Trump, Donald J
Subterms
More stories
113 Shares199 Views
in ElectionsDefying Trump’s Firing, Smithsonian Says It Controls Personnel Decisions
The Smithsonian is challenging the president’s authority to dismiss the leader of the National Portrait Gallery but says it will look into his complaints.In a challenge to President Trump, the Smithsonian said on Monday that the president did not have the right to fire Kim Sajet, the director of the National Portrait Gallery, despite his recent announcement that she had been terminated.“All personnel decisions are made by and subject to the direction of the secretary, with oversight by the board,” said a statement from the Smithsonian, which oversees that museum and 20 others, as well as libraries, research centers and the National Zoo. “Lonnie G. Bunch, the secretary, has the support of the Board of Regents in his authority and management of the Smithsonian.”The statement came hours after the Board of Regents, including Vice President JD Vance, discussed the president’s announcement at a quarterly meeting. When Mr. Trump said 10 days ago that he had fired Ms. Sajet, he called her “a highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI, which is totally inappropriate for her position.”The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Ms. Sajet was not mentioned in the Smithsonian’s statement. But the board said it was asking Mr. Bunch to take steps to ensure the institution’s nonpartisan nature.“The Smithsonian must be a welcoming place of knowledge and discovery for all Americans,” the statement said. “The Board of Regents is committed to ensuring that the Smithsonian is a beacon of scholarship free from political or partisan influence, and we recognize that our institution can and must do more to further these foundational values.”The statement said the board had directed Mr. Bunch to articulate expectations to museum directors about what is displayed in their institutions and to give them time to make any changes needed “to ensure unbiased content.”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 Elections700 Marines Are Deploying to LA Protests to Join Federal Response
The Pentagon mobilized 700 Marines and 2,000 more National Guard troops even as the president said the situation was “under control.” Gov. Gavin Newsom condemned the escalating response.The Pentagon significantly escalated the federal response to the immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles on Monday, mobilizing a battalion of 700 Marines and doubling the number of California National Guard troops in what officials described as a limited mission to protect federal property and agents, even as President Trump described the situation as “very well under control.”Earlier Monday, Mr. Trump labeled the demonstrators “insurrectionists,” but he stopped short of saying he would invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act, which would allow him to call up the military to intervene directly in putting down the protests.In an announcement, the Pentagon did not make clear why it would need an additional 2,000 National Guard troops. But more worrying to state and city officials, legal experts and Democrats in Congress was the use of active-duty Marines. By tradition and law, American military troops are supposed to be used inside the United States only in the rarest and most extreme situations.The mystery was deepened by the fact that the president said the unrest was calming down thanks to his decision to federalize the California National Guard and send its troops into the streets, over the objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom. On Monday evening, the state filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s move and calling president’s actions illegal.In a statement on Monday night, Sean Parnell, a Pentagon spokesman, said the decision to send the additional National Guard troops was made “at the order of the president.”The mixed messages — Mr. Trump’s flexing of additional military power in response to the protests, even while claiming early success — came after several days in which the president and his allies have appeared to relish the immigration standoff with local and state officials.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 Shares189 Views
in ElectionsTrump’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
75 Shares189 Views
in ElectionsThis 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
163 Shares129 Views
in ElectionsTrump 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
88 Shares99 Views
in ElectionsFrancis Fukuyama: The Nightmare of Revisionist History
This personal reflection is part of a series called The Big Ideas, in which writers respond to a single question: What is history? You can read more by visiting The Big Ideas series page.I’ve been having a recurring nightmare lately.It begins sometime in the 2050s. My grandchildren are in college taking a survey course on contemporary American history. In the textbook, they read that a critical turning point for the United States was the 2020 presidential election, which Joseph R. Biden, Jr. successfully stole from Donald J. Trump. This injustice was corrected only in 2024 when the country returned Mr. Trump to office and began to undo some of the terrible damage that had been done, not just by Mr. Biden, but by a whole series of Democratic and Republican presidents.The U.S. economy has not been all that strong in the past few decades, but Americans are much more self-reliant than in the past. They have realized they do not need all the products, food, movies and people that had once been allowed to pour into the country. Travel outside the country is considered highly overrated.Americans had to adjust, in any case, to the Greater Chinese Co-Prosperity Sphere in Asia, which encompasses Japan, Korea and Taiwan (finally returned to its rightful home in the People’s Republic of China). Wise American presidents had recognized that the people of Asia could make their own decisions without American help and thereby avoided World War III.President Donald J. Trump and the first lady, Melania Trump, arrive at the inaugural parade inside Capital One Arena in Washington, D.C., following Trump’s inauguration as the 47th president on Jan. 20, 2025.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesA similar peace prevails on the western side of the Eurasian continent. Russia had righted the wrong brought about by the breakup of the Soviet Union by reincorporating Ukraine, the three Baltic countries, Georgia, Moldova and eastern Poland into its sphere of influence. Again, the world had been spared a nuclear war when Washington realized it had no business telling Moscow how it should behave toward its neighbors.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 Shares99 Views
in ElectionsTrump Calling Troops Into Los Angeles Is the Real Emergency
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