Newsom, Gavin

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

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

      by

      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

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

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

      by

      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

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Calling Troops Into Los Angeles Is the Real Emergency

      by

      The National Guard is typically brought into American cities during emergencies such as natural disasters and civil disturbances or to provide support during public health crises — when local authorities require additional resources or manpower. There was no indication that was needed or wanted in Los Angeles this weekend, where local law enforcement had kept protests over federal immigration raids, for the most part, under control.Guard members also almost always arrive at the request of state leaders, but in California, Gov. Gavin Newsom called the deployment of troops “purposefully inflammatory” and likely to escalate tensions. It had been more than 60 years since a president sent in the National Guard on his own volition.Which made President Trump’s order on Saturday to do so both ahistoric and based on false pretenses and is already creating the very chaos it was purportedly designed to prevent.Mr. Trump invoked a rarely used provision of the U.S. Code on Armed Services that allows for the federal deployment of the National Guard if “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.” No such rebellion is underway. As the governor’s spokesman and others have noted, Americans in cities routinely cause more property damage after their sports teams win or lose.The last time this presidential authority was used over a governor’s objections was when John F. Kennedy overruled the governor of Alabama and sent troops to desegregate the University of Alabama in 1963. Supporters of states’ rights and segregation howled at the time and, in the usual corners, are still howling about it.“To 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,” Mr. Trump wrote in an executive order, which is not a law but rather a memo to the executive branch. Yet the closest this nation has come to such a definition of rebellion was when Mr. Trump’s own supporters (whom he incited, then mostly pardoned) sacked the U.S. Capitol in 2021.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 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      The President Is Playing With Fire, Which Is Just How He Likes It

      by

      It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Trump administration is spoiling for a fight on America’s streets. On Saturday, after a protest against Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests degenerated into violence, the administration reacted as if the country were on the brink of war.The violence was unacceptable. Civil disobedience is honorable; violence is beyond the pale. But so far, thankfully, the violence has been localized and, crucially, well within the capacity of state and city officials to manage.But don’t tell that to the Trump administration. Its language was out of control.Stephen Miller, one of President Trump’s closest advisers and the single most important architect (aside from Trump himself) of the administration’s immigration policies, posted one word: “Insurrection.”Vice President JD Vance wrote on X, “One of the main technical issues in the immigration judicial battles is whether Biden’s border crisis counted as an ‘invasion.’” That statement set the stage. He wants courts to believe we’re facing an invasion, and any disturbance will do to make his point. “So now,” Vance continued, “we have foreign nationals with no legal right to be in the country waving foreign flags and assaulting law enforcement. If only we had a good word for that …”Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, posted his own screed on X, declaring that the Department of Defense “is mobilizing the National Guard IMMEDIATELY to support federal law enforcement in Los Angeles. And, if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert.”Trump posted on Truth Social, “If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can’t do their jobs, which everyone knows they can’t, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!”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

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      What Is the National Guard, the Force Trump Deployed to L.A. Protests?

      by

      The troops that President Trump deployed to Los Angeles are members of a state-based militia that exists in every state and can be called in during natural disasters or civil unrest.Several hundred soldiers were deployed to the streets of Los Angeles on Sunday, as demonstrations against President Trump’s immigration crackdown raged for a third day. The troops were members of the California National Guard, called in by the president against the wishes of Gov. Gavin Newsom.Not since 1965 has a president summoned a state’s National Guard against the will of a governor. Mr. Trump cited a rarely used law enabling him to bypass the governor in the event of “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.” Mr. Newsom called the move a “serious breach of state sovereignty” and asked Mr. Trump to reverse his order.The National Guard is a state-based military force made up of hundreds of thousands of trained soldiers who live in communities across the country and typically serve only part time. Most hold civilian jobs or attend college.All new recruits must pass basic training. Once they’re in, they participate in regular drills, usually one weekend each month, and a two-week-long training each year. The tradition of state-based militias is older than the nation itself. The National Guard traces its history to 1636, when the legislature of the Massachusetts Bay Colony formally organized its militia into regiments. Militias composed of nonprofessional civilian soldiers played a critical role in the Revolutionary War and, when the first standing American army was established in 1775, state militias continued to exist alongside it.Guard troops are activated only when they need to be — most often during natural disasters, wars or civil unrest. Both governors and the president have the power to activate the National Guard. A president’s decision to activate the Guard often comes at the request of state or local officials. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush did so in response to the Rodney King riots after California’s governor asked him to.At Sunday’s protests in Los Angeles, National Guard troops appeared to largely refrain from engaging with demonstrators, even as federal immigration and homeland security officers and the city police fired crowd-control munitions at the protesters.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 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Is Deploying National Guard Troops Under a Rarely Used Power

      by

      President Trump bypassed the authority of Gov. Gavin Newsom by sending 2,000 National Guard troops to quell immigration protesters.President Trump took extraordinary action on Saturday by deploying 2,000 National Guard troops to quell immigration protesters in California, making rare use of federal powers and bypassing the authority of the state’s governor, Gavin Newsom.Governors almost always control the deployment of National Guard troops in their states. But according to legal scholars, the president has the authority under Title 10 of the United States Code to federalize the National Guard units of states to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.”In a presidential memo, Mr. Trump said, “To 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.”Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said in a statement on Saturday night that President Trump was deploying soldiers in response to “violent mobs” that she said had attacked federal law enforcement and immigration agents. The 2,000 troops would “address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester,” she said.Protests have occurred Friday and Saturday in California to oppose federal immigration raids on workplaces in California. The latest incident was at a Home Depot in Paramount, Calif., about 20 miles south of downtown Los Angeles.Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, immediately rebuked the president’s action, indicating that Mr. Trump had usurped his own state authority.“That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions,” Mr. Newsom said, adding that “this is the wrong mission and will erode public trust.”California Democrats have braced for months for the possibility that President Trump would seek to deploy U.S. troops on American soil in this way, particularly in Democratic-run jurisdictions.Mr. Trump suggested deploying U.S. forces in the same manner during his first term to suppress outbreaks of violence during the nationwide protests over the police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis.He opted against doing so at the time, but he has repeatedly raised the idea of using troops to secure border states.“Federalizing a state’s National Guard is a huge expansion of presidential power,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley. “It allows use of the military in domestic matters. It would be stunning to see this done here.”Trump and his aides have often lamented that not enough was done by Minnesota’s governor to quell protests that followed the death of Mr. Floyd in 2020.During a campaign rally in 2023, Trump made clear he was not going to hold back in a second term. “You’re supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in — the next time, I’m not waiting,” Mr. Trump said.Jonathan Swan More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Patricia Krenwinkel, Former Member of Manson Family, Is Recommended for Parole

      by

      Patricia Krenwinkel, 77, who was part of what was known as the Manson family, was convicted of seven counts of murder in 1971. A California panel said she posed little risk of reoffending.Patricia Krenwinkel, a onetime follower of the cult leader Charles Manson who was convicted in the murders of seven people in the summer of 1969 in Los Angeles, should be released on parole, a panel of the California parole board recommended on Friday.Ms. Krenwinkel, 77, the state’s longest-serving female inmate, is one of two Manson followers connected with the August 1969 murder spree who remain in prison.She was sent to death row in 1971. After the state’s highest court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional in 1972, Ms. Krenwinkel’s sentence was reduced to life in prison with the possibility of parole, as it was for all those convicted in the Manson group’s murders.Ms. Krenwinkel, who has spent the last 54 years in the California Institution for Women in Chino, first became eligible for parole in 1976. This was her 16th appearance before the parole suitability panel.The provisional decision has to be reviewed by the legal division of the Board of Parole Hearings. That process can take up to four months, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.If the full board agrees with the panel’s recommendation, Gov. Gavin Newsom has 30 days to review its decision. He could reject it, or send it back for further review.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

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Republicans Kill California’s Ban on Gas-Powered Cars

      by

      In 50 years, California’s authority to set environmental rules that are tougher than national standards had never been challenged by Congress. Until now.The Senate on Thursday blocked California’s landmark plan to phase out the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles, setting up a legal battle that could shape the electric car market in the United States.The 51-44 vote was a victory for the oil and gas industry and for Republicans who muscled through the vote by deploying an unusual legislative tactic that Democrats denounced as a “nuclear” option that would affect the way the Senate operates way beyond climate policy.The repeal deals a blow to California’s ambition of accelerating the nation’s transition to electric vehicles. But the consequences will ripple across the country. That’s because 11 other states intended to follow California’s plan and stop selling new gas-powered cars by 2035. Together, they account for about 40 percent of the U.S. auto market.The resolution, which had already been approved by the House, now goes to President Trump’s desk. Mr. Trump, who opposes clean energy and has taken particular umbrage at California’s efforts to reduce the use of fossil fuels, is expected to sign it into law.California leaders have promised to challenge the Senate vote and try to restore the ban.“This Senate vote is illegal,” said California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democrat of California. “Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent. We won’t stand by as Trump Republicans make America smoggy again — undoing work that goes back to the days of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan — all while ceding our economic future to China.“California’s auto policy was allowed under permission granted by the Biden administration. The 1970 Clean Air Act specifies that California can receive waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency to enact clean air standards that are tougher than federal limits because the state has historically had the most polluted air in the nation. Federal law also allows other states to adopt California’s standards under certain circumstances.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