Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Deployment of Troops to L.A. Protests Is a Do-Over of 2020

      by

      President Trump was talked out of deploying the military to crush the George Floyd protests in 2020. He always regretted it.In 2020, as racial justice protests swept through the country over the murder of George Floyd, President Trump was itching to deploy the military to crush the unrest. He was talked out of it by his top national security advisers, who feared that such a decision would be viewed as moving toward martial law.Five years later, as protests against his immigration policies began to swell in Los Angeles, Mr. Trump said he had learned his lesson.“I’ll never do that again,” Mr. Trump said on Thursday, about waiting to send in the National Guard in 2020. “If I see problems brewing,” he added, “I’m not going to wait two weeks.”With the Los Angeles protests, Mr. Trump has seized the chance to make up for his first-term regret.His decision to send in federal troops right away, taking the extraordinary step of deploying active-duty military to deal with domestic unrest, fits into the larger pattern of Mr. Trump operating without any significant pushback from the people around him in his second term.“He saw the military as his reactionary arm,” said Olivia Troye, a former homeland security official and aide to former Vice President Mike Pence. Ms. Troye said she witnessed multiple national security officials explain to Mr. Trump in 2020 that the military takes an oath to the Constitution — not Mr. Trump — and that it should not be turned against American citizens, even 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

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Former L.A.P.D. Chief: Deploying Troops Was a Profound Mistake

      by

      Over the past week, President Trump has deployed more military troops to the streets of Los Angeles than there are stationed in Iraq and Syria. The president has warned that if protests break out in other cities, he’ll send troops to “attack” with even greater force. “You’ll have them all over the country,” he said.That would be a mistake. Deploying soldiers to any American city isn’t just at odds with the principles of our democracy. It’s tactically unsound. Let me be clear: I admire the honorable men and women who serve in our military. But they are not the right tool for this mission — certainly not under these conditions and not without first exhausting the substantial civilian resources already in place.I speak from experience. Over the course of more than 40 years with the Los Angeles Police Department — including nearly six as chief of police — I’ve seen what works and what doesn’t in times of civil unrest. I was an officer during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, when federal troops were last deployed to our streets. I witnessed the confusion and the risks created by sending soldiers trained for combat into a civilian environment. Even basic commands like “cover me” were misunderstood — interpreted by troops as calls for gunfire rather than tactical positioning. Whereas police officers are taught to use time, distance and de-escalation, soldiers are trained to apply overwhelming force.There is no question that serious unrest and violence have occurred in parts of downtown Los Angeles. Attacks on buildings and threats to public safety must be taken seriously. But this is not an insurrection. These incidents are localized, and local law enforcement agencies are fully capable of addressing them.California’s emergency response infrastructure is among the most advanced in the country. Its emergency management system and mutual aid plan allow it to request help from neighboring law enforcement agencies, the California Highway Patrol and, when needed, the California National Guard. I have overseen the activation of these systems in response to both natural disasters and overwhelming disorder. They work — and they are rooted in principles of local control, coordination and public accountability. Deploying federal troops undermines all three.The roles of the military and law enforcement are fundamentally distinct. Police officers are trained to protect constitutional rights, use measured force and remain accountable to civilian oversight. They operate within a legal framework grounded in probable cause and community trust. The military, by contrast, is designed for combat operations under a chain of command that originates in Washington. Military training, equipment and tactics are optimized for warfare — not for safeguarding civil liberties or managing peaceful protest.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

      ICE Says It Has No Immediate Plans to Release Mahmoud Khalil

      by

      A federal judge ruled this week that the government cannot hold the Columbia University graduate under the rarely invoked law it used to detain him.A Trump administration official has told lawyers for Mahmoud Khalil that the government has no immediate plans to release him, in spite of a judge’s order barring his detention on the grounds for which he was originally arrested.The field office director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in New Orleans told the lawyers on Thursday, “I have no information that your client will be released or a time for that.” The judge, Michael E. Farbiarz, had opened the door to Mr. Khalil’s release as early as Friday morning.Spokeswomen for the Homeland Security and Justice departments did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Mr. Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and legal permanent resident, was prominent in pro-Palestinian demonstrations on the school’s campus. He was arrested in March and transferred to Louisiana, where he has been held in a federal detention center for three months.Shortly after his arrest, the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, justified his detention by invoking a rarely cited law that he said allowed him to declare Mr. Khalil’s presence in the United States a threat to the country’s foreign policy goal of preventing antisemitism. Mr. Khalil’s lawyers have rejected that argument, pointing to comments their client made on CNN saying that “antisemitism and any form of racism has no place on campus and in this movement.”Judge Farbiarz found that the law Mr. Rubio invoked was likely unconstitutional, and on Wednesday ruled that the government could no longer detain Mr. Khalil under that justification.The judge paused his own order until 9:30 am on Friday to allow the Trump administration time to appeal. But after the deadline had passed on Friday morning, it appeared the government had not done so.Having seen no appeal, Mr. Khalil’s lawyers wrote a letter to Judge Farbiarz asking that he order their client’s release. The judge responded, asking that the government weigh in by 1:30 p.m.It is not clear whether the government is actively violating Judge Farbiarz’s order. He had suggested that it might be able to continue detaining Mr. Khalil for reasons other than Mr. Rubio’s invocation, and it is possible that the Trump administration could seek to convince the court that there is some additional justification for doing so.Two weeks after Mr. Khalil was first arrested, the government added new allegations to its case against him, accusing him of failing to disclose his membership in certain organizations when he applied for legal residency.Mr. Khalil’s lawyers have said those allegations are false, and Judge Farbiarz wrote in his Wednesday decision that it was “overwhelmingly likely” that Mr. Khalil would not be detained on that basis alone.Given that declaration, the judge would probably be skeptical were the Trump administration to put forward that rationale for continuing to detain Mr. Khalil. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Blocks Trump Voting Order Requiring Proof of Citizenship

      by

      A judge ruled that President Trump likely exceeded his authority with elections changes that included punishing states that didn’t stop counting ballots after Election Day.A federal judge sided with a coalition of states on Friday that had sued to stop stringent new voting ID requirements that President Trump laid out in an executive order in March.The ruling went further than a previous court decision to block most of the key aspects of Mr. Trump’s efforts to overhaul election law by executive order. In addition to indefinitely blocking provisions that would allow the federal government to require proof of citizenship for new voters, the judge’s ruling on Friday blocks a directive for Attorney General Pam Bondi to take action against states that continue counting ballots beyond Election Day.In her opinion, Judge Denise J. Casper of the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts wrote that the states were likely to succeed in showing that the order exceeded President Trump’s authority and risked disenfranchising some of the electorate. The ruling blocked the order from taking effect until the resolution of the case.“The Constitution does not grant the president any specific powers over elections,” Judge Casper, an Obama appointee, wrote.In April, another judge in Washington, D.C., delivered a similar ruling that found much of the executive order likely unconstitutional. But that order, issued by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, stopped short of blocking the provision that sought to force an Election Day deadline on states for counting mail-in ballots.Thirteen states currently allow counting of mail-in ballots beyond Election Day if they were sent on time, and since the case before Judge Casper was brought by a coalition of 19 states that included the 13 “ballot recipient states,” she found they had standing to challenge that provision. Her order also blocked a provision that would withhold federal funding from states that failed to comply with the deadline.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      5 Takeaways From the Debate for N.Y.C. Mayor

      by

      The two front-runners in the New York City mayor’s race, Andrew M. Cuomo and Zohran Mamdani, traded barbs over their records, immigration and a host of other issues.In the final Democratic debate in the primary for mayor of New York City, seven candidates sparred over immigration, affordability and President Trump’s policies. But more often, the debate on Thursday devolved into sharp personal attacks.The most pointed exchanges involved former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, the two front-runners in polls.Mr. Cuomo pummeled Mr. Mamdani, arguing that his inexperience was dangerous. Mr. Mamdani criticized the former governor as out-of-touch and beholden to the same special interests that support Mr. Trump.Other candidates often entered the fray. Brad Lander, the city comptroller, drew attention to Mr. Cuomo’s handling of nursing home deaths during the pandemic and the sexual harassment allegations that led to his resignation as governor in 2021.The debate was the candidates’ best and possibly last chance to grab attention ahead of the start of early voting on Saturday. The primary will be held June 24.Here are five takeaways from the debate.Ganging up on CuomoMr. Cuomo is still clearly viewed as the front-runner based on the attacks he faced from his rivals. Several of the candidates mentioned the sexual harassment allegations, which he denied.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

      U.S. Was Not Involved in Israeli Strikes on Iran, Rubio Says

      by

      President Trump has said he would like to negotiate a deal with Tehran over its nuclear program but had also acknowledged that Israel might attack Iran first.Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Thursday that the United States had no involvement in Israel’s unilateral strikes on Iran but had been told that Israel considered the attack necessary for its self-defense.President Trump, who has been pushing for a deal with Iran on its nuclear program, was hosting the annual White House picnic on Thursday evening when reports of the strikes emerged from Tehran.Despite his expressed hopes for a diplomatic breakthrough, Mr. Trump had also acknowledged on Thursday that Israel might attack first.In a statement, Mr. Rubio said: “We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region. Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense.” It was not immediately clear how much detail about the strike Israel had provided the United States, its main ally, and how far in advance.Despite the Trump administration distancing itself from the attacks, its statements and precautionary measures this week have indicated the concern that Iran’s retaliation, which is expected to be swift, could also include American targets in the Middle East.“Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel,” Mr Rubio said.On Wednesday, the United States withdrew diplomats from Iraq, Iran’s neighbor to the west, and authorized the voluntary departure of the family members of U.S. military personnel from the Middle East. The U.S. military has a large fleet of warplanes, naval vessels and thousands of troops stationed at its bases in the region, including in Qatar and Bahrain, just around 150 miles across the gulf from Iran.Iran’s defense minister said this week that if nuclear talks failed and a conflict arose with the United States, his country’s military would target all American bases in the region.It was unclear what impact Israel’s strikes would have on the ongoing negotiations between the Trump administration and Iran, or on Mr. Trump’s relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. The president had spoken with the Israeli leader on Monday but did not give any details about the conversation.In recent weeks, Mr. Trump has said he has urged Israel to hold off on military strikes while the negotiations were taking place. Steve Witkoff, Mr. Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, was expected to meet Iran’s foreign minister in Oman on Sunday for the next round of talks.Around the time Israel began to strike Iran, Mr. Trump said he remained committed to a diplomatic resolution.“My entire Administration has been directed to negotiate with Iran,” he posted on social media around 5 p.m. Eastern time. “They could be a Great Country, but they first must completely give up hopes of obtaining a Nuclear Weapon.” More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      In L.A., the Divide Between Peace and Violence Is in the Eye of the Beholder

      by

      Los Angeles, a city marked by fiery and full-throated protests, adds a new chapter to that history. Alfonso Santoyo was marching through the streets of Los Angeles with a boisterous crowd on Wednesday protesting the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. Mr. Santoyo’s presence, and his voice, were his only weapons.“It’s upsetting how they’ve portrayed the community as criminals,” said Mr. Santoyo, a 43-year-old postal worker whose parents came to the U.S. from Mexico as undocumented immigrants but eventually gained legal status. “It’s just upsetting to see that. Because we know it’s not the case.”After an 8 p.m. curfew brought a ghostly quiet to much of downtown, a man in body armor stood in front of a building full of jewelry stores, smoking a cigarette down to the filter.The man, who declined to give his name, wore a handgun on his thigh and carried a rifle that fires plastic projectiles. He pointed to nearby stores and buildings in L.A.’s jewelry district that had been broken into days earlier. Much like the 2020 demonstrations against police violence, he said, there always seemed to be bad actors among the peaceful ones.Separating them out, he said, was pointless. He cited an Armenian proverb: “Wet wood and dry wood burn together.”In Los Angeles this week, many protesters have marched peacefully. Others have thrown objects at the police, set cars ablaze and looted stores and restaurants. Police have responded aggressively, intimidating protesters with earsplitting explosives and mounted patrols, hitting them with batons, deploying tear gas and firing foam projectiles and rubber bullets into crowds.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

      How the 2020 George Floyd Protests Are Haunting Democrats in 2025

      by

      No longer demanding cuts to police budgets or straining to show solidarity with protesters, Democrats are taking a far more cautious approach.Five years ago, as grief and anger over George Floyd’s murder ignited national protests, top Democrats joined the demonstrations, called for cutting police budgets and, in a ham-fisted effort at solidarity, even knelt in kente cloth at the Capitol.Now, as President Trump spoils for a fight by sending unwanted troops to Los Angeles to stamp out protests and help with immigration raids, Democrats scarred by recent elections have a starkly different message for demonstrators:Don’t play into his hands.Five years after the 2020 racial justice movement prompted a wave of cultural changes and then an enduring political backlash, many Democrats are signaling that they now recognize how skillful Republicans can be in using scenes of unrest — whether limited or widespread, accurate or not — to cast liberal lawmakers as tolerant of lawlessness.Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lead fellow Democrats in moment of silence for George Floyd in 2020.Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times“Many of the 2020 protests played out in ways that Democrats did not see and they did not foresee,” said former Senator Doug Jones of Alabama, a Democrat who lost his re-election bid that year. At the time, he said, some did not grasp that “once you got to a certain critical mass of protesters, that some bad things were going to happen.”“I think they do now,” said Mr. Jones, who stressed that Mr. Trump was needlessly escalating tensions. “I also think that they appreciate the fact that any violence is one, is uncalled-for, it needs to be prosecuted. But it’s also playing into the narrative of Donald Trump.”So far, the demonstrations now — relatively small, scattered and generally peaceful — bear little resemblance to the mass protests of 2020, which in some cases devolved into destructive riots.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