned lawyers for California and the Trump administration on what role, if any, courts should have in reviewing Trump's authority to deploy the troops. The law sets out three conditions under which a president can federalize state National Guard forces, including an invasion, a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the government or a situation in which the U.S. government is unable with regular forces to execute the country's laws. The Justice Department has said that once the president determines that an emergency that warrants the use of the National Guard exists, no court or state governor can review that decision. Trump's decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on U.S. soil and inflamed political tensions in the second most-populous U.S. city. The protests in Los Angeles lasted for more than a week, but subsequently ebbed, leading Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to lift a curfew she had imposed. California argued in its June 9 lawsuit that Trump's deployment of the National Guard and the Marines violated the state's sovereignty and U.S. laws that forbid federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement. The lawsuit stated the situation in Los Angeles was nothing like a "rebellion." The protests involved sporadic acts of violence that state and local law enforcement were capable of handling without military involvement, according to the lawsuit. The Trump administration has denied that troops are engaging in law enforcement, saying that they are instead protecting federal buildings and personnel, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. The 9th Circuit panel is comprised of two judges appointed by Trump during his first term and one appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden. (Reporting by Dietrich Knauth in New York and Kanishka Singh in Washington, Editing by Will Dunham and Alexia Garamfalvi)
The Intercept
16 hours ago
- Politics
- The Intercept
How Democratic Leaders Quietly Support Trump's March to War With Iran
Support Us © THE INTERCEPT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Some Democrats are fighting to stop war with Iran, but party leaders are silently acquiescing or, worse, supporting an attack. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., conducts a news conference in the U.S. Capitol in Washington on May 20, 2025. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images As President Donald Trump barrels toward a direct war with Iran, the most powerful Democrats in Congress are issuing statements that are at best tepid and confusing. At worst, they are cheering escalation. Even with some Democrats on Capitol Hill pushing for a War Powers Resolution and other legislation to stop Trump from attacking without congressional approval, the Democratic Party's most powerful politicians refuse to mount any meaningful opposition to a strike. Many outright favor direct U.S. involvement in yet another regime change war. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the most powerful Democrat in the Senate, where he is the minority leader, presents himself as a major opponent of Trump. As recently as June 15, for example, he boasted about his participation in the No Kings Day mass protest against Trump. Yet when it comes to the prospect of a direct war with Iran, Schumer is not only supporting Trump, but less than three weeks ago was goading the administration to be 'tough' on Iran and not make any 'side deals' without Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's approval. — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) June 2, 2025 'The United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response,' he said in a follow-up statement released on June 13, after Israel attacked Iran. 'The Iranian regime's stated policy has long been to destroy Israel and Jewish communities around the world.' Schumer did include a perfunctory nod to talks — 'a strong, unrelenting diplomatic effort backed by meaningful leverage.' The 'meaningful leverage' in question, however, is bombing Iran — something Schumer tacitly supports. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., the most powerful Democrat in the House, responded to Israel's attack with a toothless statement that was vaguely supportive of war and packed with every pro-Israel cliche in the book. 'Our commitment to Israel's security is ironclad,' he said. 'It is clear that the Iranian regime poses a grave threat to the entire free world. There is no circumstance where Iran can be permitted to become a nuclear power.' Jeffries, too, mentioned diplomacy, but with no urgency. 'As soon as is practical, it is imperative to find a rigorous diplomatic path forward and avoid any situation where U.S. troops are put in harm's way,' he said. As with Schumer, 'diplomacy' is a box to be checked, a vague normative preference, but not a demand — and certainly not a requirement. A host of powerful Democrats issued strikingly similar statements. They repeatedly reinforced every premise of Trump's pending bombing campaign, namely the alleged imminent danger posed by Iran. This premise is undermined by U.S. intelligence assessments and leaks to both the Wall Street Journal and CNN, which suggest Iran hadn't decided to make a bomb and would be three years away from producing one if it did. If all of the statements look similar, it's because, according to DropSite and the American Prospect, many members of Congress are simply copy and pasting approved language from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, the flagship pro-Israel lobby group. These outlets found that, in statements on congressional websites and social media, nearly 30 members of Congress used nearly identical language about how they 'stand with Israel' and another 35 gave their unequivocal support in similar terms but without the magic words. Among the influential Democrats pledging their unflinching support for Israel was Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Like many others, Meeks hauled out a talking point about how 'Israel has a right to defend itself' — meant to front-run any discussion of Israeli aggression by asserting the premise that any and all military action is inherently defensive. It's a dubious premise in most contexts, but especially Orwellian in this one since Israel preemptively attacked Iran based on claims of an 'imminent threat' in direct contradiction of US intelligence. Even if one thinks Israel has a 'right to defend itself' in the abstract, under no neutral reading of international law is Israel doing so by bombing another country without legal basis to do so. The decidedly unhelpful approaches by powerful Democrats don't end there. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-NH, influential members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, respectively, both issued mealy-mouthed statements trying to split the baby between 'diplomacy' rhetoric and reinforcing every pretense for U.S. involvement in Israel's bombing of Iran. These non-positions — or worse, positions in favor of unprovoked, almost certainly illegal war — are notable precisely because there are some lawmakers who are at least trying to do something to stop a direct, all-out conflict between the U.S. and Iran. According to the latest count by Prem Thakker, 37 members of Congress have thrown their weight behind some kind of effort to stop war. These fall into two camps. The first is a resolution in both the House and Senate that invokes the 1973 War Powers Act, which says that only Congress can declare war, a principle that has been routinely violated by U.S. presidents. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., is leading this push in the Senate, where few cosponsors have signed on. (Someone with knowledge of the effort told us that the organizers aren't accepting co-sponsors in a bid to gain bipartisan support first.) Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., are leading the sister effort in the House, and it has 28 supporters total, including Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. D-N.Y. A total of 27, or 12.7 percent, of House Democrats have lent the bill their support. There is another effort afoot, too: the No War Against Iran Act that was already in motion before Israel attacked Iran on June 13, though it was introduced after the attacks began. The Senate bill, spearheaded by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., would prevent federal funds from being used for a war that's not approved by Congress. Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., are among its eight Senate supporters. Democratic leaders, however, are leaving their colleagues out to dry. Schumer, for instance, declined to join Sanders's bill as a cosponsor — despite having cosponsored the same effort in 2020. This tacit and open support for Trump's war aren't limited to active leadership; the upper echelons of the party establishment have been noticeably silent. Democratic elites by and large agree with both Israel's unprovoked attacks on Iran and Trump's direct involvement. Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama haven't publicly opposed Trump's reckless threats and build-up to war with Iran. Obama, for example, has re-emerged into the spotlight — but made no mention of Iran or Trump's push for war during a public appearance this week. Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton — despite frequently criticizing Trump for his military parade, detainment of a U.S. senator, and anti-abortion policies — hasn't spoken in opposition to a US war with Iran. And, likewise, 2024 Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, who has been speaking out against Trump, has yet to publicly criticize Trump's build up to bombing Iran. Surveying these responses — somewhere between muted disinterest and consent — there's only one plausible conclusion: Democratic elites by and large agree with both Israel's unprovoked attacks on Iran and Trump's direct involvement in this potentially catastrophic regime change war. It's unlikely most Democratic hawks will come out in open support of an attack that carries such political risks; like with Iraq 20 years ago, things could quickly go off the rails. Yet, even as party leaders seek to burnish their credentials as the 'resistance' to Trump, they're tacitly, and sometimes openly, giving Trump a green light to lurch America into yet another open-ended war of choice. Join The Conversation
USA Today
a day ago
- Politics
- USA Today
'We'll see more action happening': No Kings was not a one-off, Arizona activists say
'We'll see more action happening': No Kings was not a one-off, Arizona activists say Show Caption Hide Caption What 'No Kings Day' protesters in Phoenix have to say about Trump Phoenix's "No Kings Day" rally against President Trump, one of many nationwide, coincided with his 79th birthday and military parade in Washington, D.C. Arizona activists continue anti-Trump protests with "Rush-Hour Resistance" rallies and are planning events honoring John Lewis. The "Good Trouble Lives On" events nationwide on July 17th will commemorate Lewis' death and his call for activism. A national resistance training effort called "One Million Rising" will begin virtual sessions on July 16. Activists involved with "No Kings" protests in Arizona say the momentum from the event is continuing with "Rush-Hour Resistance" rallies, national resistance leader training and an upcoming day of action that honors the late Congressman John Lewis. In Arizona, public action is happening "almost daily" to resist policies and actions of the Trump administration, said Erica Connell, state liaison for the 50501 movement that helped organize the June 14 No Kings event, which drew thousands of people to events across the state to denounce President Donald Trump. "We won't be silenced. We'll see more action happening," Connell said. The No Kings events occurred on the same day that Trump held a parade to celebrate the U.S. Army's 250th Anniversary and Flag Day. It was also Trump's 79th birthday. "Good Trouble Lives On" is the name of a national event set for July 17 that commemorates Lewis' death on July 17, 2020, as well as words the civil rights leader said: "Get in good trouble, necessary trouble and help redeem the soul of America." The Good Trouble Lives On event aims to fight back against what organizers call "the most brazen rollback of civil rights in generations," and cites, among other things, attacks on voting rights and free speech. "Trump is trying to divide us but we know the power of coming together," the event's website says. There may not be a massive event in Phoenix and most other Arizona cities on July 17 for Good Trouble Lives On because of the searing heat at that time of year. But grassroots groups will ensure Arizona's participation in some way, Connell said. Information about the national event is here: "We are trying to be responsible with our activism and want to have safe events," Connell said. Connell and other Arizona activists are handing out "know your rights" cards at federal immigration courts and other events, and they are also holding up signs of protest during morning rush hour events at various locations in the Phoenix area listed online at "We are not going to stand around and let terrible things happen around us. We are not going to stay home, we're not going to be silent," said Jeremy Helfgot, a Phoenix No Kings representative. "There is absolutely no shortage of things to be outraged about." Sources of the outrage, Helfgot said, include the detention of elected officials who were protesting Trump's actions on immigration. Those detentions include the arrest of the mayor of Newark, the New York City comptroller and Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., who was handcuffed and forcibly removed from a Los Angeles press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Here are five things to know about ongoing anti-Trump actions: White House spokesperson says No Kings was a failure While the American Civil Liberties Union estimated more than five million people nationwide attended No Kings protests, White House spokesperson Steven Cheung posted on X June 14 that attendance at the protests was "minuscule" and that the protests were "a complete and utter failure." National resistance training effort called One Million Rising Starting July 16, there will be virtual training sessions as part of a national effort spearheaded by No Kings organizers to train people in leading ongoing resistance to the Trump White House and to "gain the skills to lead others" and "build people power that can't be ignored." More information about the training is at "Let's build a force bigger than fear and louder than hate," event materials say. "Let's get ready. Let's get organized. Let's stop Trump." Protesters are seeking justice for marginalized groups The bigger picture at No Kings was fury over Trump's behavior and policies, but within the resistance movement are people with specific concerns over attacks on immigrants, women, people of color and members of the LGBTQIA+ community. "Some of us are fighting on multiple fronts and working within different communities," Helfgot said. "There are also moments when everyone is coming together. And there's a lot of overlap." Coalition of grassroots groups working together Some of the groups involved in Good Trouble Lives On and other resistance efforts include Indivisible, 50501, Black Voters Matter and Public Citizen. But part of the point of the movement is that it is organic, and many of the people protesting are individuals and groups of neighbors who are not affiliated with any particular organization, Helfgot said. "I think there's been a misconception over the past several months that a lot of the smaller demonstrations that are taking place on a day-to-day basis are a lot of the same people showing up over and over again," Helfgot said. "They're not. And when everybody turns out all at once, you get the kind of crowd we had" on June 14. Activists say there's strength in numbers, and that numbers are rising "I think what happened on Saturday (June 14) had a much bigger impact globally than it did domestically," Helfgot said. "We may have redeemed ourselves a little bit in the eyes of the world. We sent a pretty loud message that America in 2025 is not going to be Germany in 1940." Samantha Cooley, an activist with Desert Democracy, which is the central Phoenix chapter of Indivisible, says the estimates that millions nationwide turned out for No Kings events give her hope about the future. She'd like to eventually see 11 to 12 million turn up to resist across the country, and she sees it as a possibility. "Indivisible is growing like crazy. Just with Desert Democracy, there were 40 of us at our first meeting in a park in January," Cooley said. "They are adding 50 people a month at least that are actively joining and doing things. It's continuing to grow."
