Latest news with #Trump-administration
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's Trouble With Tulsi
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Back in March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard delivered a view of Iran to the House Intelligence Committee that was in line with Trump-administration policy: hostile toward Tehran, but also skeptical of the need for American intervention. Unfortunately for her, though, things have changed in the past three months. 'Iran continues to seek to expand its influence in the Middle East,' Gabbard said. Nevertheless, she said, the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khomeini has not authorized the nuclear-weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' (Presumably she was referring to Ali Khamenei and not his long-dead predecessor, Ruhollah Khomeini.) That may have been President Donald Trump's view in March too, but this week, Trump told reporters that Iran is on the verge of getting a nuclear bomb. When asked about Gabbard's testimony, Trump dismissed it. 'I don't care what she said,' he said. 'I think they were very close to having one.' This kind of harsh dismissal of American intelligence was a hallmark of Trump's first term in office. Shortly before his inauguration, he compared intelligence agencies to Nazis, and somehow things got worse from there. He infamously sided with Russia's Vladimir Putin rather than the intelligence community on the question of Russian interference in the 2016 election, accused former officials of treason, and reportedly clashed with DNI Dan Coats over his unwillingness to take his side in political conflicts. That problem was supposed to be solved in his second term. Rather than choose someone like Coats, a former senator who had experience with intelligence, or his successor, John Ratcliffe, who claimed he did, Trump nominated Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic member of Congress who had endorsed him for president. (Ratcliffe, having proved his loyalty to Trump in the first term, was named CIA director.) Gabbard shared a few things with Trump: an odd affinity for Putin's government, and a public stance of opposing American intervention. But above all, her qualification for the job was that she, like Trump, bore a huge grudge against the intelligence agencies, making her an ideal pick in his Cabinet of retribution. Now the limits of this approach to appointments are coming into view. Gabbard's beef with the IC was her sense that it was too belligerent and interventionist, especially with regard to her pals in places such as Syria and Russia; she was also angry because she had reportedly been briefly placed on a government watch list for flying. Gabbard opposes foreign wars, and it appears that she doesn't want intelligence to implicate her friends overseas. But when the intelligence points against American intervention, as it does with Iran, she is happy to stand behind it despite her skepticism of the analysts. Trump, by contrast, doesn't want the intelligence to complicate his choices at all. The president was fine with the IC assessment from earlier this year, when his line was that he opposed wars and would keep the United States out. But now that he has made a quick shift from trying to restrain Israel from striking Iran to demanding Iran's 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER'—a baffling demand of a country with which the U.S. is not at war—and contemplating American attacks, the conclusion that Iran isn't that close to a bomb is a real hindrance. Politico reports that Trump was annoyed by a video Gabbard posted earlier this month in which she warned about 'political elite and warmongers' risking nuclear war, and she was reportedly excluded from a Camp David meeting. (The White House has insisted that all principals are on the same page, though Trump's dismissive comments about Gabbard earlier this week are telling.) Cutting out the DNI at a crucial moment like this is an unusual choice, though the role has never been well defined: Although it was created to sit atop the U.S. intelligence agencies and coordinate among them, officials such as the director of the CIA have often wielded more power. Trump's saber-rattling has created rifts within the MAGA coalition, as my colleagues Jonathan Lemire and Isaac Stanley-Becker reported yesterday. In reality, Trump was never the dove that he made himself out to be. He has consistently backed American involvement overseas. During the 2016 election, he claimed that he had been against the Iraq War from the start, placing the idea at the center of his campaign even though there is no evidence for it. As president, he escalated U.S. involvement in Syria, backed the Saudi war in Yemen and vetoed Congress's attempt to curtail it, and—in one of his major foreign-policy successes—assassinated Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. Throughout his first term, he treated the troops as a political prop. These tendencies have become more pronounced in his second term, though Trump's favorite places to send troops remain within national borders: in the streets of Los Angeles or parading through Washington, D.C. He launched a series of major strikes against Yemen's Houthi rebels, despite the misgivings of his dovish vice president, and then abruptly stopped them when it became clear that no easy victory was forthcoming. This is the crux of the matter with Iran too. Although he may be hesitant about American involvement overseas, Trump loves displays of strength. He sees one in Israel's attacks on Iran, and he wants in on the action. Whether the MAGA doves believed Trump really was one of them or simply hoped they could persuade him in the moment is something only they can answer. But his actions this week show that his real resentment was not toward intervention or even intelligence itself. It was toward anything and anyone who might restrain his caprices. Related: Isn't Trump supposed to be anti-war? The thing that binds Gabbard, Gaetz, and Hegseth to Trump Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: The Tesla brain drain The David Frum Show: What comes next for Iran? Why would the Trump family want to run a phone company? Today's News The Federal Reserve will hold interest rates steady. Earlier today, President Donald Trump called Fed Chair Jerome Powell 'stupid' and contemplated installing himself at the Reserve. Trump said that he 'may' or 'may not' strike Iran, adding that 'nobody knows' what he's going to do. The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors. Evening Read The Dumbest Phone Is Parenting Genius By Rheana Murray When Caron Morse's 9-year-old daughter asked for a smartphone last year, her reaction, she told me, was unambiguous: 'A hard hell no.' Morse is a mental-health provider in the Portland, Maine, public-school system, and she was firmly against smartphones, having seen how social media and abundant screen time could shorten students' attention spans and give them new anxieties. But she wanted her children to have some independence—to be able to call friends, arrange playdates, and reach out to their grandparents on their own. She also needed a break. 'I was so sick,' she said, 'of being the middle person in any correspondence.' So when her daughter turned 10, Morse did get her a phone: a landline. Read the full article. More From The Atlantic Why isn't Russia defending Iran? The magic realism of Zohran Mamdani The fear coursing through state capitols The new danger in Trump's Washington: honoring federal employees The master of the white-knuckle narrative Culture Break Read. In her new book, Murderland, Caroline Fraser offers a provocative argument about what creates serial killers. Listen. Clifton Chenier changed music history. On the centennial of his birth, musicians from across genres are paying homage to the King of Zydeco, Reya Hart writes. Play our daily crossword. Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter. Explore all of our newsletters here. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Atlantic
3 days ago
- Politics
- Atlantic
Trump's Trouble With Tulsi
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Back in March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard delivered a view of Iran to the House Intelligence Committee that was in line with Trump-administration policy: hostile toward Tehran, but also skeptical of the need for American intervention. Unfortunately for her, though, things have changed in the past three months. 'Iran continues to seek to expand its influence in the Middle East,' Gabbard said. Nevertheless, she said, the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khomeini has not authorized the nuclear-weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' (Presumably she was referring to Ali Khamenei and not his long-dead predecessor, Ruhollah Khomeini.) That may have been President Donald Trump's view in March too, but this week, Trump told reporters that Iran is on the verge of getting a nuclear bomb. When asked about Gabbard's testimony, Trump dismissed it. 'I don't care what she said,' he said. 'I think they were very close to having one.' This kind of harsh dismissal of American intelligence was a hallmark of Trump's first term in office. Shortly before his inauguration, he compared intelligence agencies to Nazis, and somehow things got worse from there. He infamously sided with Russia's Vladimir Putin rather than the intelligence community on the question of Russian interference in the 2016 election, accused former officials of treason, and reportedly clashed with DNI Dan Coats over his unwillingness to take his side in political conflicts. That problem was supposed to be solved in his second term. Rather than choose someone like Coats, a former senator who had experience with intelligence, or his successor, John Ratcliffe, who claimed he did, Trump nominated Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic member of Congress who had endorsed him for president. (Ratcliffe, having proved his loyalty to Trump in the first term, was named CIA director.) Gabbard shared a few things with Trump: an odd affinity for Putin's government, and a public stance of opposing American intervention. But above all, her qualification for the job was that she, like Trump, bore a huge grudge against the intelligence agencies, making her an ideal pick in his Cabinet of retribution. Now the limits of this approach to appointments are coming into view. Gabbard's beef with the IC was her sense that it was too belligerent and interventionist, especially with regard to her pals in places such as Syria and Russia; she was also angry because she had reportedly been briefly placed on a government watch list for flying. Gabbard opposes foreign wars, and it appears that she doesn't want intelligence to implicate her friends overseas. But when the intelligence points against American intervention, as it does with Iran, she is happy to stand behind it despite her skepticism of the analysts. Trump, by contrast, doesn't want the intelligence to complicate his choices at all. The president was fine with the IC assessment from earlier this year, when his line was that he opposed wars and would keep the United States out. But now that he has made a quick shift from trying to restrain Israel from striking Iran to demanding Iran's 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER'—a baffling demand of a country with which the U.S. is not at war—and contemplating American attacks, the conclusion that Iran isn't that close to a bomb is a real hindrance. Politico reports that Trump was annoyed by a video Gabbard posted earlier this month in which she warned about 'political elite and warmongers' risking nuclear war, and she was reportedly excluded from a Camp David meeting. (The White House has insisted that all principals are on the same page, though Trump's dismissive comments about Gabbard earlier this week are telling.) Cutting out the DNI at a crucial moment like this is an unusual choice, though the role has never been well defined: Although it was created to sit atop the U.S. intelligence agencies and coordinate among them, officials such as the director of the CIA have often wielded more power. Trump's saber-rattling has created rifts within the MAGA coalition, as my colleagues Jonathan Lemire and Isaac Stanley-Becker reported yesterday. In reality, Trump was never the dove that he made himself out to be. He has consistently backed American involvement overseas. During the 2016 election, he claimed that he had been against the Iraq War from the start, placing the idea at the center of his campaign even though there is no evidence for it. As president, he escalated U.S. involvement in Syria, backed the Saudi war in Yemen and vetoed Congress's attempt to curtail it, and—in one of his major foreign-policy successes—assassinated Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. Throughout his first term, he treated the troops as a political prop. These tendencies have become more pronounced in his second term, though Trump's favorite places to send troops remain within national borders: in the streets of Los Angeles or parading through Washington, D.C. He launched a series of major strikes against Yemen's Houthi rebels, despite the misgivings of his dovish vice president, and then abruptly stopped them when it became clear that no easy victory was forthcoming. This is the crux of the matter with Iran too. Although he may be hesitant about American involvement overseas, Trump loves displays of strength. He sees one in Israel's attacks on Iran, and he wants in on the action. Whether the MAGA doves believed Trump really was one of them or simply hoped they could persuade him in the moment is something only they can answer. But his actions this week show that his real resentment was not toward intervention or even intelligence itself. It was toward anything and anyone who might restrain his caprices. Today's News The Federal Reserve will hold interest rates steady. Earlier today, President Donald Trump called Fed Chair Jerome Powell 'stupid' and contemplated installing himself at the Reserve. Trump said that he 'may' or 'may not' strike Iran, adding that 'nobody knows' what he's going to do. The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors. Evening Read The Dumbest Phone Is Parenting Genius When Caron Morse's 9-year-old daughter asked for a smartphone last year, her reaction, she told me, was unambiguous: ' A hard hell no.' Morse is a mental-health provider in the Portland, Maine, public-school system, and she was firmly against smartphones, having seen how social media and abundant screen time could shorten students' attention spans and give them new anxieties. But she wanted her children to have some independence—to be able to call friends, arrange playdates, and reach out to their grandparents on their own. She also needed a break. 'I was so sick,' she said, 'of being the middle person in any correspondence.' So when her daughter turned 10, Morse did get her a phone: a landline. Read the full article. More From The Atlantic Read. In her new book, Murderland, Caroline Fraser offers a provocative argument about what creates serial killers. Listen. Clifton Chenier changed music history. On the centennial of his birth, musicians from across genres are paying homage to the King of Zydeco, Reya Hart writes.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Handcuffing a U.S. Senator Is a Warning
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Like knowing the names of lots of federal judges, widespread familiarity with specific theories of authoritarian rule is not generally a hallmark of a healthy society. But as the United States' vital signs get more dire, Steven Levitsky's and Lucan A. Way's concept of 'competitive authoritarianism' feels unsettlingly relevant. The idea came to mind again when federal officers manhandled and then handcuffed Senator Alex Padilla, a California Democrat, yesterday as he tried to ask a question of Kristi Noem, the secretary of Homeland Security, at a press conference in Los Angeles. Because it took place at a media event, the incident was recorded clearly on video, and it's shocking. Nearly as disturbing as the footage is the fact that even though the incident is on tape, the Trump administration attempted to lie baldly about what happened. Officials said Padilla never identified himself as a senator and that security personnel thought he was an attacker; video shows him audibly identifying himself and wearing a U.S. Senate shirt. They said he lunged at Noem; video shows nothing of the sort. (If only Noem's security detail had been so vigilant when her purse was stolen in April.) The most that can be said is that Padilla's question disrupted Noem's spiel at the press conference. According to the senator's explanation, the Department of Homeland Security had refused to adequately answer questions from his office for weeks, and when he realized that Noem was holding a press conference at the same federal building where he was receiving a briefing, he decided to attend. He was not arrested, and later spoke with Noem. As clips of the moment spread, Democrats erupted in outrage, and so did Republicans—in a sense. House Speaker Mike Johnson called on the Senate to censure Padilla, though for what was unclear. Daring to challenge a Trump-administration official? That's where competitive authoritarianism comes in. Levitsky explained the idea in an Atlantic essay in February: Whereas traditional authoritarians aim for total control, competitive authoritarians maintain the trappings of democracy, such as an opposition party. They just make it nearly impossible for the opposition to win. 'Unlike in a full-scale dictatorship, in competitive-authoritarian regimes, opposition forces are legal and aboveground, and they often seriously vie for power,' he wrote. 'Elections may be fiercely contested. But incumbents deploy the machinery of government to punish, harass, co-opt, or sideline their opponents.' One advantage of this model, from the standpoint of power, is that it doesn't require trashing the Constitution. Instead, the ruler burrows into and subverts existing institutions. The Padilla incident should be understood as more than just an overheated encounter between partisan opponents; it's part of a pattern of harassment of Democrats. On Tuesday, Representative LaMonica McIver was indicted on three counts of forcibly impeding and interfering with federal law-enforcement officers for an incident last month when she and other Democrats visited an ICE facility in New Jersey. A scrum occurred when officers arrested Newark Mayor Ras Baraka; Alina Habba, the interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey, dropped a charge against him and received a fierce scolding from a judge, but she brought charges against McIver, despite dubious evidence in videos of the event. McIver has said that she will plead not guilty. Late last month, DHS officers handcuffed a staffer for Representative Jerry Nadler, a prominent Democrat—ostensibly because the staffer had objected to officers entering the office, and because DHS was concerned (ironically) for the staff's safety. Padilla's detention comes amid protests in California and elsewhere over ICE raids. Noem told Fox News yesterday, 'I'm so sick of the politics … This is literally people's lives.' DHS accused Padilla of 'disrespectful political theater.' Given that the department is currently engaged in an elaborate production of its own, featuring draconian raids and unprecedented military deployments, Noem deserves some kind of award for lack of self-awareness. The Trump administration has embarked on a needless, inappropriate, and, according to one federal judge, illegal use of the National Guard. Senator Josh Hawley, a Trump ally, sent a letter earlier this week that seems to be an attempt to intimidate groups involved in the Los Angeles protests. Trump has also threatened further military deployments in other cities. 'When citizens must think twice about criticizing or opposing the government because they could credibly face government retribution, they no longer live in a full democracy,' Levitsky, Way, and the political scientist Daniel Ziblatt wrote in The New York Times last month. That may not yet be the case, but the path is too clear and too short for comfort. When Levitsky and Way first developed the concept of competitive authoritarianism, at the start of the century, they were looking at countries such as Slobodan Milošević's Serbia, Vladimir Putin's Russia, and Alberto Fujimori's Peru. The bad news is that a framework developed to describe poor, repressive regimes has now become useful for understanding the United States, as Levitsky wrote in his Atlantic essay. The good news is that more than two decades of study have provided some lessons on how to resist the danger. 'Civil society must act collectively,' the political scientists wrote in the Times, identifying a common interest among corporate leaders, law firms, universities, leaders in both parties, and the press. 'When organizations work together and commit to a collective defense of democratic principles, they share the costs of defiance. The government cannot attack everyone all at once. When the costs of defiance are shared, they become easier for individuals to bear.' Seen from this point of view, peaceful protests in Los Angeles and elsewhere are an important start (though violence undermines the cause). Although Democratic members of Congress shouldn't have needed to see one of their colleagues manhandled to get angry, their outrage is appropriate. So is the response of levelheaded Republicans such as Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who watched a clip of the detention and said, 'It's horrible. It is shocking at every level. It's not the America I know.' But unless critics of Trump's power grab can work together and find effective ways of resisting, they'll be consigning themselves to a permanent existence as nothing more than a nominal opposition—never quite extinguished, but not relevant either. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Atlantic
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Atlantic
Handcuffing a U.S. Senator is a Warning
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Like knowing the names of lots of federal judges, widespread familiarity with specific theories of authoritarian rule is not generally a hallmark of a healthy society. But as the United States' vital signs get more dire, Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way's concept of 'competitive authoritarianism' feels unsettlingly relevant. The idea came to mind again when federal officers manhandled and then handcuffed Senator Alex Padilla, a California Democrat, yesterday as he tried to ask a question of Kristi Noem, the secretary of Homeland Security, at a press conference in Los Angeles. Because it took place at a media event, the incident was recorded clearly on video, and it's shocking. Nearly as disturbing as the footage is the fact that even though the incident is on tape, the Trump administration attempted to lie baldly about what happened. Officials said Padilla never identified himself as a senator and that security personnel thought he was an attacker; video shows him audibly identifying himself and wearing a U.S. Senate shirt. They said he lunged at Noem; video shows nothing of the sort. (If only Noem's security detail had been so vigilant when her purse was stolen in April.) The most that can be said is that Padilla's question disrupted Noem's spiel at the press conference. According to the senator's explanation, the Department of Homeland Security had refused to adequately answer questions from his office for weeks, and when he realized that Noem was holding a press conference at the same federal building where he was receiving a briefing, he decided to attend. He was not arrested, and later spoke with Noem. As clips of the moment spread, Democrats erupted in outrage, and so did Republicans—in a sense. Speaker Mike Johnson called on the Senate to censure Padilla, though for what was unclear. Daring to challenge a Trump-administration official? That's where competitive authoritarianism comes in. Levitsky explained the idea in an Atlantic essay in February: Whereas traditional authoritarians aim for total control, competitive authoritarians maintain the trappings of democracy, such as an opposition party. They just make it nearly impossible for the opposition to win. 'Unlike in a full-scale dictatorship, in competitive-authoritarian regimes, opposition forces are legal and aboveground, and they often seriously vie for power,' he wrote. 'Elections may be fiercely contested. But incumbents deploy the machinery of government to punish, harass, co-opt, or sideline their opponents.' One advantage of this model, from the standpoint of power, is that it doesn't require trashing the Constitution. Instead, the ruler burrows into and subverts existing institutions. The Padilla incident should be understood as more than just an overheated encounter between partisan opponents; it's part of a pattern of harassment of Democrats. On Tuesday, Representative LaMonica McIver was indicted on three counts of forcibly impeding and interfering with federal law-enforcement officers for an incident last month when she and other Democrats visited an ICE facility in New Jersey. A scrum occurred when officers arrested Newark Mayor Ras Baraka; Alina Habba, the interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey, dropped a charge against him and received a fierce scolding from a judge, but she brought charges against McIver, despite dubious evidence in videos of the event. McIver has said that she will plead not guilty. Late last month, DHS officers handcuffed a staffer for Representative Jerry Nadler, a prominent Democrat—ostensibly because the staffer had objected to officers entering the office, and because DHS was concerned (ironically) for the staff's safety. Padilla's detention comes amid protests in California and elsewhere over ICE raids. Noem told Fox News yesterday, 'I'm so sick of the politics … This is literally people's lives.' DHS accused Padilla of 'disrespectful political theater.' Given that the department is currently engaged in an elaborate production of its own, featuring draconian raids and unprecedented military deployments, Noem deserves some kind of award for lack of self-awareness. The Trump administration has embarked on a needless, inappropriate, and, according to one federal judge, illegal use of the National Guard. Senator Josh Hawley, a Trump ally, sent a letter earlier this week that seems to be an attempt to intimidate groups involved in the Los Angeles protests. Trump has also threatened further military deployments in other cities. 'When citizens must think twice about criticizing or opposing the government because they could credibly face government retribution, they no longer live in a full democracy,' Levitsky, Way, and the political scientist Daniel Ziblatt wrote in The New York Times last month. That may not yet be the case, but the path is too clear and too short for comfort. When Levitsky and Way first developed the concept of competitive authoritarianism, at the start of the century, they were looking at countries such as Slobodan Milošević's Serbia, Vladimir Putin's Russia, and Alberto Fujimori's Peru. The bad news is that a framework developed to describe poor, repressive regimes has now become useful for understanding the United States, as Levitsky wrote in his Atlantic essay. The good news is that more than two decades of study have provided some lessons on how to resist the danger. 'Civil society must act collectively,' the political scientists wrote in the Times, identifying a common interest among corporate leaders, law firms, universities, leaders in both parties, and the press. 'When organizations work together and commit to a collective defense of democratic principles, they share the costs of defiance. The government cannot attack everyone all at once. When the costs of defiance are shared, they become easier for individuals to bear.' Seen from this point of view, peaceful protests in Los Angeles and elsewhere are an important start (though violence undermines the cause). Although Democratic members of Congress shouldn't have needed to see one of their colleagues manhandled to get angry, their outrage is appropriate. So is the response of levelheaded Republicans such as Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who watched a clip of the detention and said, 'It's horrible. It is shocking at every level. It's not the America I know.' But unless critics of Trump's power grab can work together and find effective ways of resisting, they'll be consigning themselves to a permanent existence as nothing more than a nominal opposition—never quite extinguished, but not relevant either.
Yahoo
08-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Averting a Worst-Case Scenario in Los Angeles
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. In Los Angeles, federal agents carrying out deportations on behalf of the Trump administration are clashing with protesters, some lawful, others unlawfully disruptive and even violent. The Trump administration has ordered in the National Guard and threatened to send in the Marines. Governor Gavin Newsom calls this willful escalation. Trump-administration officials say they must protect federal agents engaged in lawful immigration actions––enforcement that some protesters regard as cruel and immoral, regardless of legality. Anytime that American citizens clash in the streets with armed agents of the state, something has gone wrong. Today's civil unrest risks expanding into the sort of violence that kills lots of people and strains civic bonds for decades. And every time looting and rioting occur in Los Angeles, the city's poorest neighborhoods suffer the aftereffects for years. Stepping back from the brink is in America's interest, regardless of where one attributes blame. As a Californian, I am especially dismayed to see this happen in L.A., a city I adore, where I long lived and where I have many friends and loved ones. For all Angelenos, so recently traumatized by this year's devastating wildfires, and for the many Americans who feel dismay when watching their fellow citizens clash, I pray the turmoil ends without loss of life. My fear that it may instead intensify is informed by several background conditions. Among them are President Donald Trump's incentives. On X, many of his supporters are gleeful about the prospect of a clash that ends in bloodied leftists wearing handcuffs and facing felonies. Even setting aside the most negatively polarized segment of the Republican base, Trump has a strong incentive to redirect public attention away from his feud with Elon Musk, his underwater approval rating on the economy, and the fight over a spending bill that divides his coalition, and toward immigration enforcement, an issue on which his approval rating is still positive. What's more, this clash concerns deportation actions that are apparently lawful, as opposed to Trump's unconstitutional deportations of foreigners to a Salvadoran prison. Newsom has urged nonviolence, but California officials also have incentives to focus on opposing Trump rather than restoring calm to protect innocents. Golden State polls show not only that Trump is more unpopular in the state than he is in the nation, but that immigration is a bad issue for him locally. Regarding undocumented immigrants, the Public Policy Institute of California finds that 'overwhelming majorities of adults (73%) and likely voters (71%) say that there should be a way for them to stay in the country legally, if certain requirements are met'; that 'eight in ten adults (79%) and likely voters (80%) favor the protections given by DACA—Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals—to undocumented immigrants brought into the US as children'; and that 'about six in ten adults (63%) and likely voters (62%) favor the California state and local governments making their own policies and taking actions, separate from the federal government, to protect the legal rights of undocumented immigrants in California.' Sentiments in Los Angeles are surely even more antagonistic to Trump's position, and the stakes for Angelenos with family members and friends who live there without legal status are high––in protesting, within or outside of the law, many seek to preserve their communities or perhaps their very families. And Trump, by his own unlawful actions, has made many fear that their intimates may not be simply deported back to their home country but instead disappeared into the prison system of an authoritarian regime. Federal and local cops have cause to feel threatened, too. More than 900 suffered injuries during the 2020 unrest that followed the killing of George Floyd. Multiple federal, state, and local agencies trying to keep order, while federal, state, and local officials fight rather than coordinate, only raises the probability of bad outcomes. And today's social-media environment facilitates the rapid communication of where deportation raids are occurring, enabling not just peaceful protesters but also, potentially, nihilistic inciters of chaos to rush to the scene. Immigration-enforcement raids will continue so long as Trump is president and the law of the land is unchanged. Opponents of such actions, even those that are entirely lawful, have every right under the Constitution to peaceably assemble to protest them. Farsighted protest leaders should do everything in their power to keep those demonstrations law-abiding. Under the Trump administration, the rule of law is among the most precious safeguards Americans possess. Appealing to it, Trump critics have repeatedly prevailed in courtrooms, where Trump is least likely to succeed with his most dangerous gambits. In contrast, street violence gives Trump the ability to fight his enemies with the law on his side and with trained, armed personnel to enforce it. In such a fight, Trump may well prevail in the court of public opinion. But if he is seen as needlessly escalating the dispute, and bloodshed follows, more Americans may come to reflect that the same man was president during the civil unrest of summer 2020; the civil unrest of January 6, 2021; and the civil unrest of today. Whether one attributes blame to Trump himself or to so-called Trump derangement syndrome, the sad and dangerous spectacle of Americans fighting one another happens alarmingly often when Trump is in the White House. A president attuned to America's long-term interests and the many global challenges our nation confronts would try to lower the temperature, rather than inflame a clash that could have deadly results. Article originally published at The Atlantic
