West Coast

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares33 Views

    ICE detains British journalist after criticism of Israel on US tour

    by

    British journalist Sami Hamdi was reportedly detained on Sunday morning by federal immigration authorities at San Francisco international airport, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair) says that action is apparent retaliation for the Muslim political commentator’s criticism of Israel while touring the US.A statement from Cair said it was “a blatant affront to free speech” to detain Hamdi for criticizing Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza while he engaged on a speaking tour in the US. A Trump administration official added in a separate statement that Hamdi is facing deportation.“Our attorneys and partners are working to address this injustice,” Cair’s statement said. The statement also called on US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “to immediately account for and release Mr Hamdi”, saying his only “‘crime’ is criticizing a foreign government” that Cair accused of having “committed genocide”.The press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, Tricia McLaughlin, wrote of Hamdi in a social media post: “This individual’s visa was revoked, and he is in ICE custody pending removal”.McLaughlin’s post also said: “Those who support terrorism and undermine American national security will not be allowed to work or visit this country.”During his tour, Hamdi spoke on Saturday at the annual gala for Cair’s chapter in Sacramento. He was expected to speak on Sunday at the gala for the Florida chapter of Cair.McLaughlin’s post about Hamdi’s detention was shared by Trump administration ally Laura Loomer, who took credit for his being taken into custody.Loomer, who has called herself a “white advocate” and a “proud Islamophobe”, has often peddled conspiracy theories such as endorsing claims that the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001 were an “inside job”.In 2018, she infamously chained herself to Twitter’s headquarters in New York City in protest of her account being banned. Billionaire businessman Elon Musk reinstated her account after he bought the social media platform in 2022.“As a direct result of … my relentless pressure on the [state department] and Department of Homeland Security, US officials have now moved to take action against Hamdi’s visa status, and his continued presence in this country,” Loomer posted on social media.Hamdi is the latest of numerous immigrants who have been arrested and deported by ICE over pro-Palestinian views. Earlier in October, journalist Mario Guevara was deported to El Salvador after having been detailed while live streaming the massive, anti-Trump No Kings protest in June.On 30 September, a federal judge appointed during Ronald Reagan’s presidency ruled the administration’s policy to detain and deport foreign scholars over pro-Palestinian views violates the US constitution and was designed to “intentionally” chill free speech rights.The ruling is bound to be appealed, possibly all the way to the US supreme court, which is dominated by a conservative supermajority made possible by three Trump appointments. The state department, meanwhile, has said it will continue revoking visas under the policy. More

    More stories

    • 113 Shares28 Views

      in US Politics

      Gavin Newsom confirms he is considering 2028 presidential run

      by

      Gavin Newsom, California’s Democratic governor, told CBS News Sunday Morning he plans to make a decision on whether to run for president in 2028 once the 2026 midterm elections are over.“Yeah, I’d be lying otherwise,” Newsom said in response to a question on whether he would give serious thought to a White House bid after the 2026 elections. “I’d just be lying. And I’m not – I can’t do that.”Newsom’s term as governor ends in January 2027 and he is not able to run again due to term limits, but cautioned that a decision is years away.“Fate will determine that,” he said.The California governor has emerged as a high-profile critic of the Trump administration through his social media accounts and push of a ballot measure that would increase Democrats’ congressional seats in response to Republican redistricting efforts – a move that has made him a target for critics.Donald Trump’s secretary of transportation, Sean Duffy, accused Newsom of not caring about Californians in an interview with Fox News on Sunday as Duffy revealed plans to pull federal funds from California and threatened to revoke California’s ability to issue commercial driver’s licenses.“I’m about to pull $160m from California,” Duffy said, after US homeland security said earlier this week an undocumented semi truck driver caused a fatal crash in California that killed three people and injured four. Newsom’s office noted the federal government reauthorized the driver’s employment multiple times, which allowed him to obtain a commercial drivers license under federal law.Duffy already said he was withholding $40m from California for not enforcing English language requirements for truck drivers.“Former D-list reality star, now Secretary of Transportation, still doesn’t understand federal law,” Newsom’s office said in a statement last month in response to Duffy threatening to withhold federal funds from the state. “In the meantime, unlike this clown, we’ll stick to the facts: California commercial driver’s license holders had a fatal crash rate nearly 40% LOWER than the national average. Texas – the only state with more commercial holders – has a rate almost 50% higher than California. Facts don’t lie. The Trump administration does.”A CBS poll conducted earlier this month found 72% of Democrats and 48% of all registered voters said Newsom should run for president in 2028. Since Trump took office, Newsom’s favorability has increased to an average of 33.5% from about 30% and his unfavorability has decreased from an average of over 40% to 38.4%, according to Decision Desk HQ.Earlier this year, Newsom told CBS while on a trip to several battleground states around the US on whether he plans to run in 2028: “I have no idea.”He noted his earlier challenges in life, including being diagnosed with dyslexia at the age of five.“The idea that a guy who got 960 on his SAT, that still struggles to read scripts, that was always in the back of the classroom, the idea that you would even throw that out is, in and of itself, extraordinary,” he said. “Who the hell knows? I’m looking forward to who presents themselves in 2028 and who meets that moment. And that’s the question for the American people.” More

    • 125 Shares66 Views

      in US Politics

      How ‘screw Trump’ messaging may help California’s Proposition 50 prevail

      by

      There are many ways to characterize Proposition 50, the single ballot initiative that Californians will be voting on this election season.You could say it’s about redrawing congressional district lines outside the regular once-a-decade schedule. You could say, more precisely, that it’s about counterbalancing Republican efforts to engineer congressional seats in their favor in Texas and elsewhere with a gerrymander that favors the Democrats. You could, like the measure’s detractors, call it a partisan power grab that risks undermining 15 years of careful work to make California’s congressional elections as fair and competitive as possible.The way California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, and the Democrats are selling it to voters, though, boils down to something much simpler and more visceral: it’s an invitation to raise a middle finger to Donald Trump, a president fewer than 40% of Californians voted for and many loathe – for reasons that extend far beyond his attempts at election manipulation. For that reason alone, the yes campaign believes it is cruising to an easy victory.“There’s actually a double tease here,” said Garry South, one of California’s most experienced and most outspoken Democratic political consultants who has been cheer-leading the measure. “Trump and Texas, the state Californians love to hate. How can you lose an initiative that’s going to stick it to both?”Proposition 50, also known as the Election Rigging Response Act, proposes amending the California constitution and suspending the work of the state’s independent redistricting commission until 2031 so the Democrats can carve out five additional safe seats. That wouldn’t significantly change the power balance in California, since Democrats already occupy 43 of the state’s 52 House seats.But it would compensate for the five seats that Texas Republicans, acting on Trump’s direct urging, wrested for themselves earlier this year. “Fight fire with fire,” has been Newsom’s mantra, and several influential national figures in the Democratic party – everyone from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the prominent New York congresswoman, to former president Barack Obama – have signed on.Democrats are optimistic they will see a significant vote shift in their favor next year, because Trump’s approval ratings are already underwater in the swing states that he narrowly won last November, and in California he is polling as low as 29%.But that won’t translate into more congressional seats if district boundaries are redrawn in a way that protects vulnerable Republican incumbents and eliminates meaningful competition. According to one estimate by the Brennan Center for Justice, Republicans already have a net 16-seat advantage for themselves in House races, thanks to gerrymandering efforts across the country in the wake of the 2020 census. The Texas move increases that advantage to 21 seats. And similar, smaller-scale moves in Missouri and North Carolina bring it to 23.“Republicans want to steal enough seats in Congress to rig the next election and wield unchecked power for two more years,” Obama charges in a widely aired campaign ad that began circulating last week. “With Prop 50, you can stop Republicans in their tracks.”Polls and focus groups suggest many Californians have mixed feelings about abandoning their state’s non-partisan district maps, but a slim majority say they see the need to do so anyway and plan to vote yes on 4 November.Support for the measure has been rising steadily. Earlier this month, the yes vote was barely cracking 50% in most of the polling, and about 15% of poll respondents said they were undecided. Another 30% indicated that their support for or against was soft.Two surveys published this week, however, showed Proposition 50 passing by at least a 20-point margin and the yes vote is now up in the high 50s or low 60s. Fully three-quarters of those intending to vote yes told a CBS News poll conducted by YouGov that they were doing so to oppose Trump, just as the yes campaign has been urging.Ballot initiatives are not quite like other elections, though, especially in an off-year election likely to result in lower turnout than usual.“The history of [these] campaigns in this state shows that late-deciding voters tend to vote against initiatives,” said Dan Schnur, a former Republican campaign consultant who teaches political communications at Berkeley and the University of Southern California. “They’re expressing an inherent skepticism that arises if voters don’t know a lot about a measure. They want to guard against it making their lives worse.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe latest polling data suggests that such last-minute skepticism may not apply in this case, most likely because Trump is such a polarizing, and motivating factor. Polls consistently show higher support for Proposition 50 among so-called “high propensity” voters – those who show up at the polls time after time – and early mail-in voting returns indicate stronger than usual numbers, with registered Democrats outnumbering registered Republicans by almost a two-to-one margin.The “yes” side has outraised the “no” side and been far more visible in campaign ads and appearances. Kevin McCarthy, the former House speaker who represented a southern California district for 16 years, promised over the summer to raise $100m to defeat Proposition 50 but has managed only a tiny fraction of that – less than $6m, according to the secretary of state’s office. And the big Republican guns who might ordinarily have hit the campaign trail have been conspicuous by their absence – something that suggests to many political observers they think the fight is unwinnable.Overall, the yes campaign has outraised the no campaign by about $138m to $82m.Even the pleas of the no campaign’s most visible advocate, Arnold Schwarzenegger, have proven ineffective. According to an Emerson poll, two-thirds of voters say it makes no difference to them what Schwarzenegger thinks. As a Republican, he lacks credibility with many Democrats, and as a moderate who loathes Trump, he has little traction with the Republican base. More than 20% of voters say his advocacy actually makes them more likely to do the opposite of what he wants.The problem for the no campaign, according to South and others, is that there is no message persuasive enough to counter the visceral appeal of “screw Trump”, particularly at a time when California voters are angry about ICE raids, military deployments in US cities including Los Angeles, federal funding cuts, the destruction of the East Wing of the White House, and more.Some groups, including one led by the billionaire Charles Munger Jr that has ploughed more than $30m into the no campaign, have pushed the argument that Proposition 50 is undemocratic. But national polling has consistently shown that appeals to democracy do little to sway voters because both sides think it is at stake. Calling Proposition 50 a “power grab” merely reminds voters that Republicans in Texas grabbed power first.Other opponents, including Steve Hilton, the leading Republican candidate in next year’s governor’s race, have sought to stir voter discontent with Newsom and cast the initiative as one more distraction cooked up by a governor with national ambitions when he should be focusing on the state’s housing shortage and affordability crisis. Hilton calls Proposition 50 an “illegal and corrupt contribution to [Newsom’s as yet unannounced] presidential campaign”.That works as red meat for the Republican base. But the last time Republicans tried to turn the California electorate against Newsom in a stand-alone ballot initiative – a recall vote in 2021 – Newsom prevailed by a 62-38 margin. And Newsom’s approval numbers have only increased as a result of Proposition 50.“The no side has two problems with its core argument,” South said. “It’s too complicated, and it’s too abstract. The average voter doesn’t have a clue what their congressional lines are. And, in addition to that, they don’t care.“So the choice comes down to: you can screw Trump, or you can pay homage to a redistricting commission that voters approved in 2010 and probably don’t remember. There’s no way this thing loses.” More

    • 213 Shares59 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump was planning to send troops to San Francisco. Now he’s not. Here’s why | Joe Eskenazi

      by

      This story was published in collaboration with Mission Local.The mayor of San Francisco said on Thursday that Donald Trump had simply called him – no go-betweens or consigliere required – and told him there would no longer be a deployment of federal agents or troops to the city.The president simply dialed Daniel Lurie up and talked at him. And, just like that, a daylong crisis and flood-the-zone news cycle across the Bay Area regarding the imminent deployment of border protection agents to the region was quelled. Or not: Oakland’s mayor, Barbara Lee, said the president didn’t call her. Lurie and other local leaders are taking the president’s words to mean that the rest of the Bay Area will be spared – but there was no overt pledge regarding that.It’s great for the people of San Francisco that the president has capriciously decided to unsend the troops he capriciously decided to send. But the real story here is, per the president’s summation on social media of his discussion with Lurie, that the commander-in-chief is overtly stating that he is basing a domestic military deployment upon what local “friends of mine” (the billionaire CEOs Jensen Huang of Nvidia and the local boy Marc Benioff of Salesforce) lobbied him to do. Trump also noted that Lurie asked him “very nicely” not to establish a military beachhead in San Francisco.All for the good. But what if Huang and Benioff had been in the mood for a military parade and called for sending in the troops? What if Lurie had been less polite?If things had gone even slightly differently, it stands to reason that federal immigration agents and/or armed troops could be rolling through the city by now.There are only so many turns of phrase you can employ: this is just a profoundly fucked-up way to lead a country. It’s like dealing with King George or a warlord out of the dark Ages.This city’s billionaires are very good at some things, and those things have made them a lot of money. But being good at those things doesn’t make your average billionaire an expert on military intervention, the local drug trade or, for that matter, immigration policy or crime in the city.Speaking of capricious, Benioff was for sending in the guard before he was against it.It figures: Salesforce veterans tell me they expect Benioff would do great schmoozing in a one-on-one with the president – because their personalities are so similar.For a guy who drinks so much coffee, Daniel Lurie is remarkably even-keeled. When asked about his discussion with Trump, Lurie told the press that he simply recited all of San Francisco’s heartening crime statistics over the telephone – and kept reciting them, sprinkling in a little real estate boosterism along the way.“Everything I told you is all I said to him,” the mayor said today. “I keep repeating, and I said to him, that we are at 70-year lows when it comes to violent crimes. Tent encampments are at record lows. I spoke about more office space being leased than vacated. For the first time, retail is back. Hotel bookings are up 50%. Convention bookings are also up 50%. This is a city on the rise. And that’s what I said to him. And that’s what I say to everybody.”The president, Lurie said, “asked nothing of me”. Nobody was made to purchase Trump’s 555 California St property at an exorbitant markup. No promises to build a Trump Tower on top of Salesforce Tower were required to call off the troops. It remains unclear whether Lurie finally referred to Trump by name when on the phone with Trump. Evidently, he wasn’t asked to.I’d like to think the mayor really did say “retail is back!” to the man presently tearing down the White House to install a ballroom fit for people who feel Versailles is too understated. If he did, it worked.But nobody is expecting peace in our time: “They want to give it a ‘shot’,” Trump wrote. “Therefore we will not surge San Francisco on Saturday.”All of the things Lurie told the president – and “everybody” – are true. We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: subjectively, you may not feel safe in San Francisco. Objectively, you’ve rarely been safer. San Francisco’s reported crime totals are low, and that’s something you could say before this mayor or this president. We are on pace for our lowest homicide total since 1954, but last year’s total was the lowest since 1961. Car break-ins, which were long part of the San Francisco Condition and gave us the municipal nickname “bip city” are way down.But the fact that it was true does not matter: what Huang or Benioff or other billionaire pals tell the president is what matters.The problem, however, is that parts of San Francisco still look gnarly – gnarlier, arguably, than they did in the 1970s when teams of serial killers roamed the streets. There are swaths of the city in which people are living in overt filth and misery and are overtly buying, selling and using drugs. There are still unhoused people, drug addicts and unhoused drug addicts shambling about. They may be disinclined to give you the Zodiac killer treatment, but their presence makes people uncomfortable. This makes people – including terminally online tech CEOs and venture capitalists – feel unsafe. This makes ostensibly intelligent tech barons ping the president on social media and ask him to send in the national guard.If Lurie did indeed stave off an intervention of armed soldiers or rampaging immigration agents by telling the truth, then more power to him. To paraphrase the familiar quote, honesty is one of the better policies.But the “shot” Lurie has apparently been granted was to clean up a problem he has explained – quantitatively – that we don’t have. Lurie will purportedly meet with the attorney general, Pam Bondi. But it remains to be seen whether any federal assistance from the FBI or DEA to combat drug trafficking doesn’t come with serious – and capricious – strings attached. Every bargain with Trump and his gang is a Faustian bargain.San Francisco’s crime stats have been headed the right way for a while. But our gnarliness vibes have not – so we recalled our district attorney and dumped our prior mayor. It’s not enough for Lurie to point to numbers. He has to deliver the right vibes – the kind of vibes that can appease our billionaire class and the president they call up and lobby. That’s a hard job. Get that man a cup of coffee.Retail, they say, is back. It remains to be seen whether and when federal immigration agents will be, too.

      Joe Eskenazi is an editor and columnist for Mission Local. Io Yeh Gilman and Xueer Lu contributed reporting More

    • 138 Shares63 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump officials to send election observers to California and New Jersey

      by

      The Department of Justice is preparing to send federal election observers to California and New Jersey next month, targeting two Democratic states holding off-year elections following requests from state Republican parties.The department announced it was planning to monitor polling sites in Passaic county, New Jersey, and five counties in southern and central California: Los Angeles, Orange, Kern, Riverside and Fresno. The goal, according to the department, is “to ensure transparency, ballot security, and compliance with federal law”.“Transparency at the polls translates into faith in the electoral process, and this Department of Justice is committed to upholding the highest standards of election integrity,” Pam Bondi, the attorney general, said in a statement to the Associated Press.Election monitoring is a routine function of the justice department, but the focus on California and New Jersey comes as both states are set to hold closely-watched elections with national consequences on 4 November. New Jersey has an open seat for governor that has attracted major spending by both parties and California is holding a special election aimed at redrawing the state’s congressional map to counter Republican gerrymandering efforts elsewhere ahead of the 2026 midterms.The justice department’s efforts are also the latest salvo in the Republican party’s preoccupation with election integrity after Donald Trump spent years refusing to accept the results of the 2020 election and falsely railing against mail-in voting as rife with fraud. Democrats fear the new administration will attempt to gain an upper hand in next year’s midterms with similarly unfounded allegations of fraud.The announcement comes days after the Republican parties in both states wrote letters to the department requesting their assistance. Some leading Democrats in the states condemned the decision.New Jersey attorney general Matt Platkin called the move “highly inappropriate” and said the DoJ “has not even attempted to identify a legitimate basis for its actions”.Rusty Hicks, chair of the California Democratic party, said: “No amount of election interference by the California Republican party is going to silence the voices of California voters.”The letter from the California GOP, sent Monday and obtained by the AP, asked Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the DOJ’s civil rights division, to provide monitors to observe the election in the five counties.“In recent elections, we have received reports of irregularities in these counties that we fear will undermine either the willingness of voters to participate in the election or their confidence in the announced results of the election,” wrote GOP chair Corrin Rankin.The state is set to vote 4 November on a redistricting proposition that would dramatically redraw California’s congressional lines to add as many as five additional Democratic seats to its US House delegation.Each of the counties named, they alleged, has experienced recent voting issues, such as sending incorrect or duplicate ballots to voters. They also take issue with how Los Angeles and Orange counties maintain their voter rolls.California is one of at least eight states the department has sued as part of a wide-ranging request for detailed voter roll information involving at least half the states. The department has not said why it wants the data.Brandon Richards, a spokesman for Governor Gavin Newsom, said the department has no standing to “interfere” with California’s election because the ballot contains only a state-specific initiative and has no federal races.“Deploying these federal forces appears to be an intimidation tactic meant for one thing: suppress the vote,” he said.Orange county registrar of voters Bob Page described his county’s elections as “accessible, accurate, fair, secure, and transparent.”Los Angeles county clerk Dean Logan said election observers are standard practice across the country and that the county, with 5.8 million registered voters, is continuously updating and verifying its voter records.“Voters can have confidence their ballot is handled securely and counted accurately,” he said.Most Californians vote using mail ballots returned through the postal service, drop-boxes or at local voting centers. But in pursuit of accuracy and counting every vote, California has gained a reputation for tallies that can drag on for weeks – and sometimes longer.California’s request echoed a similar letter sent by New Jersey Republicans asking the DOJ to dispatch election monitors to “oversee the receipt and processing of vote-by-mail ballots” and “monitor access to the board of elections around the clock” in suburban Passaic county ahead of the state’s governor’s race.The New Jersey Republican state committee told Dhillon federal intervention was necessary to ensure an accurate vote count in the heavily Latino county that was once a Democratic stronghold, but shifted to Trump in last year’s presidential race.David Becker, a former DoJ attorney who has served as an election monitor and trained them, said the work is typically done by department lawyers who are prohibited from interfering at polling places.But Becker, now executive director of the Center for Election Integrity & Research, said local jurisdictions normally agree to the monitors’ presence.If the administration tried to send monitors without a clear legal rationale to a place where local officials did not want them, “that could result in chaos,” he said. More

    • 125 Shares63 Views

      in US Politics

      Portland judge rejects Trump request to allow national guard deployment

      by

      A federal judge in Portland, Oregon, on Friday rejected the Trump administration’s request to immediately lift her order blocking the deployment of federalized national guard troops to the city, saying that she would decide the matter by Monday.The hearing in Portland and one in Washington DC are the latest in a head-spinning array of lawsuits and overlapping rulings prompted by Trump’s push to send the military into Democratic-run cities despite fierce resistance from mayors and governors. Troop deployment remains blocked in the Chicago area, where all sides are waiting to see whether the US supreme court intervenes to allow it.The Portland district court judge, Karin Immergut, who is based in the city, had previously issued two temporary restraining orders blocking the deployment of national guards troops there, in response to a persistent but small protest outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office.Her first order, blocking the deployment of 200 troops from the Oregon national guard, said that Donald Trump had exceeded his authority by taking federal control of the troops based on his claim that the city was in a state of war-like rebellion. Trump’s assessment, Immergut ruled, was “simply untethered to the facts”.When Trump responded to that order by sending 200 troops from California’s national guard to Oregon, and threatened to send 400 more from Texas, Immergut determined it was an attempt to evade her order, and issued a second order barring the deployment of troops from anywhere in the country to Portland.Immergut’s first order was lifted on Monday by a three-judge panel of the ninth circuit court of appeals, over the strong dissent of the only judge on the panel who lives in Portland. But because the government never appealed Immergut’s second order, it remains in effect and the deployment of troops remains blocked until she decides whether or not to lift or modify it in response to the appeals court ruling.At a virtual hearing on Friday, Immergut cited two reasons for her to delay lifting the second injunction. The first was that the appeals court did not address a central fact in her second order: that she had issued it in part because the government responded to her first order by attempting to evade it. The second was that the ninth circuit appeals court is currently considering a call from one of its judges to rehear the appeal of her first order before a larger panel of 11 judges.At the end of the hearing, Immergut said that she would decide by Monday, if not earlier.The US district judge, Jia Cobb, an appointee of Joe Biden, was hearing arguments Friday on a request from Brian Schwalb, the District of Columbia attorney general, for an order that would remove more than 2,000 guard members from Washington streets.In August, Trump issued an executive order declaring a crime emergency in the district – though the Department of Justice itself says violent crime there is at a 30-year low.Within a month, more than 2,300 guard troops from eight states and the district were patrolling under the army secretary’s command. Trump also deployed hundreds of federal agents to assist them.It is unclear how long the deployments will last, but attorneys from Schwalb’s office said troops were likely to remain in Washington through at least next summer.“Our constitutional democracy will never be the same if these occupations are permitted to stand,” they wrote.Government lawyers said Congress empowered the president to control the DC national guard’s operation. They argued that Schwalb’s lawsuit is a frivolous “political stunt” threatening to undermine a successful campaign to reduce violent crime in Washington.Although the emergency period ended in September, more than 2,200 troops remain. Several states told the Associated Press they would bring their units home by 30 November, unless their deployment is extended.Among the states that sent troops to the district was West Virginia. A civic organization called the West Virginia Citizen Action Group says the governor, Patrick Morrisey, exceeded his authority by deploying 300 to 400 guard members to support Trump’s efforts there.Morrisey has said West Virginia “is proud to stand with President Trump”, and his office has said the deployment was authorized under federal law. The state attorney general’s office has asked Richard D Lindsay, a Kanawha county circuit court judge, to reject the case, saying the group has not been harmed and lacks standing to challenge Morrisey’s decision.Lindsay heard some arguments Friday before continuing the hearing to 3 November to give the state time to focus more on whether Morrisey had the authority to deploy the cuard members.“I want that issue addressed,” Lindsay said.April Perry, a district judge, on Wednesday blocked guard deployment to the Chicago area until a case in her court is decided or the US supreme court intervenes. Perry previously blocked the deployment for two weeks through a temporary restraining order.Attorneys representing the federal government said they would agree to extend the order, but would also continue pressing for an emergency order from the supreme court that would allow for the deployment.Lawyers representing Chicago and Illinois have asked the supreme court to continue to block the deployment, calling it a “dramatic step”. More

    • 163 Shares63 Views

      in US Politics

      Daniel Lurie: the millionaire mayor who got Trump to back off (for now)

      by

      Donald Trump rarely has kind words for Democrats, especially those who stand in his way. But on Thursday the president offered something unfamiliar: a compliment.As federal agents mobilized at a US Coast Guard base in the Bay Area, Trump credited San Francisco’s new mayor, Daniel Lurie, for “very nicely” persuading him to stand down from a planned immigration enforcement “surge” in the city this weekend.“I spoke to Mayor Lurie last night and he asked, very nicely, that I give him a chance to see if he can turn it around,” Trump wrote, without hurling an epithet or nickname. “I told him, ‘It’s an easier process if we do it, faster, stronger, and safer but, let’s see how you do?’”Speaking later at a midday news conference at city hall, Lurie said it was the president who initiated the conversation: “He picked up the phone and called me.”Trump had conveyed “clearly” that he was calling off the deployment of federal troops, Lurie told reporters, clarifying that the president had “asked nothing of me” in return.It was not Lurie’s assurances alone that changed Trump’s mind. According to the president’s Truth Social post, “friends of mine who live in the area” called to vouch for the “substantial progress” San Francisco had made since Lurie took the helm in January. Trump specifically cited “great people” such as Marc Benioff, the CEO of Salesforce who ignited a firestorm when he suggested the president should send national guard troops to his native San Francisco before apologizing and backtracking, as well as Jensen Huang, the president and chief executive of Nvidia.“They want to give it a ‘shot’,” Trump wrote, summarizing the feedback he had received. “Therefore, we will not surge San Francisco on Saturday. Stay tuned!”Lurie, the 48-year-old heir to the Levi Strauss fortune, swept into city hall promising a reset for a city that had struggled with both real post-pandemic challenges – an empty downtown, an enduring homelessness emergency, an addiction crisis, repeated reports of corruption – and a caricatured portrayal by Trump and his rightwing allies as a Democratic-run hellscape awash in decay and crime. His victory over incumbent London Breed last November was widely viewed as a rebuke of San Francisco’s political status quo, and a test of whether a political newcomer and centrist pragmatist could help the city overcome its woes – and the perception that it was worse off than it was.So far, the statistics have trended in the right direction. The California governor’s office said earlier this month that San Francisco saw a 45% decrease in homicides and 40% drop in robberies from 2019 to 2025. The city is on track to have the lowest number of homicides in more than 70 years, according to a recent San Francisco Chronicle analysis.Yet looming over Lurie’s early months in office were questions over how he would fare in a showdown with the mercurial president who has made his antagonism towards the city clear for years. It’s a calculation every Democratic mayor and blue state governor has made as Trump threatens a widening federal crackdown on major US cities.At a moment when Democrats across the country are yearning for a confrontational foil to Trump, Lurie stuck to a “heads down” approach, insisting his top priority was keeping residents safe. Lurie rarely, if ever, refers to the president by name, and even when criticizing the administration, he avoids attacking Trump in personal terms. It is a stark contrast to Gavin Newsom, the California governor (and a former San Francisco mayor), who has emerged as a leading figure in the anti-Trump resistance and pillories the president daily on social media.In recent days, as tensions rose and Trump signaled he was prepared to send troops into San Francisco, Lurie carried on as he had, “laser-focused” on boosting the “greatest city in the world”. While he was firm that the city opposed a federal deployment, he refrained from criticizing the president directly. The mayor kept residents informed with a series of video messages in his signature direct-to-camera style, promising to protect the city’s immigrant communities and urging residents to protest peacefully. “While we cannot control the federal government, here in San Francisco,” he said earlier this week, “we define who we are.”The ties he has forged with Silicon Valley’s prominent leaders, as part of his mission to keep tech companies in San Francisco, appeared to have also helped defuse the situation, at least for now.At the press conference on Thursday, Lurie said he welcomed San Francisco’s “continued partnership” with federal authorities to tackle drugs and crime. He touted the city’s progress, noting that crime was down – violent crime particularly. The city had added police officers, workers were returning to the office, and downtown buildings were being leased and purchased, Lurie said he impressed on the builder turned president. The mayor’s message, too, was clear: “San Francisco’s comeback is real.”Lurie’s management of the city – and the president – has earned glowing reviews. Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker who represents San Francisco, said Lurie had “demonstrated exceptional leadership in his steadfast commitment to the safety and wellbeing of San Franciscans”.“I salute Mayor Lurie for standing up for our City and reinforcing San Francisco’s strength, optimism and recovery,” she said on X.Yet much remained unclear – whether Trump was calling off the anticipated national guard deployment or a ramped-up immigration enforcement effort, or whether he might send troops elsewhere in the Bay Area. The president has mentioned Oakland as another possible target – and, as ever, reserved the right to change his mind. Unlike Lurie, Oakland’s mayor, Barbara Lee, received no such call from the president, but said she was ready to “engage with anyone, at any level of government, to protect Oakland residents”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAt his press conference, Lurie said he could only repeat what the president told him during their call.“Our city remains prepared for any scenario,” he said. “We have a plan in place that can be activated at any moment.”Trump’s sudden reversal came as a surprise to local leaders and advocates, as protests against the federal intervention amassed at the Coast Guard base in Alameda on Thursday morning.Rights groups and community activists have urged Lurie and other city officials to take bolder steps to defend immigrants, some calling for a state of emergency if a federal deployment takes place, a designation that could help quickly boost resources for targeted communities. Others have called on Lurie to establish “safe zones” that federal agents cannot enter and declare an eviction moratorium, since raids and fears of ICE enforcement can force people to hide out and miss work.Outside San Francisco’s city hall, local leaders and organizers were also grappling with the whiplash.“At this time, we do not know which federal agencies are being called off. We don’t know if that’s the national guard. We don’t know if it’s ICE, if it’s border patrol,” said Jackie Fielder, the San Francisco city supervisor representing parts of the city’s Mission neighborhood. She said any federal agents deputized to help Trump “carry out his mass deportation plans” were “absolutely not welcome in San Francisco”.Newsom, who has made a sport of publicly clashing with Trump, said Trump’s decision to call off the deployment was proof of the president’s capriciousness and warned residents not to take the president at his word. “Business leaders made the phone call to Donald Trump – now we know who he listens to,” the governor said at an event in San Jose on Thursday, adding: “If you think this story just ended – that it’s got a period or exclamation point – you know better.”Even as Trump boasted of his own restraint, Lurie’s instinct was the opposite: deflect attention and press ahead. Asked on Thursday whether his approach could serve as a model for other Democratic mayors facing an unwanted federal intervention, Lurie demurred, suggesting the question was better left to the political chattering class.“Every day I’m focused on San Francisco,” he said. “Heads down. How do we keep our city safe?”Maanvi Singh in San Francisco and Sam Levin in Los Angeles contributed reporting More

    • 163 Shares71 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump cancels plans to send federal troops to San Francisco for immigration crackdown

      by

      Donald Trump has canceled plans for a deployment of federal troops to San Francisco that had sparked widespread condemnation from California leaders and sent protesters flooding into the streets.The Bay Area region had been on edge after reports emerged on Wednesday that the Trump administration was poised to send more than 100 Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and other federal agents to the US Coast Guard base in Alameda, a city in the East Bay, as part of a large-scale immigration-enforcement plan.But on Thursday, the president said he would not move forward with a “surge” of federal forces in the area after speaking with the mayor, Daniel Lurie, and Silicon Valley leaders including Marc Benioff, the Salesforce CEO who recently apologized for saying Trump should send national guard troops, and Jensen Huang, the chief executive of Nvidia. Lurie said he spoke with the president on Wednesday night, and that Trump told him he would call off the deployment.“In that conversation, the president told me clearly that he was calling off any plans for a federal deployment in San Francisco. Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, reaffirmed that direction in our conversation this morning,” Lurie said in a statement.Trump confirmed the conversation on his Truth Social platform, saying: “I spoke to Mayor Lurie last night and he asked, very nicely, that I give him a chance to see if he can turn it around.”The operation had been expected to start as early as Thursday.The sudden reversal came as protesters had mobilized in anticipation of a surge in troops. Hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the US Coast Guard base in Alameda on an overcast Thursday morning, holding signs with slogans such as “No ICE or Troops in the Bay!” Police used flash-bang grenades to clear a handful of demonstrators from the entrance as CBP vehicles drove through.View image in fullscreenLater on Thursday morning, protesters were walking in a slow circle at the gates of the Coast Guard base. Many were carrying signs that read: “Protect our neighbors, protegemos nuestros vecinos.” There was at least one person dressed as Batman, and Marvin Gaye was blasting through a loudspeaker.Josh Aguirre, 39, had come to participate in his first ever protest. “It’s scary what’s going on right now, and we’ve got to just stand in solidarity,” said Aguirre, who had come, along with his dog, from East Oakland – a largely Latino and immigrant community.He found out that federal agents would be deployed to the Bay Area from his four-year-old daughter’s school administrators. “And the first thing I thought was the families that I know who bring their kids to school are going to be affected the most,” he said. “It’s important to show up for your community.”Raj, an educator who asked to be identified only by his first name, had come with his 10-year-old daughter. “In the Bay we’re involved … and our kids know what’s happening,” he said. “When federal troops come in here, they won’t just see what they think they’re gonna see, which are like violent agitators. They’re going to see entire communities come out with their kids, with their families, with their teens.”By Thursday afternoon, local leaders and organizers had gathered outside San Francisco’s city hall, where they grappled with the whiplash. It remained unclear whether Trump’s decision to pull back was focused only on San Francisco, or if other Bay Area cities such as Oakland would still be targeted.“At this time, we do not know which federal agencies are being called off. We don’t know if that’s the national guard. We don’t know if it’s ICE, if it’s border patrol,” said Jackie Fielder, the San Francisco city supervisor representing parts of the city’s Mission neighborhood.Fielder also criticized Benioff, Elon Musk and other tech leaders who had voiced support for a national guard deployment in the Bay Area. “I condemn every tech billionaire who supported this,” she said. “This city doesn’t belong to them.”Fielder and other organizers emphasized that even as the region awaits clarity on whether and where there will be a federal deployment, and the extent to which the administration plans to ramp up immigration enforcement in the city, local leaders are going to continue to mobilize rapid response networks, legal aid and other support systems for the residents most affected.“We don’t need to get ready because we’ve been ready,” Fielder said. “This is not a time for panic. It is a time for power across this area.”Trump had signaled for weeks that San Francisco could be the next Democratic city to face an administration crackdown. In an interview on Fox News on Sunday, the president claimed “unquestioned power” to deploy the national guard and argued that San Francisco residents want the military in their city.It was unclear if the national guard would have played a role in operations in the region. But state and local leaders on Wednesday had responded swiftly and strongly to the news of the CBP operations, and vowed to fight any potential deployment of the military.California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, called Trump’s moves “right out of the dictator’s handbook”.“He sends out masked men, he sends out border patrol, he sends out ICE, he creates anxiety and fear in the community so that he can lay claim to solving for that by sending in the [national] guard,” Newsom said in a video statement. “This is no different than the arsonist putting out the fire.”Lurie said earlier in the week that his city was prepared.“For months, we have been anticipating the possibility of some kind of federal deployment in our city,” he said.Oakland’s mayor, Barbara Lee, said: “Real public safety comes from Oakland-based solutions, not federal military occupation.”View image in fullscreenRob Bonta, California’s attorney general, vowed to “be in court within hours, if not minutes”, if there is a federal deployment, and the San Francisco city attorney, David Chiu, has promised the same.San Francisco’s district attorney, Brooke Jenkins, said she was ready to prosecute any federal agents who violated California law.San Francisco has been the latest major US city to face Trump’s threats. The administration has previously sent the military to Los Angeles and Chicago, and has tried to deploy troops in Portland. All deployments have faced legal challenges from local and state authorities.Trump in recent weeks argued that a federal operation in San Francisco was necessary to combat crime. “Every American deserves to live in a community where they’re not afraid of being mugged, murdered, robbed, raped, assaulted or shot” he said at an appearance on 16 October.Local leaders, including the city’s mayor and district attorney, have said crime in the city is under control, pointing to falling crime rates and growing police recruitment. The city’s homicide rate this year is expected to be the lowest since 1954, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.Community groups had readied themselves to support affected residents. Organizers have mobilized to stage a mass rally in the city, as well as vigils at local libraries.City supervisor Jackie Fielder told reporters last week she and her constituents in the Mission district had been bracing for this moment.“The moment that people stop going to work, when anyone Black or brown can’t freely walk outside without the fear of Trump’s federal agents racially profiling and arresting them, the moment when parents stop sending kids to school, become too afraid to go to the grocery store or doctor,” Fielder said. “What we have been preparing for in the Mission is essentially a shutdown the likes of which we haven’t seen since Covid.” More

    • 213 Shares58 Views

      in US Politics

      Silly inflatable costumes are taking over anti-Trump protests. What are they actually saying? | Julia Carrie Wong

      by

      There was little reason to imagine that the inflatable frogs would become an actual thing. Protests at the ICE detention center in Portland, Oregon, in recent months have reflected the city’s penchant for whimsy and weirdness, and tactics such as naked bike riding, organized public knitting and “ICE fishing” with doughnuts have largely remained a local affair.But when a federal agent in riot gear ran up behind a protester wearing an inflatable frog costume and sprayed a chemical agent directly into his costume’s air vent with all the casual menace of an exterminator, the inflatable frog went viral. “I’ve definitely had spicier tamales,” the 24-year-old protester, Seth Todd, told the Oregonian, cementing the frog’s status as a leftist folk hero.Soon, activists had launched “Operation Inflation” to equip Portland protesters with an entire menagerie of inflatable animal suits, and the costumes began appearing at other protest hotspots, including the ICE detention center near Chicago where police have deployed teargas, pepper balls and batons against protesters in recent weeks. By the time millions of Americans took to the streets in last weekend’s No Kings marches, inflatable costumes were ubiquitous.“I obviously started a movement of people showing up looking ridiculous, which is the exact point,” Todd said. “To show how the narrative that is being pushed [that] we are violent extremists is completely ridiculous.”View image in fullscreenMove over pussy hats. Step aside safety pins. The resistance 2.0 has a new visual language, and this time it’s polyester, battery-powered and full of hot air. The colorful costumes lent a festive air to the No Kings protests and offered an implicit rebuke to the Trump administration’s attempt to smear his political opponents as violent terrorists.“Frivolity and absurdity are kryptonite to authoritarians who project the stern father archetype to their followers,” wrote author Gary Shteyngart in a New York Times op-ed celebrating the profusion of playful and joyful imagery at Saturday’s marches. “Once the pants are lowered and the undies of the despot are glimpsed, there is no point of return.”It’s a lovely idea, but nine months into the second Trump administration, it’s hard to argue that Americans have yet to catch sight of the president’s dirty laundry. Kryptonite, like the emperor’s new clothes, is just a fairytale. As Americans seek to harness the energy of No Kings and direct it toward building an effective opposition to Trump’s authoritarian agenda, it’s worth considering what the inflatable costumes are actually saying.Street protest movements have many aims and many outcomes, but one of the most important is the production of imagery that conveys a message and outlasts the event itself. Activists are keenly aware of symbolism and optics – they aren’t called “demonstrations” for nothing – and often work to imbue protest aesthetics with their particular ideological and ethical commitments.Nonviolent resistance movements tend to adopt aesthetics that emphasize the inherent dignity and humble humanity of their members. From the Sunday best donned by marchers in the US civil rights movement to the simple dhoti worn by Gandhi and the modest white dress shirt and black slacks of the Tiananmen Square Tank Man, aesthetic choices by peaceful protesters are an effective way of manufacturing imagery that, by contrast, illustrates the sadism and brutality of an oppressive state.The rejection of respectability politics by subsequent generations of Black liberation activists in the US – from the Black Panther party to Black Lives Matter – reflected not just an aesthetic but also an ideological shift. The Panthers were not seeking equality within a white supremacist system, but a revolution of the system itself; their signature berets, black leather jackets and firearms asserted their militancy and tied them visually to other leftwing revolutionary movements around the world.View image in fullscreenRebel clowning or “tactical frivolity” represents a another aesthetic tradition of protest, one that deploys humor and buffoonery to pierce the aura of invincibility relied on by despots and dictators. From Charlie Chaplin’s lampooning of Adolf Hitler in the 1940 film The Great Dictator to the Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army (Circa) protests against globalization and capitalism in the early 2000s, clowning has a storied history within leftwing and antifascist resistance movements.“The clown puts their absurd body in the way of the harm of others. It is politically more expensive to club a clown!” wrote performance artist LM Bogad in a 2020 essay about his experience with Circa. Confrontations between clowns and riot police create what Bogad calls “irresistible images” – “images that are so compelling that our ideological opponents cannot help but reproduce them even though they undermine their worldview and support ours”.Portland’s inflatable frogs fit squarely into this tradition, co-opting and subverting the aesthetic of intentional cruelty that has been so assiduously cultivated by the second Trump administration. Maga’s exaggeratedly sculpted faces and glorification of human misery convey the underlying ethos of the Trumpist worldview: beauty is pain, and pain beauty. When Donald Trump conjures up a false image of Portland as “war-ravaged” and “under siege” by antifa “terrorists”, he asks his supporters to embrace the cleansing power of state violence. But when federal agents and riot cops are forced to carry out their attacks on inflatable cartoon characters rather than figures clad in the all-black uniform of recent iterations of antifascist activism, government forces are enlisted in the project of debunking their own lies.But there is a difference between facing down a riot cop outside an ICE detention center, and dancing in the streets during a permitted march on a sunny Saturday morning. When a Vietnam war protester placed flowers down the barrels of rifles wielded by military police at the 1967 march on the Pentagon, or when anti-occupation activists clucked like chickens before IDF soldiers in the West Bank, they clowned in the face of real danger. Without the implicit threat of state violence, without the bravery of offering up a comically unprotected body as a target for real violence, tactical frivolity can devolve into little more than entertainment.View image in fullscreenThere are very good reasons to hold family-friendly protests away from the threat of riot cops, but different contexts require different tactics; what is ridiculously effective in front of an ICE detention center can end up looking just a bit ridiculous when there is no danger in the frame.Already, one mainstream media outlet has published an affiliate link-laden article promoting cheap inflatable costumes on Amazon: “You too can join in on the movement today with this steeply discounted inflatable elephant costume that’s less than $20 – a record-low price, according to Amazon.” Similarly, the aesthetics of the flower power movement were adopted and commodified by the fashion industry over and over again, losing political potency along the way. The revolution may well end up being televised, but it is sure as hell not going to arrive in a cardboard box with free shipping from Amazon Prime.It is also worth keeping in mind that Trump is not a straightforward “stern father” autocrat. While some of his rhetoric and actions invoke violence and terror against disfavored groups, he has also played the role of his own court jester, to great effect. His disinhibited remarks and frequent buffoonery are doing their own work to disarm and discredit his opponents, who have often struggled to convince the broader public of the seriousness of the threat he poses. So while tactical frivolity certainly has the power to deflate the menace of the Department of Homeland Security’s anti-immigrant security apparatus, it is not clear that it has much to offer when confronting Trump directly. After the No Kings protests, the president posted an AI-generated video of himself dumping shit on protesters; it’s impossible to make him look like more of a clown than he already is.Finally, remember that clowning is a fundamentally de-escalatory tactic. When activists turn rifles into vases and riot cops into zookeepers, they are interrupting the cycle of escalating tension that can turn protests into dangerous confrontations. We absolutely need to de-escalate the violence that is being aimed at immigrants and other disfavored communities by Trump, ICE, DHS and the national guard – but it’s not clear to me that de-escalation is the right tactic for nationwide, popular protests. The Democratic party leadership has overwhelmingly failed to operate as an actual opposition party since Trump’s re-election; they don’t need to calm down, but to wake up.So please, wear your inflatable frog costume if you plan to use your body to obstruct the workings of Trump’s violent deportation machine: in addition to provoking irresistible images, it might help protect you against teargas and pepper spray. But let us be strategic about deploying tactical frivolity against Trumpism. When millions of people take to the streets to demand that our leaders and institutions stop capitulating, the message should not be mistaken for anything other than deadly serious. More