Aurelia Butler

More stories

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Elections

    Trump’s Crackdown on LA Protests Contrasts With His Jan. 6 Response

    The president often expresses an open desire for aggressive law enforcement and harsh tactics when protests originate from the political left.When violent protests originate from the right — such as those in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017, or at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — President Trump has chosen to downplay the violence or suggest the protesters have a noble cause and have been treated unfairly.But when protests originate from what he views as the political left, Mr. Trump often expresses an open desire for law enforcement and the military to harshly crack down on them.Over the weekend, Mr. Trump ordered that 2,000 National Guard troops be deployed on the streets of downtown Los Angeles to quell protests against his administration’s immigration enforcement efforts. That was followed by orders on Monday to send 700 Marines to join them, and then later in the day, with an order for 2,000 additional National Guard troops.Even though the demonstrations have been largely contained to specific areas and mostly peaceful, Mr. Trump claimed on social media that the protesters were “insurrectionist mobs” and that Los Angeles had been “invaded and occupied by Illegal Aliens and Criminals.”In endorsing harsh law enforcement tactics against immigration protests, Mr. Trump is picking a political fight on ground that Republicans believe is advantageous terrain. Stephen K. Bannon, a former adviser to Mr. Trump, said on his podcast on Monday that the president’s response was “quite smart.”“He just won a massive national election on this very topic,” Mr. Bannon said, magnifying Mr. Trump’s showing in a race he won by less than 2.3 million popular votes. Mr. Bannon accused Democratic-led jurisdictions of inviting in undocumented immigrants and refusing to arrest violent protesters. “This is why President Trump has to bring in the National Guard and federalize them,” he said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares139 Views

    in Elections

    Two Are Charged With Stalking an Artist Who Criticized Xi Jinping

    The two men also unsuccessfully tried to illegally export sensitive U.S. military technology to China, prosecutors said.Two men have been charged with plotting to silence a Los Angeles artist critical of the Chinese government and trying to illegally export sensitive U.S. military technology to China, according to federal prosecutors.The defendants, Cui Guanghai, 43, of China, and John Miller, 63, a British national who is a permanent U.S. resident, orchestrated a harassment campaign against a U.S.-based dissident artist whom the authorities did not name, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California. The two men also tried to smuggle restricted technology into China, the office said.The target of the harassment plot, the authorities say, was a Los Angeles-based artist who had publicly criticized President Xi Jinping of China. The artist planned to protest against President Xi during the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in November 2023 in San Francisco. The artist had also created sculptures of President Xi and his wife that, according to a federal complaint, depicted them kneeling, bare-chested, with their hands tied behind their backs.Mr. Cui and Mr. Miller, who unknowingly hired two F.B.I. agents working undercover, arranged to place a tracking device on the artist’s car and have its tires slashed, prosecutors said in court documents. The two also planned to destroy the artist’s sculptures, though they were unsuccessful, the authorities said.Mr. Cui and Mr. Miller are currently in custody in Serbia, according to federal prosecutors. It is unclear whether either man has legal representation.“The United States will seek extradition of Cui and Miller and looks forward to working in partnership with the Republic of Serbia’s Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Justice,” prosecutors said in a statement.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 75 Shares189 Views

    in Elections

    This Is What Autocracy Looks Like

    Since Donald Trump was elected again, I’ve feared one scenario above all others: that he’d call out the military against people protesting his mass deportations, putting America on the road to martial law. Even in my more outlandish imaginings, however, I thought that he’d need more of a pretext to put troops on the streets of an American city — against the wishes of its mayor and governor — than the relatively small protests that broke out in Los Angeles last week.In a post-reality environment, it turns out, the president didn’t need to wait for a crisis to launch an authoritarian crackdown. Instead, he can simply invent one.It’s true that some of those protesting Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles have been violent; on Sunday one man was arrested for allegedly tossing a Molotov cocktail at a police officer, and another was accused of driving a motorcycle into a line of cops. Such violence should be condemned both because it’s immoral and because it’s wildly counterproductive; each burning Waymo or smashed storefront is an in-kind gift to the administration.But the idea that Trump needed to put soldiers on the streets of the city because riots were spinning out of control is pure fantasy. “Today, demonstrations across the city of Los Angeles remained peaceful, and we commend all those who exercised their First Amendment rights responsibly,” said a statement issued by the Los Angeles Police Department on Saturday evening. That was the same day Trump overrode Gov. Gavin Newsom and federalized California’s National Guard, under a rarely used law meant to deal with “rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.”Then, on Monday, with thousands of National Guard troops already deployed to the city, the administration said it was also sending 700 Marines. The Los Angeles police don’t seem to want the Marines there; in a statement, the police chief, Jim McDonnell, said, “The arrival of federal military forces in Los Angeles — absent clear coordination — presents a significant logistical and operational challenge for those of us charged with safeguarding this city.” But for Trump, safeguarding the city was never the point.It’s important to understand that for this administration, protests needn’t be violent to be considered an illegitimate uprising. The presidential memorandum calling out the National Guard refers to both violent acts and any protests that “inhibit” law enforcement. That definition would seem to include peaceful demonstrations around the site of ICE raids. In May, for example, armed federal agents stormed two popular Italian restaurants in San Diego looking for undocumented workers; they handcuffed staff members and took four people into custody. As they did so, an outraged crowd gathered outside, chanting “shame” and for a time blocking the agents from leaving. Under Trump’s order, the military could target these people as insurrectionists.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares169 Views

    in Elections

    Read California’s Lawsuit Challenging Trump’s Mobilization of the National Guard

    Case 3:25-cv-04870 Document 1 Filed 06/09/25

    Page 2 of 22

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    INTRODUCTION

    1. The Governor of the State of California and the State of California bring this action to

    protect the State against the illegal actions of the President, Secretary of Defense, and Department
    of Defense to deploy members of the California National Guard, without lawful authority, and in violation of the Constitution.
    2. One of the cornerstones of our Nation and our democracy is that our people are

    governed by civil, not military, rule. The Founders enshrined these principles in our

    Constitution-

    that a government should be accountable to its people, guided by the rule of law,

    and one of civil authority, not military rule.

    3. President Trump has repeatedly invoked emergency powers to exceed the bounds of lawful executive authority. On Saturday, June 7, he used a protest that local authorities had under control to make another unprecedented power grab, this time at the cost of the sovereignty of the State of California and in disregard of the authority and role of the Governor as commander-in- chief of the State’s National Guard.
    4. The vehicle the President has sought to invoke for this unprecedented usurpation of state authority and resources is a statute, 10 U.S.C. § 12406, that has been invoked on its own only once before and for highly unusual circumstances not presented here. Invoking this statute, the President issued a Memorandum on June 7, 2025 (Trump Memo), “call[ing] into Federal service members and units of the National Guard.” Secretary of Defense Hegseth, in turn, issued a Memorandum (DOD Order) that same day to the Adjutant General of California, ordering 2,000 California National Guard members into federal service. And on June 9, 2025, Secretary Hegseth 22 issued another Memorandum (June 9 DOD Order) ordering an additional 2,000 California

    19

    20

    21

    222

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    National Guard members into federal service.

    5. These orders were issued despite the text of section 12406, which, among other things, requires that when the President calls members of a State National Guard into federal
    service pursuant to that statute, those orders “shall be issued through the governors of the States.” 10 U.S.C. § 12406. Instead, Secretary Hegseth unlawfully bypassed the Governor of California, issuing an order that by statute must go through him.

    2

    COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF More

  • 163 Shares129 Views

    in Elections

    Trump and Newsom Skewer Each Other After National Guard Deployment to LA Protests

    President Trump said that Gov. Gavin Newsom should be arrested for his governance of California, while Mr. Newsom issued a barrage of retorts online.A war of words erupted Monday between Gov. Gavin Newsom and the White House, punctuated by President Trump saying that the governor should be arrested because “he’s done such a bad job” leading California.The latest feud came after a weekend of clashes in Los Angeles as residents protested federal immigration raids and President Trump’s decision to deploy National Guard troops without support from Mr. Newsom.Mr. Trump has criticized Mr. Newsom on various issues for months, including his handling of the Los Angeles fires and California’s transgender athlete policy. Mr. Newsom had, for the most part, sparingly struck back while still trying to show deference to the president.But that ended this weekend. And by Monday, the governor was firing back with a barrage of social media posts, emails and news interviews, in a tone that ranged from snarky to serious.All of it was suited for an era of politics that rewards jousting by online gladiators.The latest skirmish began when Mr. Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, told NBC News on Saturday that he would arrest anybody, including Mr. Newsom, who interfered with immigration enforcement.The governor responded with a dare for Mr. Homan.“Come after me,” Mr. Newsom said in an interview with MSNBC on Sunday. “Arrest me, tough guy. Let’s just get it over with.”Reporters then asked Mr. Trump on Monday if he thought Mr. Homan should arrest Mr. Newsom.“I would do it if I were Tom,” Mr. Trump said. “Look, I like Gavin Newsom, he’s a nice guy. But he’s grossly incompetent.”Mr. Newsom responded by sharing on X a video of the president’s comments— and pinned it to the top of his feed to give it extra prominence.“The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor. This is a day I hoped I would never see in America,” he wrote, calling it an “unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.”Later Monday, a reporter asked Mr. Trump what crime Mr. Newsom should be charged with if he were to be arrested.“His primary crime is running for governor, because he’s done such a bad job,” Mr. Trump said. “What he’s done to that state is like what Biden did to this country.”Mr. Newsom posted that video, too. He added social media posts that needled Mr. Trump’s Republican supporters, including Vice President JD Vance, Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama and Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio.Mr. Jordan posted a comment on X saying, “We fly the American flag in America” — an apparent reference to the many Latin American flags that demonstrators carried at the protests in Los Angeles. Mr. Newsom shot back with a photo of Jan. 6 protesters on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, one of them attacking police officers with an American flag.“Like this?” Mr. Newsom wrote. More

  • 150 Shares119 Views

    in Elections

    Protesters in L.A. Set Several Waymo Cars on Fire Amid Police Clash

    Protesters smashed the windows of multiple Waymo robot taxis and then set them on fire. The police warned of toxic fumes released by burning lithium-ion batteries.Protesters torched and vandalized self-driving Waymo taxis on Sunday during clashes with the police over President Trump’s immigration crackdown.Mark Abramson for The New York TimesWaymo, the robot taxi company, cut off service to the downtown Los Angeles area after protesters set multiple self-driving vehicles on fire on Sunday, sending smoke into the air.The protests in other parts of the city against President Trump’s crackdown on immigration have been largely peaceful, but law enforcement officers have reported that demonstrations have become “worse and more violent” since they began on Friday.A Waymo spokeswoman said that the company had cut off service to the downtown Los Angeles area and had removed the burned vehicles from the streets. After protesters smashed windows and spray-painted anti-U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement messages onto the taxis and set them alight, some protesters threw electric Lime scooters into the flames, the Los Angeles Times reported.“Burning lithium-ion batteries release toxic gases, including hydrogen fluoride, posing risks to responders and those nearby,” the Los Angeles Police Department said on social media, urging people to avoid the area.Waymo, which is owned by Google’s parent company, Alphabet, has completed more than 5 million rider-only rides, according to the company’s website, and began operating in Los Angeles last year. Waymo’s robot taxis are ubiquitous on San Francisco’s hilly roads.The driverless taxis operate in San Francisco, Phoenix, Austin and Los Angeles, with prices similar to those of Uber and Lyft. The company plans to soon begin operating in Atlanta through a partnership with Uber. More

  • 100 Shares159 Views

    in Elections

    Extremely Lifelike Dolls Cause a Frenzy in Brazil

    A young woman posts a video that appears to show her holding her baby, Bento, and packing his bag for a trip to the hospital. She calls it “one of the busiest and scariest days for me.”She grabs onesies, a bottle and medical documents and tucks him in the back of a car. At the hospital, he is weighed and lies in a bed, where she removes his pacifier, bottle-feeds him and wipes a few drops of formula from his cheek.But this was not an actual medical emergency — it was role-playing by a content creator — and the baby was not a real baby. It was a shockingly lifelike doll, called a reborn doll, which is handcrafted to look and feel like a baby.The video, which received more than 16 million views on TikTok, is part of a social media craze that has turned into a cultural and political flashpoint in Brazil. Widely circulated videos show women taking the hyperrealistic dolls to the park in strollers, celebrating their birthdays with cake and songs, and simulating childbirth. (A select few even simulate the dolls’ having a nosebleed or potty training.)The YouTuber Gabi Matos with her collection of dolls in Campinas, Brazil, in May.Nelson Almeida/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“The ones I like the most are the newborns,” said Juliana Drusz Magri, 36, who lives in Curitiba, the capital of the Brazilian state of Paraná, and works in human resources. She said she began collecting the dolls in 2018 and now has 22.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 163 Shares129 Views

    in Elections

    Gun Deaths of Children Rose in States That Loosened Gun Laws, Study Finds

    Researchers looked at firearm fatalities in the 13 years immediately after the Supreme Court limited local governments’ ability to restrict gun ownership.Firearm deaths of children and teenagers rose significantly in states that enacted more permissive gun laws after the Supreme Court in 2010 limited local governments’ ability to restrict gun ownership, a new study has found.In states that maintained stricter laws, firearm deaths were stable after the ruling, the researchers reported, and in some, they even declined.Guns are the leading cause of death in the United States for people under 18. Dr. Jeremy Faust, an emergency room doctor at Massachusetts General Brigham Hospital in Boston, who was the study’s lead author, said he was dismayed to find that most of the children’s deaths were homicides and suicides.“It’s surprising how few of these are accidents,” Dr. Faust said. “I always thought that a lot of pediatric mortality from guns is that somebody got into the wrong place, and I still think safe storage is important, but it’s mostly homicides and suicides.”John Commerford, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, called the study “political propaganda masquerading as scientific research.”The study, published Monday in JAMA Pediatrics, examined the 13-year period after the June 2010 Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment, which protects an individual’s right to bear arms, applies to state and local gun-control laws. The decision effectively limited the ability of state and local governments to regulate firearms.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More