United States Politics and Government

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

    • 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

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Sides With Teenager in School Disability Discrimination Case

      by

      Disability rights groups had followed the case closely, warning that arguments by the school district could threaten broader protections for people with disabilities.The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a teenage girl with epilepsy and her parents who had sued a Minnesota school district, claiming that her school had failed to provide reasonable accommodations, which made it difficult for her to receive instruction.The case hinged on what standard of proof was required to show discrimination by public schools in education-related disability lawsuits.In a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the court held that the student and her family needed to show only that the school system had acted with “deliberate indifference” to her educational needs when they sued.That is the same standard that applies when people sue other institutions for discrimination based on disability.The school district argued that a higher standard — a stringent requirement that the institution had acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment” — should apply. Had the district prevailed, the new standard might have applied broadly to all kinds disability rights claims filed under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.That argument had unnerved some disability rights groups, which had cautioned that a ruling for the school could make it much harder for Americans with disabilities to successfully bring court challenges.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

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      California Leaders React to Governor Gavin Newsom’s Speech

      by

      Elected officials, as well as social media influencers, had wide-ranging opinions of the governor’s prime time address warning that democracy is in danger.For months, Californians weren’t sure what to make of Gov. Gavin Newsom.There was the new podcast on which he interviewed right-wing influencers and said he felt trans athletes shouldn’t participate in women’s sports. There was the meeting in February with President Trump in the White House. And there were occasional snipes at Republicans, but nothing like those Mr. Newsom had dished out in years past.Then came a blistering nine-minute speech on Tuesday in which Mr. Newsom warned Americans that Mr. Trump was destroying democracy and acting as an authoritarian who would eventually send the military to states across the country.Many liberals in California cheered Mr. Newsom, finally seeing in him the leader of the resistance that they had been missing. Those feeling confused and fearful since Mr. Trump started his second term were looking for someone to stick up for them and said they appreciated Mr. Newsom’s forcefulness.“In a time of rising fear and growing threats to democracy, he spoke not just as a governor, but as a moral leader,” said Representative Lateefah Simon, Democrat of California. “He named the danger plainly.”But others, while supportive of his message, were not entirely convinced. They said testing the political climate ahead of a potential run for president.“Even if you’re late to the party, you know, welcome to the fight,” said Hugo Soto-Martinez, a progressive City Council member in Los Angeles, who appreciated what Mr. Newsom said but wished the governor had stood up to the president sooner.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 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Immigration Crackdown Hits California Farms

      by

      Farmworkers hid in fields on Tuesday as word spread that ICE agents were conducting raids in California’s breadbasket, an activist said.As a community activist in California’s agricultural heartland, Hazel Davalos spends much of her day talking with migrant farm workers and volunteers. So as word spread Tuesday of immigration raids on the Central Coast and San Joaquin Valley, she heard accounts of some migrants hiding in the fields between rows of crops.Many could not leave the ranches where they work, said Ms. Davalos, executive director of Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy, and others worried about being detained on their commute home. She knows of 40 workers who were detained Tuesday in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, she said.A video published by ABC News showed federal agents chasing a farmworker through the fields Tuesday in Ventura County, northwest of Los Angeles. Raids were also conducted at farms in Kern and Tulare counties, according to Teresa Romero, president of the United Farm Workers union.A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson would not confirm that any of the reported raids took place, but said in a statement that work-site immigration enforcement “protects workers from exploitation and trafficking.”A crowd formed at the back gate of Ambiance Apparel in Los Angeles on Friday after federal immigration agents gathered at the company.Alex Welsh for The New York TimesThe Trump administration is ramping up its immigration crackdown, with a focus on workplaces with undocumented laborers, such as farms, restaurants and construction sites. Estimates show more than eight million undocumented immigrants work in the United States.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