More stories

  • in

    Pentagon Is Reviewing Deal to Equip Australia With Nuclear Submarines

    The 2021 pact, meant to help counter China’s ambitions in the Asia Pacific, will be examined to ensure that it meets “America First criteria,” a U.S. official said.The Trump administration is reviewing whether a security pact between the United States, Britain and Australia meant to equip Australia with nuclear submarines is “aligned with the president’s America First agenda,” a U.S. defense official said on Wednesday.When the deal was reached under President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s administration in 2021, it was billed as crucial for countering China’s growing military influence in the Asia Pacific. Now, its review appears to reinforce President Trump’s skeptical and transactional approach to longstanding alliances, including demands that allies spend more on their own defense.The Pentagon official said the review would ensure that the pact, known as Aukus, met “common-sense, America First criteria,” including ensuring that U.S. forces are at “the highest readiness,” that allies are doing their part, and that “the defense industrial base is meeting our needs.” The review was first reported by The Financial Times.Australia’s defense minister, Richard Marles, said both Australia and Britain had been notified about the review and that all three nations were still committed to the deal.“We’ve been aware of this for some time. We welcome it,” Mr. Marles said in a radio interview with ABC Melbourne on Thursday, Australia time. “It’s something which is perfectly natural for an incoming administration to do.”Australia sees the Aukus agreement as central to its defense strategy in the coming decades in a region increasingly shaped by China’s assertive military posturing. Nuclear submarines can travel much farther without detection than conventional ones can and would enable the Australian Navy to greatly extend its reach.Under the pact, Australia is scheduled to receive secondhand Virginia-class nuclear submarines from the United States in the 2030s while scaling up the capacity to build its own, using a British design. But there has been concern in both Washington and Canberra about whether the United States can build new submarines to replenish its fleet quickly enough for the older ones to be transferred to Australia.Elbridge Colby, the U.S. under secretary of defense for policy, said during his Senate confirmation hearing in March that he was skeptical about the pragmatic feasibility of the deal. The Financial Times reported that Mr. Colby was heading up the Pentagon review.“So if we can produce the attack submarines in sufficient number and sufficient speed, then great,” Mr. Colby said at the hearing. “But if we can’t, that becomes a very difficult problem.”Even before the review was announced, concern and anxiety had been building in Australia over whether it could continue to depend on its longstanding relationship with the United States, given the Trump administration’s treatment of allies.Mr. Marles, the Australian defense minister, said in the radio interview that he was confident the Aukus deal would proceed because “it’s in the interests of the United States to continue to work with Australia.”Michael D. Shear More

  • in

    Duffy Backs Safety Audit After Deadly Crash Near National Airport

    An investigation will examine what could have prevented an Army Black Hawk helicopter from ramming into an American Airlines flight on Jan. 29, killing all on board both aircraft.Sean Duffy, the secretary of transportation, on Wednesday endorsed calls for the department’s inspector general to audit air safety protocols around the nation’s capital after a fatal January crash between a commercial flight and a military helicopter, as officials told senators the Federal Aviation Administration and the Army would soon sign a policy agreement to avoid such accidents in the future.Mr. Duffy’s pledge to fully support the audit comes after a bipartisan majority of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation earlier this week called on the watchdogs overseeing the Department of Transportation and the Army to examine their safety measures. They asked both inspectors general to investigate whether changes could have helped prevent an Army Black Hawk helicopter from ramming into American Airlines Flight 5342 as it approached Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport on Jan. 29, killing all on board both aircraft, as well as a series of near misses that have occurred in the same region.The National Transportation Safety Board has already started an investigation into the Jan. 29 crash. On Wednesday, its chairwoman, Jennifer Homendy, told senators on the commerce committee during a closed-door meeting with N.T.S.B., F.A.A. and Army officials that the probe would be completed by Jan. 29, 2026, according to Senator Jerry Moran, Republican of Kansas and the chairman of the panel’s aviation subcommittee.In the meantime, the F.A.A. and the Army plan to conclude a memorandum of understanding for safely coordinating air operations, according to senators on the panel and Chris Rocheleau, the acting F.A.A. administrator, who told reporters after the closed-door briefing that they were “getting close” to an agreement.A crane lifted part of the fuselage from the wreckage of an American Airlines plane that crashed after a collision with a Black Hawk helicopter on the Potomac River in Arlington, Va., in February.Al Drago for The New York TimesSince the crash, the F.A.A. has closed the flight route used by the Army Black Hawk on Jan. 29 to military traffic, and the military has limited the availability of V.I.P. flights — the missions for which the Army pilots were training that night — to just a handful of senior officials, Mr. Moran said. Previously, he added, V.I.P. flights were available to generals with at least a three-star rank; now, they are only available to the secretary of defense, his under secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his deputy.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

  • in

    Mikie Sherrill Wins the Democratic Primary for Governor of New Jersey

    Ms. Sherrill, the only woman in a six-candidate race for the Democratic nomination, emphasized her service as a U.S. Navy helicopter pilot.Representative Mikie Sherrill on Tuesday won the Democratic Party’s nomination to run for governor of New Jersey, capping a hard-fought primary that featured a large field of prominent and well-funded candidates.With about 90 percent of the estimated vote reported, Ms. Sherrill, a former U.S. Navy helicopter pilot who represents New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District, was outpacing five other candidates by a wide margin, according to The Associated Press.She is now expected to compete in November’s general election against Jack Ciattarelli, the winner of Tuesday’s Republican primary. Mr. Ciattarelli, a former state assemblyman, is running his third race for governor and is backed by President Trump, who has made clear his goal of helping to propel a Republican to the State House in Trenton after eight years of Democratic control.Mayor Ras J. Baraka of Newark was in second place, just ahead of Mayor Steven Fulop of Jersey City, according to results tallied by the A.P., which are likely to change somewhat after ballots mailed by Election Day are fully counted.The three other candidates carved up the balance of the total vote: Representative Josh Gottheimer, of New Jersey’s Fifth Congressional District; Sean Spiller, the president of the New Jersey Education Association; and Stephen Sweeney, a former State Senate president.“I’m going to protect our rights — including a right to an abortion,” Ms. Sherrill told supporters gathered in Morristown, N.J., to celebrate her victory. As for Mr. Ciattarelli, she said, “I am ready to shake up the status quo, and Jack is the status quo.”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

  • in

    Transcript: Read Gavin Newsom’s Speech Criticizing Trump Over Protests

    In a prime time address, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California sharply criticized President Trump for sending in the military to handle the protests in Los Angeles.Gov. Gavin Newsom of California delivered a speech on Tuesday, titled “Democracy at a Crossroads.” The following is a transcript of his remarks as broadcast online and on television channels:I want to say a few words about the events of the last few days.This past weekend, federal agents conducted large-scale workplace raids in and around Los Angeles. Those raids continue as I speak.California is no stranger to immigration enforcement. But instead of focusing on undocumented immigrants with serious criminal records and people with final deportation orders, a strategy both parties have long supported, this administration is pushing mass deportations, indiscriminately targeting hardworking immigrant families, regardless of their roots or risk.What’s happening right now is very different than anything we’ve seen before. On Saturday morning, when federal agents jumped out of an unmarked van near a Home Depot parking lot, they began grabbing people. A deliberate targeting of a heavily Latino suburb. A similar scene also played out when a clothing company was raided downtown.In other actions, a U.S. citizen, nine months pregnant, was arrested; a 4-year-old girl, taken; families separated; friends, quite literally, disappearing.In response, everyday Angelinos came out to exercise their Constitutional right to free speech and assembly, to protest their government’s actions. In turn, the State of California and the City and County of Los Angeles sent our police officers to help keep the peace and, with some exceptions, they were successful.Like many states, California is no stranger to this sort of unrest. We manage it regularly, and with our own law enforcement. But this, again, was different.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

  • in

    Newsom Says Trump Is Destroying U.S. Democracy in Speech on L.A. Protests

    Gov. Gavin Newsom, in an address called “Democracy at a Crossroads,” called on Americans to stand up to President Trump.Gov. Gavin Newsom of California criticized President Trump’s decision to send the National Guard and the Marines to Los Angeles and asked people to “reflect on this perilous moment.”Rich Pedroncelli/Associated PressGov. Gavin Newsom made the case in a televised address Tuesday evening that President Trump’s decisions to send military forces to immigration protests in Los Angeles have put the nation at the precipice of authoritarianism.The California governor urged Americans to stand up to Mr. Trump, calling it a “perilous moment” for democracy and the country’s long-held legal norms.“California may be first, but it clearly won’t end here,” Mr. Newsom said, speaking to cameras from a studio in Los Angeles. “Other states are next. Democracy is next.”“Democracy is under assault right before our eyes — the moment we’ve feared has arrived,” he added.Mr. Newsom spoke on the fifth day of protests in Los Angeles against federal immigration raids that have sent fear and anger through many communities in Southern California. He said Mr. Trump had “inflamed a combustible situation” by taking over California’s National Guard, and by calling up 4,000 troops and 700 Marines.The governor is considered a possible Democratic presidential candidate in 2028, and his Tuesday night speech, called “Democracy at a Crossroads,” sounded national in scope. It aired on some national networks and on Mr. Newsom’s social media accounts, with audio problems in the opening minutes.The current political standoff has made it possible for Mr. Newsom to have a wider platform, and he has jousted with President Trump and Republicans for several days in interviews and on social media.“Authoritarian regimes begin by targeting people who are least able to defend themselves,” Mr. Newsom said in his speech. “But they do not stop there. Trump and his loyalists thrive on division because it allows them to take more power and exert even more control.”The address was an unusual move for Mr. Newsom, who has dyslexia and dislikes reading from a teleprompter to deliver formal speeches. But he has been using every communication channel possible to raise alarms about the extraordinary measures Mr. Trump has taken to mobilize the military for domestic uses.Not since the civil rights movement in the 1960s has a president sent National Guard troops to quell unrest without the support of the state’s governor.“I ask everyone to take the time to reflect on this perilous moment,” he said, “a president who wants to be bound by no law or constitution, perpetrating a unified assault on American traditions.” More

  • in

    700 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

  • in

    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

  • in

    Trump 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