POLITICS

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom resisted a fight with President Trump over transgender youth in women’s sports. He forced his way onto a runway tarmac to make peace with the Republican leader after the Los Angeles wildfires.

Just last week, he hesitated before speaking out when rumors swirled about a massive federal funding cut to California.

Newsom’s restraint ended when Trump usurped the governor’s authority over the weekend by deploying the California National Guard to the streets of Los Angeles to quell protests against immigration raids.

“I’m still willing to do what I can to have the backs of the people I represent and whatever it takes to advance that cause, I’ll do, but I’m not going to do it when we see the trampling of our Constitution and the rule of law,” Newsom said in an interview with The Times. “So we all have our red lines. That’s my red line.”

Newsom said the arrival of troops in the largest city in the Golden State escalated tensions between protesters and law enforcement, which he blamed Trump for intentionally inflaming to sow chaos. Whether Newsom likes it or not, the president’s actions also catapulted the governor to the front lines of a Democratic resistance against Trump that he has been reluctant to embrace after his party lost the presidential election in November.

On Monday, Trump said his border czar Tom Homan should follow through on threats to arrest the governor. The president has cast California as out of control and Newsom incompetent for not stepping in and ending the unrest, or protecting federal immigration agents from protesters.

“I would do it if I were Tom,” Trump said. “I think it’s great. Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing. He’s done a terrible job.”

Newsom also baited Homan: “Come and get me, tough guy.”

Newsom’s position as the leader of a state that has become an immigration target for the federal government offers both risks and rewards for a governor considering a 2028 run for the White House.

Democrats and progressives are thirsty for a leader to challenge Trump and his controversial policies. The National Democratic Party quickly took to social media to publicize the governor’s challenge to Homan to arrest him. Being carted away in handcuffs by officials in Trump’s Justice Department would probably elevate Newsom to Democratic martyr status.

President Trump speaks to members of the media on the South Lawn of the White House after arriving on Marine One on June 9, 2025. Trump on Monday suggested California Gov. Gavin Newsom should be arrested over his handling of the unrest in Los Angeles.

(Yuri Gripas / Abaca/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“In a way, he was channeling Trump, because he knows how much Trump benefited in the Republican Party from his own criminal conviction,” said John Pitney, the Roy P. Crocker Professor of American Politics at Claremont McKenna College.

Even without an arrest, the political battle is likely to boost Newsom’s standing with Democrats.

But immigration is one of Trump’s best policy issues with voters and it’s not an ideal political fight for any Democrat with presidential aspirations.

“This is the brilliance of Donald Trump,” said Thad Kousser, a professor of political science at UC San Diego. “He’s picking these fights over executive power and over the power of federal government on a political terrain in which he’s most popular: immigration, transgender athletes, DEI, ‘woke’ universities. He’s picking these governance fights where he thinks he can win on the politics.”

For Newsom, the raids provide an opportunity to challenge the president’s narrative that his immigration policy is all about removing criminals and protecting the border, Kousser said.

In interviews, Newsom has repeated that the Trump administration is targeting children in elementary school classrooms and law-abiding citizens who have been in California for a decade or more.

He’s also framing Trump’s deployment of troops to Los Angeles as about more than immigration.

“This is something bigger,” Newsom said. “This is certain power and control over every aspect of our lives. This is about wrecking the constitutional order. This is about tearing down the rule of law. This is about, literally, the cornerstone of our founding fathers, and they’re rolling in their graves.”

Trump’s Los Angeles takeover could derail the work the governor has put in to showcase his more moderate policy positions to America.

While judiciously picking and choosing his battles with Trump, Newsom used his podcast this year to air his belief that it’s unfair for transgender athletes to compete in women and girls’ sports. Through interviews with controversial conservative figures such as Stephen K. Bannon, the governor attempted to demonstrate his ability to be cordial with anyone regardless of their political affiliation.

Newsom has been strategic about the attacks he makes against Trump, such as criticizing the tariffs that are a political vulnerability for the president.

“Anybody who wants to lead the Democratic Party needs the support or at least the acquiescence of the progressive wing of the party, but Democrats need to appeal to the broader general public, and so far, this situation is not helping,” Pitney said of the battle over immigration.

The images streaming out of Los Angeles also create an electoral vulnerability for the governor.

“Perchance Newsom were the Democratic nominee in 2028, you would expect to see pictures of burning Waymos on the streets of Los Angeles with the tagline of ‘what Newsom did for California, he’ll do for America,”’ Pitney said.

Kousser contends that Newsom, in a presidential campaign, will be held responsible for all of California’s shortcomings, regardless of whether he stood up to Trump’s immigration raids.

Although the governor is fighting in the courts with a lawsuit announced Monday, by supporting peaceful protests and using his public podium, there’s little he can do to stop the federal government. The situation highlights the challenge for Newsom and any state leader with interest in the White House.

“This is the blessing and the curse of a governor who wants to run for higher office. When something happens in their state, they get the eyes of the nation upon them even if it’s not the political ground on which they’d rather fight,” Kousser said.

When four Los Angeles police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King, President George H.W. Bush expressed the shock and horror many Americans felt.

“What you saw and what I saw on the TV video was revolting,” Bush said in a nationally televised speech from the Oval Office. “I felt anger. I felt pain. I thought: How can I explain this to my grandchildren?”

Bush spoke after dispatching National Guard troops to Los Angeles following three days of civil unrest sparked by the not-guilty verdicts — some of the worst domestic violence the country had ever seen. He acted at the request of California Gov. Pete Wilson and Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley.

Bush offered no apologies. To the contrary, he said “there can be no excuse … for the murder, arson, theft, and vandalism that have terrorized the law-abiding citizens of Los Angeles.”

At the same time, however, Bush sought to address some of the underlying issues — the racist history of the LAPD, chief among them — that festered for decades before exploding into molten rage. And he promised to use Washington’s power to pursue justice, which eventually led to a federal trial of the officers who battered King.

That is, historically, what presidents have done: Facing volatile circumstances, confronting crises, they summon the powers of their office to explain, to ameliorate, to reassure and above all, to try to calm the situation.

Not Donald Trump.

Anger and aggrievement are the twin engines that power the president’s glowering soul. He used the pretense of some relatively modest, scattered protests to seize control of the National Guard and unilaterally dispatch troops to Los Angeles — launching an assault on the Constitution and the limits of presidential power yet again.

He demonstrated anew his eagerness to divide and conquer and, with swagger, put the bully into bully pulpit.

“He does not see that calming role as being very integral to what he does,” said Julian Zelizer, a Princeton historian and author of a book on Trump’s first term. “He is definitely willing to provoke conflict and to fuel division rather than to move in the opposite way. … Instead of calming a situation, it’s the opposite. It’s ramping up a situation.”

Before we continue, let’s be clear. As Bush said, there’s no excuse for arson, theft or vandalism.

Violent protest doesn’t bring about justice. It only begets more violence. It justifies crackdowns like the one Trump has so eagerly employed — playing into the president’s hands, as Gov. Gavin Newsom put it.

Moreover, waving the flag of a foreign country isn’t prideful, or politically smart in the least. Rightly or wrongly, it’s inciteful, serving only to distract from and hurt the pro-migrant cause the flag-wavers profess to champion.

And, to be clear, there are some people who use protests like the ones against Trump’s immigration raids as a cover and excuse to pursue an extraneous agenda of violence and anarchy. They’re doing more than just physical damage.

None of which, however, justifies the conduct of a president who, when faced with flames, comes running with gasoline. Instead of a steady hand or the consoler-in-chief, we have a political arsonist residing in the White House.

The fact Trump dispatched troops to tamp down protests in Los Angeles, the biggest blue megalopolis in the nation’s biggest blue state, cannot be ignored.

“The president loves to take symbolic acts,” said George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University, in this instance targeting California and a long-time nemesis, Gov. Gavin Newsom, and using immigration — long an issue at the heart of his political agenda — as his sword and shield.

“Aside from an incidental goal of keeping peace,” Edwars said,. “I think that’s important in his mind.”

You can practically see Trump salivate.

And there is something else worth noting, as the president calls in the Guard and positions himself as the savior of law-and-order.

“They spit, we hit!’” Trump blustered, warning demonstrators of the consequences they would face if they assaulted police and troops in such a manner.

This from a president who unconditionally pardoned 1,500 criminals convicted in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol and its peace officers — one of whom attacked a policeman by plunging a stun gun multiple times into his neck.

“You tase, we’re unfazed!” — is that how it’s going to be, so long as the violence is conducted on Trump’s behalf?

In the decade since his descent down a gilded escalator — and emergence as the most dominant and consequential political figure of the 21st century — Trump has proven himself a peerless master of distraction and deflection. And so it is again.

Elon who?

But in looking out for his own interests, and conflating policy with personal grudges, Trump has abdicated one of the responsibilities of a president: to dampen unruly passions, to quell violence and, as the preamble of the Constitution states, to “insure domestic tranquility.”

“Any moment like this is very dangerous,” Zelizer said, “because the more force that that is there, the more potential there is for something bad to happen.”

We can hope for the best. But this will probably not end well.

In the overcast light — on a chilly, gray Monday morning in June — a cluster of city workers quietly gathered outside Los Angeles City Hall to assess the damage.

After thousands of demonstrators converged downtown over the weekend to protest the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigrants in the country without documentation, the granite walls of the towering Art Deco seat of city government was marked up with fresh graffiti, with the same four-letter expletive preceding the word “ICE” in about a dozen places.

On the south and west sides of City Hall, about a dozen windows were smashed. At least 17 glass-covered light boxes surrounding the structure were busted, with broken shards of blue-gray glass covering the light fixtures.

On the front steps, insults daubed in spray paint were directed at both Mayor Karen Bass and President Trump.

The vandalism and graffiti stretched out block after block across downtown Los Angeles: “Remove Trumps head!!” was scrawled on the front facade of the Los Angeles County Law Library. The T-Mobile store on South Broadway had several windows boarded up, and glass still littered the sidewalk. Spent canisters, labeled “exact impact,” lay on the ground at various intersections.

The former Los Angeles Times building was scrawled with expletives, along with the words: “Immigrants rule the world.” The doors to its historic Globe Lobby were shattered, with graffiti on the large globe inside and across the building’s facade: “Return the homies” and “Trump is scum.”

But few Angelenos appeared outraged by the destruction.

“It’s kind of the usual. We always have protests,” said Eileen Roman as she walked her dog near Grand Central Market.

As the daughter of Guatemalan immigrants, she said she understood why people were protesting. Although she didn’t plan to join them on the streets, she said, she would be involved on social media.

“I think we all are concerned about what’s going on,” Roman, 32, said of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Thomas Folland, a downtown resident and art history professor at Los Angeles Mission College, also said he wasn’t particularly concerned by the graffiti and vandalism he saw Monday morning.

“I was curious to see what the aftermath was this morning,” Folland said, noting that it was a particularly loud night at his apartment. But so far, he said, it wasn’t anything that worried him — though he noted his apartment building did start boarding up its windows in anticipation of what might come later this week.

“I’m not that offended by graffiti,” Folland said. “This is at least a genuine community expression.”

Sunday marked the third day of protests in downtown Los Angeles after federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested immigrants at a Home Depot parking lot, L.A.’s Garment District, and several other locations on Friday.

As President Trump ordered the deployment of hundreds of National Guard troops to the city, tensions escalated Sunday. Demonstrators blocked the 101 Freeway, set self-driving cars ablaze and hurled incendiary devices — and, in some cases, chunks of concrete — at law enforcement officers. Police, in turn, wielded tear gas and rubber bullets.

At 8:56 p.m. Sunday, the Los Angeles Police Department said in a social media post that “agitators have splintered” throughout downtown and an unlawful assembly had been declared for the Civic Center area.

“Residents, businesses and visitors to the Downtown Area should be alert and report any criminal activity,” LAPD Central Division said on X. “Officers are responding to several different locations to disperse crowds.”

About half an hour later, the LAPD expanded its unlawful assembly across downtown Los Angeles. By 10:23 p.m., police said business owners were reporting that stores were being broken into and burglarized in the area of 6th Street and Broadway.

“All DTLA businesses or residents are requested to report any vandalism, damage or looting to LAPD Central Division so that it can be documented by an official police report,” LAPD Central Division said just before midnight. “Please photograph all vandalism and damage prior to clean up.”

Eric Wright and his wife, Margaux Cowan-Banker, vacationers from Knoxville, Tenn., were on a jog Monday morning downtown and paused to take photos — past scores of police vehicles — of the graffiti-covered Federal Building at 300 N. Los Angeles St., which houses offices for ICE, the IRS, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and other agencies.

There was egg on the exterior walls and spray-painted slogans with expletives.

“When tyranny becomes law,” one graffiti said, “rebellion becomes duty,”

The couple — who laughed about being red-state denizens in L.A. during this time — said the peaceful protesters, of which they saw many Sunday night, didn’t bother them.

Though “the graffiti is tough — I appreciate the sentiment, but someone’s gotta clean it up,” said Wright, a 37-year-old physical therapist.

“But a few graffiti-ists don’t make the protest, right?”

As dawn broke Monday, city crews had already fanned out across downtown, cleaning up the aftermath.

Several yellow city street sweepers drove up and down Los Angeles Street in front of the federal courthouse, between blooming purple jacarandas and scores of police vehicles from various SoCal cities.

Just before 9 a.m., two workers from C. Erwin Piper Technical Center carried planks of plywood to City Hall to board up the windows. When they were done, they told The Times, they planned to head across the street to repair the Los Angeles Police Department’s headquarters.

Members of the National Guard were stationed outside the federal detention center and downtown Los Angeles V.A. clinic at Alameda and Temple streets, and police cars blocked roads around the federal buildings.

A person in a silver SUV — their head entirely covered by a white balaclava — drove by the barricade at Commercial and Alameda streets, window down. They flipped off the officers standing nearby.

Some stores that were typically open on a Monday morning remained shuttered, including Blue Bottle Coffee. But others, including Grand Central Market, were already buzzing with customers.

Octavio Gomez, a supervisor with the DTLA Alliance, quickly rolled black paint onto a wall next to Grand Central Market that had been newly covered in graffiti.

“Today’s a bad day because of … last night,” Gomez said, noting his teams had been working since 5 a.m. to respond to the damage across the city. “It’s all going to come back, right? Because there’s still protests.”

For the couple from Knoxville, the juxtaposition between their weekend in L.A. and news coverage of the protests felt bizarre.

They had an idyllic Los Angeles Sunday — a food festival, the L.A. Pride March in Hollywood, a visit to Grand Central Market.

But on TV and social media, Los Angeles was portrayed as a place of total chaos.

“People back where we live are going to completely be horrified,” said Cowan-Banker, a 42-year-old personal trainer. “I’m sure they think it’s a war zone here.”

But Wright said he thought people should be protesting the Trump administration: “They’re stealing people off the streets from their families,” he said, referring to the ICE raids. “This is America. To send the National Guard was intentionally inflammatory.”

“This feeds right into his voters,” Wright said of Trump.

“And they’re the people we go home to,” his wife added. “I’m kinda glad we’re here to carry information, though no one’s gonna listen.”

The couple, at the halfway point of their five-mile morning run, kept on snapping their photos, past a line of police cars.

An aide to Los Angeles City Councilmember Ysabel Jurado has been placed on unpaid leave after being arrested on suspicion of assaulting a police officer with a deadly weapon at an anti-ICE protest, Jurado and her staff said Monday.

Luz Aguilar, 26, who serves as Jurado’s deputy for economic innovation and community growth, was arrested around 7 p.m. Sunday and booked several hours later, according to Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department inmate records.

“The allegations are deeply concerning and I take them very seriously,” Jurado, who represents downtown and neighborhoods on L.A.’s Eastside, said in a statement. “While I respect the individual’s right to due process, I hold my team to the highest standards of conduct.”

Aguilar‘s father is Pasadena City Councilmember Rick Cole, who is also a high-level aide to L.A. City Controller Kenneth Mejia. Aguilar’s sister, 26-year-old Antonia Aguilar, was arrested at the same time, records show.

Both were being held in lieu of $50,000 bail.

Jurado said Luz Aguilar — who is listed in inmate records as AguilarCole — has been placed on unpaid leave while the council office assesses the facts and considers “appropriate action.” Although Aguilar was accused of assaulting a police officer with a deadly weapon, “it’s a developing situation,” said Lisa Marroquin, a spokesperson for Jurado.

Marroquin could not say which law enforcement agency the officer was from.

Cole, in a text message, said Monday that he did not yet have information on the allegations. A day earlier, while appearing at an anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement rally in Pasadena, he said the fight against the immigration arrests was personal to him.

“I’ve just seen pictures of my two daughters on a curb in downtown Los Angeles in handcuffs [with] the LAPD,” he said at the rally. “So I’m going to be figuring out where they are so I can go bail them out.”

Protests against federal immigration raids continued to rage Sunday after President Trump ordered the National Guard to Southern California. Some demonstrators in downtown L.A. dropped rocks from a freeway overpass onto police cruisers, while others vandalized government buildings, burned Waymo cars or burglarized businesses.

Mejia, Cole’s boss, is an outspoken critic of the Los Angeles Police Department. On Friday, Mejia voiced concerns about the presence of LAPD officers “within the vicinity of ICE raids.”

Mejia said he has asked for the department to turn over information about the financial impact of the raids on police resources. L.A. declared itself a “sanctuary” city last year, and Police Chief Jim McDonnell has repeatedly said that the LAPD is not involved in “civil immigration enforcement,” pointing to a decades-old policy.

“LAPD’s presence raises serious questions about whether we are abiding by our City’s mandate as a Sanctuary City and is a cause for concern and confusion regarding LAPD’s role,” Mejia said in a statement on social media.

An LAPD spokesperson did not have any details on the arrests when reached by The Times.

Jurado, a former tenant rights attorney, won a seat on the 15-member council in November. During the campaign, she described herself as an abolitionist — someone who supports the abolition of police and prisons.

During the campaign’s final weeks, Jurado was heard on a recording telling college students, “F— the police, that’s how I see ‘em.” She later issued a statement downplaying her remark, saying it was “just a lyric” from a rap song.

The City Council has scheduled a special meeting Tuesday to discuss the federal immigration raids — including “related threats to public service and facilities” — and has left open the possibility of a closed-door meeting with McDonnell on that topic.

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California has blocked the Trump administration from enforcing anti-diversity and anti-transgender executive orders in grant funding requirements that LGBTQ+ organizations say are unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar said Monday that the federal government cannot force recipients to halt programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion or acknowledge the existence of transgender people in order to receive grant funding. The order will remain in effect while the legal case continues, although government lawyers will likely appeal.

The funding provisions “reflect an effort to censor constitutionally protected speech and services promoting DEI and recognizing the existence of transgender individuals,” Tigar wrote.

He went on to say that the executive branch must still be bound by the Constitution in shaping its agenda and that even in the context of federal subsidies, “it cannot weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds to single out protected communities for disfavored treatment or suppress ideas that it does not like or has deemed dangerous.”

The plaintiffs include health centers, LGBTQ+ services groups and the Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Historical Society. All receive federal funding and say they cannot complete their missions by following the president’s executive orders.

The San Francisco AIDS Foundation, one of the plaintiffs, said in 2023 it received a five-year grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to expand and enhance sexual health services, including the prevention of sexually transmitted infections. The $1.3 million project specifically targets communities disproportionately affected by sexual health disparities.

But in April, the CDC informed the nonprofit that it must “immediately terminate all programs, personnel, activities, or contracts” that promote DEI or gender ideology.

President Trump has signed a flurry of executive orders since taking office in January, including ones to roll back transgender protections and stop DEI programs. Lawyers for the government say that the president is permitted to “align government funding and enforcement strategies” with his policies.

Plaintiffs say that Congress — and not the president — has the power to condition how federal funds are used, and that the executive orders restrict free speech rights.

Har writes for the Associated Press.

ORLANDO, Fla. — Florida’s child welfare agency sent a letter to a Florida newspaper telling it to “cease and desist” its reporting on foster families for a story about a nonprofit associated with Gov. Ron DeSantis’ wife that is the subject of an investigation.

The Orlando Sentinel received the letter on Friday from the state Department of Children and Families, whose top official is appointed by the governor. The letter claimed that the newspaper’s Tallahassee reporter had used threats to coerce foster families into making negative statements about the Hope Florida Foundation when he contacted them about the welfare nonprofit behind the signature initiative of Casey DeSantis, Florida’s first lady.

“Cease and desist the above-described intimidation of these families,” the DCF letter said.

Orlando Sentinel Executive Editor Roger Simmons said the agency’s characterization of the reporter’s conduct was “completely false.” The yet-to-be-published story was looking into grants distributed by Hope Florida to organizations, families and individuals, according to the Sentinel.

“We stand by our stories and reject the state’s attempt to chill free speech and encroach on our First Amendment right to report on an important issue,” Simmons said in an email.

DCF on Monday didn’t provide an immediate response to an inquiry about the letter. DCF posted the cease-and-desist letter on social media Friday, saying Hope Florida had supported foster families with donations to repair their homes following last year’s hurricanes.

The letter is attempting to intimidate the Sentinel from publishing what may be unflattering news about Hope Florida in what is known as prior restraint, and prior restraint efforts typically are unconstitutional, said Clay Calvert, a law professor emeritus at the University of Florida and nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

If he were the Sentinel’s attorney, Calvert said, he would tell the agency “to go pound sand.”

“DCF can send all the cease and desist letters it wants, but the Sentinel isn’t obligated to follow any of them,” he said. “This is really trying to silence any negative coverage before it comes out.”

Prosecutors in Tallahassee have opened an investigation related to the Hope Florida Foundation. A public records custodian in the office of Second Judicial Circuit State Attorney Jack Campbell confirmed the existence of “an open, on-going investigation” last month in response to a records request from The Associated Press. The investigation was first reported by the Miami Herald/Tampa Bay Times.

Republican state lawmakers in DeSantis’ own party have been scrutinizing Hope Florida and its nonprofit foundation, which gave $10 million from a state Medicaid settlement to two nonprofits. Those groups in turn gave millions to a political committee, chaired by DeSantis’ then-chief of staff, that campaigned against a failed referendum on recreational marijuana.

In April, Republican state Rep. Alex Andrade wrapped up the investigation he had been spearheading into Hope Florida, saying he would leave the rest of the inquiry to “the FBI and Department of Justice,” though there is no public evidence that either is doing so. Andrade has alleged that the flow of funds from the foundation to the nonprofits and on to the political committees amounts to “conspiracy to commit money laundering and wire fraud.”

The governor has dismissed the investigation of Hope Florida as a politically motivated smear against his wife, whom he’s floated as his potential successor when he terms out in 2026.

Schneider writes for the Associated Press.

Dolores Huerta, the labor and civil rights leader who co-founded what eventually became the United Farm Workers union, endorsed Joe Biden for president on Friday.

Huerta, who is based in Bakersfield and is one of the nation’s most prominent Latino activists, offered her support on International Workers Day and as Biden’s campaign seeks to improve support among Latino voters.

He trailed Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, his main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, among Latinos for much of the primary. Biden’s campaign attributed the gap to a lack of financial resources that made it difficult to reach voters, but the former vice president also faced protests over the Obama administration’s deportation of nearly 3 million immigrants who were in the country illegally.

Huerta on Friday said Biden has been a “staunch advocate for labor” and has prioritized Latinos.

“At a time when the current White House has used fear mongering and racist rhetoric towards Latinos, Joe has made it clear that he will fight to protect and advance our community,” she said in a statement.

Huerta plans to appear at a virtual Todos Con Biden roundtable on Sunday with actor John Leguizamo.

Cristóbal Alex, a senior Biden advisor, said in an email that Huerta is “an icon” and her endorsement “represents the Latino community’s excitement and confidence” in the former vice president.

Huerta founded the National Farmworkers Assn. with labor leader Cesar Chavez in 1962 and is credited with coming up with the rallying cry “Sí se puede” (“Yes we can”). In 2012, President Obama awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

She endorsed California Sen. Kamala Harris’ presidential bid in February 2019 and co-chaired her campaign. During the primary, Huerta criticized Biden’s opposition to decriminalizing unapproved border crossings.

At a July 31 Democratic debate, Biden also found himself at odds with rival candidates who said crossing the border without permission should be a civil violation, not a criminal act. “If you cross the border illegally, you should be able to be sent back. It’s a crime,” Biden said.

“It was a great disappointment to hear Vice President Biden use that kind of language because he’s really speaking just like the Republicans,” Huerta said after the debate.

On Friday, Huerta said in an interview that Biden’s track record of supporting immigration reform bills when he was in the Senate made her optimistic about what he would pursue as president.

“When we look to Joe Biden’s record, he actually voted for immigration reform,” she said. “That’s why we have the hope that he will be with us as we try to get immigration reform again.”

In the weeks since Sanders suspended his campaign, Latino groups — including the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’ BOLD PAC and Voto Latino, a voter registration group founded in 2004 — have started to coalesce around Biden.

María Teresa Kumar, Voto Latino’s president and chief executive, said the group decided to back Biden with its first-ever endorsement after he sent a 22-page document answering questions on his positions on student debt, the environment, immigration, criminal justice reform and the modernization of electoral systems.

The group is now talking to his campaign about how to address the impact of the coronavirus outbreak on the Latino community. “We want him to think boldly, because it’s the time for that leadership to help get our country out of where we are,” Kumar said.

Kumar said Sanders’ success with Latino voters came from his strategy of reaching young voters and discussing not just immigration, but healthcare, student debt and climate change.

“Young people in the Latino community have tremendous leverage in their households,” Kumar said. “The more that we can speak to them, they in turn influence their family members.”

For months, Donald Trump and his deportation dream team — border czar Tom Homan, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller and Homeland Security head Kristi Noem — have warned any city, state or county that seems even somewhat sympathetic to illegal immigrants that their day of reckoning will come.

For Los Angeles, it’s now.

Since Friday, the city and its suburbs have seen federal officers from various agencies face off against protesters who have unsuccessfully tried to stop them from conducting workplace raids or transport people suspected of being in this country illegally to detention facilities.

The scenes haven’t been pretty.

Federal agents have used flash-bang grenades and tear gas to disperse crowds from Paramount to downtown to the Garment District. They even arrested SEIU California President David Huerta for allegedly blocking a federal vehicle. Protesters, meanwhile, have fought back with rocks, bottles and fireworks. A row of Waymos was set on fire near Olvera Street on Sunday afternoon, emitting an eerie swan song of honks. A fleet of Highway Patrol vehicles parked near a 101 freeway underpass was pelted by protesters from above with cement shards, e-scooters and even paper set on fire.

In the proverbial thick of it are the Los Angeles police and L.A. County Sheriff’s departments, whose leaders have continuously stressed that their agencies aren’t involved in any immigration actions even as they have assisted la migra by keeping crowds away with batons and less-than-lethal rounds.

Some of the 2,000 National Guard troops Trump called up over the strenuous objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass are now in Southern California. This is the first time something like this has happened since Lyndon B. Johnson sent the Guard to Alabama in 1965 to protect civil rights activists from white citizens and corrupt law enforcement.

Trump’s incendiary move has set a city whose nerves have been frayed all year further on edge, fearing there’s worse to come from him.

And worse things are coming, Angelenos, though not from activists and professional rioters: What we saw this weekend is Trump bonking L.A. with a toy mallet while itching to swing his federal sledgehammer.

One of the many news conferences held over the past three days by outraged community leaders happened Sunday at La Placita Olvera. We best remember it as the birthplace of Los Angeles, but this serene spot also offers a lesson from the past for what’s happening today — and will probably happen soon.

On Feb. 26, 1931, about 400 people were hanging out at La Placita at 3 p.m. when dozens of federal agents from as far away as San Francisco and Arizona suddenly surrounded the plaza. A 2001 Times story noted that immigration authorities “had for days been posting newspaper ads warning of an impending raid against ‘Mexican aliens.’”

LAPD officers stood at each exit to make sure no one could escape. For the next two hours, immigration agents demanded everyone detained show proof that they were in the country legally. La Opinión reported the following day that la migra explained to angry onlookers “with smiles that they were following orders from superiors and that the [roundup] was completely in accord with the laws of the land.”

Sixteen immigrants ended up being detained, all men: 11 were Mexican, five Chinese and one Japanese.

La Placita was specifically chosen by the feds for such a huge raid “for its maximum psychological impact” against Latinos in Los Angeles and beyond, according to “Decade of Betrayal: Mexican Repatriation in the 1930s.” It was the federal government’s kickoff to years of repatriation efforts against people of Mexican descent — more than a few American citizens — pushed by the Hoover and FDR administrations, leading to hundreds of thousands of them leaving the United States, some never to return.

Given Trump’s love of spectacle, what his agencies have unleashed on L.A. over the weekend seems like the opening notes for something even bigger. Expect resistance from residents even stronger that what we’ve seen so far.

Trucha, Los Angeles — be vigilant, and be careful out there.

Here’s more on the immigration raids

Today’s top stories

The Sacramento River flows past orchards along state Highway 160 near a spot where one of two proposed intakes would be located for the Delta Conveyance Project.

(Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

Newsom’s power play on the Delta tunnel

• Newsom is asking the Legislature to “fast-track” construction of his controversial and costly water tunnel project in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
• The $20-billion, 45-mile, 39-feet-wide tunnel would enhance delivery of Northern California water to Southern California.
• Delta towns and farmers, environmental groups and the coastal salmon fishing industry are fighting the project and the governor’s latest move to expedite construction.

Being Jewish on campus amid Trump’s campaign against antisemitism: ‘Tremendous heartache’

• As the academic year draws to a close, The Times interviewed 12 Jewish students and professors at UCLA and USC who reflected on their campus experiences since Hamas’ attack on Israel.
• They wrestled with questions about their safety and President Trump’s aggressive campaign to combat antisemitism at universities.
• Some worried that Trump was using antisemitism as a weapon to carry out his political goal of remaking higher education.

The 2025 Tony Awards

• Hosted by Cynthia Erivo, the 2025 Tony Awards saw a Hollywood invasion of Broadway including winners Sarah Snook and Cole Escola, who won lead actress and lead actor Tony Awards, respectively, for their roles in “The Picture of Dorian Gray” and “Oh, Mary!”
• Here’s the full list of winners.

What else is going on

Commentary and opinions

This morning’s must reads

Other must reads

For your downtime

Participants at the Feels are encouraged to use their bodies and minds to spark intimacy.

(Jennifer McCord / For The Times)

Going out

Staying in

A question for you: What’s the best advice you’ve gotten from your father or father figure?

Steve writes, “I was raised by my stepfather, a 2nd generation Armenian farmer. He didn’t offer much advice verbally, but he left the house each day at 5:30am, worked hard in the Coachella Valley heat, was home for family dinner at 6 and was asleep by 8. His strong work ethic spoke volumes and had a huge effect on the man I chose to become.”

Michele writes, “While still in undergraduate, I was debating whether or not I should go to law school. I was most concerned about adding another three years to my education, and the length of time it would take. My father said, ‘I have one question for you. Three years are likely going to pass in your life one way or another. What do you want to be doing at the end of it?’ Throughout law school, every time I would feel overwhelmed and wanted to quit, I would remind myself that the time was going to pass anyway, and it kept me going towards the end goal.”

Email us at [email protected], and your response might appear in the newsletter this week.

And finally … your photo of the day

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Today’s great photo is from Times photographer Gina Ferazzi in Compton, where Los Angeles residents pushed back against Immigration and Customs Enforcement sweeps.

Have a great day, from the Essential California team

Kevinisha Walker, multiplatform editor
Andrew Campa, Sunday writer
Karim Doumar, head of newsletters

How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to [email protected]. Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on latimes.com.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom is up to his old tricks, trying to ram major policy change through the state Legislature on short notice. And again lawmakers are pushing back.

Not only lawmakers, but the Legislature’s nonpartisan, independent chief policy analyst.

The Legislative Analyst‘s Office has recommended that legislators hold off voting on what the governor seeks because they’re being pressed to act without enough time to properly study the complex matter.

Newsom is asking the Legislature to “fast-track” construction of his controversial and costly water tunnel project in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

The $20-billion, 45-mile, 39-feet-wide tunnel would enhance delivery of Northern California water to Southern California.

Delta towns and farmers, environmental groups and the coastal salmon fishing industry are fighting the project and the governor’s latest move to expedite construction.

If there are any supporters at the state Capitol outside the governor’s office for his fast-track proposal, they’re not speaking up.

“Nobody’s told me they’re excited about it,” says state Sen. Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton), an East San Francisco Bay lawmaker who is co-chairman of the Legislative Delta Caucus. The 15-member bipartisan group of lawmakers who represent the delta region strongly oppose the tunnel — calling it a water grab — and are fighting Newsom’s bill.

The black mark on the governor’s proposal is that he’s trying to shove it through the Legislature as part of a new state budget being negotiated for the fiscal year starting July 1. But it has nothing to do with budget spending.

The tunnel would not be paid for through the budget’s general fund which is fed by taxes. It would be financed by water users through increased monthly rates, mainly for Southern Californians.

Newsom is seeking to make his proposal one of several budget “trailer” bills. That way, it can avoid normal public hearings by legislative policy committees. There’d be little scrutiny by lawmakers, interest groups or citizens. The measure would require only a simple majority vote in each house.

“We’re battling it out,” says Assemblywoman Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City), the Delta Caucus’ co-chair whose district covers the delta as it enters San Francisco Bay.

“This is not about the project itself. This is about how you want to do things in the state of California. This [fast-track] is comprehensive policy that the budget is not intended to include,” says Wilson.

Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek issued a report concluding: “We recommend deferring action … without prejudice. The policy issues do not have budget implications. Deferring action would allow the Legislature more time and capacity for sufficient consideration of the potential benefits, implications and trade-offs.”

The analyst added: “In effect, approving this proposal would signal the Legislature’s support for the [tunnel], something the Legislature might not be prepared to do — because it would remove many of the obstacles to move forward on the project.

“Moreover, even if the Legislature were inclined to support the project, some of the particular details of this proposal merit closer scrutiny.”

Newsom tried a similar quickie tactic two years ago to fast-track the tunnel. And incensed legislators balked.

“He waited now again until the last moment,” Wilson says. “And he’s doubled down.”

She asserts that the governor is seeking even more shortcuts for tunnel construction than he did last time.

“There are some people who support the project who don’t support doing it this way,” she says. “The Legislature doesn’t like it when the governor injects major policy into a budget conversation. This level of policy change would usually go through several committees.”

Not even the Legislature’s two Democratic leaders are siding with the Democratic governor, it appears. They’re keeping mum publicly.

Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) has always opposed the tunnel project. So quietly has Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), I’m told by legislative insiders.

McGuire and Rivas apparently both are trying to avoid a distracting fight over the tunnel within their party caucuses at tense budget time.

Newsom insists that the project is needed to increase the reliability of delta water deliveries as climate change alters Sierra snowpack runoff and the sea level rises, making the vast estuary more salty.

He also claims it will safeguard against an earthquake toppling fragile levees, flooding the delta and halting water deliveries. But that seems bogus. There has never been a quake that seriously damaged a delta levee. And there’s no major fault under the delta.

The tunnel would siphon relatively fresh Sacramento River water at the north end of the delta and deliver it to facilities at the more brackish south end. From there, water is pumped into a State Water Project aqueduct and moved south, mostly to Southern California.

“A tunnel that big, that deep, is going to cause a lot of problems for agriculture and tourism,” says McNerney. “One town will be totally destroyed — Hood. It’s a small town, but people there have rights.”

Newsom’s legislation would make it simpler to obtain permits for the project. The state’s own water rights would be permanent, not subject to renewal. The state would be authorized to issue unlimited revenue bonds for tunnel construction, repaid by water users. It also would be easier to buy out farmers and run the tunnel through their orchards and vineyards. And it would limit and expedite court challenges.

“For too long, attempts to modernize our critical water infrastructure have stalled in endless red tape, burdened with unnecessary delay. We’re done with barriers,” Newson declared in unveiling his proposal in mid-May.

But lawmakers shouldn’t be done with solid, carefully reasoned legislating.

On policy this significant involving a project so monumental, the Legislature should spend enough time to get it right — regardless of a lame-duck governor’s desire to start shoveling dirt before his term expires in 18 months.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Candidates for California governor face off about affordability, high cost of living in first bipartisan clash
The TK: State lawmakers considering policy changes after L.A. wildfires
The L.A. Times Special: Homeland Security’s ‘sanctuary city’ list is riddled with errors. The sloppiness is the point

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Is empathy a desirable quality in a Supreme Court justice?

President Obama has said he’s searching for it in his nominee to replace retiring Justice David H. Souter, but as a qualification for a jurist, it gives conservatives the willies and can produce mixed results in our legal system. We expect judges to resist empathy and instead impose the law evenhandedly. We are appropriately outraged when a judge goes easy on a defendant with whom he identifies — the suburban white kid, say, who gets community service whereas his urban black counterpart goes off to jail.

If empathy can handicap judges, however, it can elevate and enlarge justices. Unlike trial court or even appellate judges, Supreme Court justices are free to regard precedent as subject to challenge, and they act not merely to apply existing judicial norms but rather to question and sometimes overturn them. Doing that well may require experience outside the judicial system and identification with those caught up in it.

In recent history, one court is particularly remembered — by critics and admirers — for its empathy and its consciousness of its outsized place in society as a whole. From 1953 to 1969, the court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren drew upon the varied backgrounds of its justices and the singular character of its chief to craft a remarkable body of work. From race relations to voting rights, from privacy to school prayer, no Supreme Court in U.S. history has done more to draft the contours of society as we experience it today.

Warren himself has to be regarded as a judge who drew upon his life as well as the law in his decision making. A native of Los Angeles who grew up in a modest Bakersfield home, he instinctively sympathized with working people and was forever suspicious of big business, a relic of early summers working for the Southern Pacific.

He started his career as a prosecutor, and that experience guided much of his reasoning on the duties of law enforcement. Partly as a consequence, the Warren court set high standards for those responsible for arresting, charging and trying defendants.

He also won seven elections. After successful campaigns for Alameda County district attorney and California attorney general, he served three terms as California’s governor. It’s no surprise that such a successful politician had enormous confidence in voters. Following his lead, the Warren court eliminated poll taxes and voter literacy tests and imposed requirements of equal representation on state legislative elections, effectively equalizing the voting power of urban blacks and rural whites.

Warren was a stepfather and father, devoted to his six children, and his parental instincts were memorably expressed as he labored over his most important opinion, Brown vs. Board of Education. “To separate [Negro children] from others of their age solely because of their color puts a mark of inferiority not only on their status in the community but upon their little hearts and minds,” Warren wrote in an early draft of that opinion. “Little hearts and minds” leaves no question about whom Warren identified with in that ruling.

Less remembered is Warren’s long struggle to find a constitutional basis for restricting pornography. Warren was raised in Progressive-era California and absorbed that movement’s intolerance for vice. Pornography thus offended his politics and, more viscerally, his sense of parental propriety. Anyone who showed a dirty magazine to one of his girls, Warren often muttered, would get a punch in the mouth. Warren’s empathy for the unwilling recipients of smut was a distraction, as he labored to find a way to punish pornographers but could not fashion a constitutional rule that upheld the 1st Amendment and also squared it with what he regarded as offensive material. The Warren court drifted without much success in the area of pornography.

What is perhaps least well known about Warren’s background and its influence on his work as a justice was his deep, personal identification with the victims of violence. Few criticisms gave him greater offense than that the Warren court was “soft on crime,” a charge that Richard M. Nixon, Warren’s nemesis, lobbed at the court in his 1968 campaign for the presidency. It is no wonder that Warren was angered by the accusation: His father had been murdered, beaten to death with an iron pipe in the family home in Bakersfield in May 1938, while Earl was in the midst of his campaign for attorney general. The assailant was never found.

To some, Warren court rulings such as Gideon vs. Wainwright (right to counsel in state trials), Mapp vs. Ohio (exclusion of illegally seized evidence from state trials), Douglas vs. California (right to counsel on appeal), Escobedo vs. Illinois (exclusion of confessions taken after a suspect asked for a lawyer and was refused access to one) and Miranda vs. Arizona (right of suspects to be informed of their rights) suggested too much empathy with criminals at the expense of police and prosecutors. Warren never did see those cases that way. To him, they were natural expectations of professionalism that he was confident police and prosecutors could meet without endangering their power to convict the guilty. His work in criminal justice reflected two strains of his experience that he never regarded as contradictory — the belief in high standards for law enforcement and the pain of having a loved one killed.

Empathy is not all that is required of great justices. Warren was a careful writer, a skilled leader and a serious, thoughtful, moderate man — all of which helped him unite his court. He was a veteran, a darling of California’s Republican elite, a grand master of the Masons and a member of the Bohemian Club. But his empathy did help shape his judicial record, and in the 16 years that he served as chief justice, the record he compiled consisted of this: Schools and other institutions were desegregated; poor defendants were given access to lawyers; states were ordered to discard voting systems and rules that intentionally disenfranchised blacks; police were reminded that the Constitution requires warrants before they may enter and ransack a home; schools were ordered to stop reading government-approved prayers to children; states were forbidden from denying married couples the right to purchase contraceptives.

Empathy for victims, defendants and others encouraged those rulings; the law and the nation were the beneficiaries. As Obama searches for a justice, Warren’s model of empathy offers sound guidance.

Like many of his predecessors, President Trump has affirmed the importance of historically Black colleges and universities, hailing them as a pathway to careers and a better life for students in the U.S.

The schools have not faced cuts to federal grants of the kind that have rocked Ivy League schools Trump has blasted as hotbeds of “wokeness” and antisemitism, and the president has said HBCUs’ core federal funding is not at risk.

But that is not to say it’s a comfortable time for HBCUs’ leaders. As the Trump administration cracks down elsewhere on programs to support underrepresented students, the colleges have been expressing gratitude for the administration’s recognition while mostly keeping quiet on its sweeping attacks against diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

“HBCUs, in general, I don’t believe are in a position to be adamantly and vociferously opposed to these attacks, but deep down we all know what’s going on,” said Deron Snyder, an alumnus of and professor at Howard University. “It’s just how much can you actually say without fear of retribution.”

An executive order signed by Trump in April recognizes HBCUs and pledges his administration’s support. It calls for an annual White House conference, private-sector partnerships and an advisory board with the Education Department, but it does not guarantee any new federal funding.

The order won praise from some Black universities, including Howard University and Morgan State University, as well as organizations that work with HBCUs. Harry Williams, president of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, said the order should serve as a call to action for corporations, foundations and lawmakers to redouble support for HBCUs and their students.

But the colleges’ leaders have said little on other administration actions that are out of line with the mission of HBCUs, which were founded to educate formerly enslaved people.

The administration’s campaign against DEI has encouraged restrictions on classroom discussions around racism and led to cuts in federal research grants. As it threatens to cut federal funding from schools, some colleges have closed diversity offices and ended other programs to support students of color.

For HBCUs, the moment is reminiscent of the era decades ago when Black colleges were compelled to argue that school segregation was wrong but also needed to maintain government support for their institutions, said Marybeth Gasman, a Rutgers University professor who has studied the history of HBCUs.

Black college leaders “don’t want HBCUs to be under the umbrella of DEI, but I don’t know any HBCU president who would agree with the way that Donald Trump is dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion efforts,” she said.

The Trump administration has cut federal research grants for several universities, pressuring them to comply with his agenda. Since Harvard University refused the administration’s demands for changes to its policies and leadership, the government has slashed $2.6 billion in funding, which the Ivy League school has described as retaliation.

In an interview in April, Trump told NewsNation that Black colleges and universities should not be concerned about losing their funding.

U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.), vice chair of the House HBCU caucus, said there has long been bipartisan support for the colleges. But she said there will be new vigilance of their federal support in light of the administration’s record on programs serving minorities.

Sewell said it is also alarming to see the administration move to dismantle the Education Department.

“We’ll be pushing back fiercely against that and do all that we can to make sure that our HBCUs get the money that they deserve,” Sewell said. She said the Congressional Black Caucus has been paying close attention to the Republicans’ funding plan for a program that supports 19 HBCUs through the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Williams, of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, said HBCUs have exceeded all expectations of the opportunities they have provided for underrepresented students. He said he is grateful for the administration’s support, but when asked about its actions toward diversity initiatives, he said the administration has challenges it is working through.

“Hard work pays off and education pays off. That’s why these institutions are so critical to this country,” he said. “The realities of those other challenges that we’re grappling with right now in terms of what the administration is dealing with as it relates to their priorities, we were just pleased to know that they recognize the importance of what these institutions have done for the country will continue to do in a very deliberate way.”

Mumphrey writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Collin Binkley and Matt Brown in Washington contributed to this report.

BEIJING — U.S.-China trade talks in London this week are expected to take up a series of fresh disputes that have buffeted relations, threatening a fragile truce over tariffs.

Both sides agreed in Geneva last month to a 90-day suspension of most of the 100%-plus tariffs they had imposed on each other in an escalating trade war that had sparked fears of recession.

Since then, the U.S. and China have exchanged angry words about advanced semiconductors that power artificial intelligence, “rare earths” that are vital to carmakers and other industries, and visas for Chinese students at American universities.

President Trump spoke at length with Chinese leader Xi Jinping by phone Thursday in an attempt to put relations back on track. Trump announced on social media the next day that trade talks would be held Monday in London.

Technology is a major sticking point

The latest frictions began just a day after the May 12 announcement of the Geneva agreement to “pause” tariffs for 90 days.

The U.S. Commerce Department issued guidance saying the use of Ascend AI chips from Huawei, a leading Chinese tech company, could violate U.S. export controls. That’s because the chips were probably developed with American technology despite restrictions on its export to China, the guidance said.

The Chinese government wasn’t pleased. One of its biggest beefs in recent years has been over U.S. moves to limit the access of Chinese companies to technology, and in particular to equipment and processes needed to produce the most advanced semiconductors.

“The Chinese side urges the U.S. side to immediately correct its erroneous practices,” a Chinese Commerce Ministry spokesperson said.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wasn’t in Geneva but will join the talks in London. Analysts say that suggests at least a willingness on the U.S. side to hear out China’s concerns on export controls.

China shows signs of easing up on rare earths

One area where China holds the upper hand is in the mining and processing of rare earths. They are crucial for not only autos but also other products such as robots and military equipment.

The Chinese government started requiring producers to obtain a license to export seven rare-earth elements in April. Resulting shortages sent automakers worldwide into a tizzy. As stockpiles ran down, some worried they would have to halt production.

Trump, without mentioning rare earths specifically, took to social media to attack China.

“The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US,” Trump posted on May 30.

The Chinese government indicated Saturday that it is addressing the concerns, which have come from European companies as well. A Commerce Ministry statement said it had granted some approvals and “will continue to strengthen the approval of applications that comply with regulations.”

The scramble to resolve the rare-earth issue shows that China has a strong card to play if it wants to strike back against tariffs or other measures.

Plan to revoke student visas adds to tensions

Student visas don’t normally figure in trade talks, but a U.S. announcement that it would begin revoking the visas of some Chinese students has emerged as another thorn in the relationship.

The Chinese Commerce Ministry raised the issue when asked last week about the accusation that it had violated the consensus reached in Geneva.

It replied that the U.S. had undermined the agreement by issuing export control guidelines for AI chips, stopping the sale of chip design software to China and saying it would revoke Chinese student visas.

“The United States has unilaterally provoked new economic and trade frictions,” the ministry said in a statement posted on its website.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a May 28 statement that the United States would “aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.”

More than 270,000 Chinese students studied in the U.S. in the 2023-24 academic year.

Moritsugu writes for the Associated Press.

California National Guard troops arrived in Los Angeles on Sunday in a show of force following scattered clashes between immigration agents and protesters and amid a widening political divide between California and the Trump administration.

The move by President Trump to activate nearly 2,000 guardsmen marked the first time since 1965 that a president has deployed a state’s National Guard without a request from that state’s governor. The decision was met with stern rebukes from state and local officials, including Gov. Gavin Newsom who said the deployment was “not to meet an unmet need, but to manufacture a crisis.”

Newsom’s office on Sunday afternoon sent a formal letter to the Trump administration asking them to rescind their deployment of troops.

“There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation, while simultaneously depriving the state from deploying these personnel and resources where they are truly required,” the letter reads.

On Sunday afternoon, there were tense moments outside a federal detention center in downtown L.A., with officers firing tear gas and nonlethal rounds at protesters.

But other areas that had seen unrest over the last few days, including the Garment District, Paramount and Compton, seemed calm.

It was unclear exactly how many troops were deployed to Los Angeles as of Sunday afternoon. The National Guard’s 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, based in San Diego, said Sunday that 300 personnel were on the ground to protect federal property and personnel.

Trump administration officials have seized on the isolated incidents of violence to suggest wide parts of L.A. are out of control. On Sunday, Trump took to social media to claim “violent, insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking” federal law enforcement.

“A once great American City, Los Angeles, has been invaded and occupied by Illegal Aliens and Criminals,” he wrote, blaming Democratic politicians for not cracking down earlier.

While officials have not said how long the immigration enforcement actions will continue, Trump told reporters Sunday, “we’re going to have troops everywhere. We’re not going to let this happen to our country.”

Many California officials, who have long been at odds with Trump, say the president was trying to exploit the situation for his political advantage and sow unneeded disorder and confusion.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the deployment of federalized troops a “chaotic escalation” and issued a reminder that “Los Angeles will always stand with everyone who calls our city home.”

While most demonstrators have gathered peacefully, some have hurled objects at law enforcement personnel, set garbage and vehicles on fire and defaced federal property with graffiti.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation in Los Angeles over the past week has resulted in the arrest of 118 people, including some who have been convicted of drug trafficking, assault, child cruelty, domestic violence and robbery, according to the agency.

Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin and Republican politicians who support Trump’s immigration actions have characterized the protests as riots intended to “keep rapists, murderers and other violent criminals loose on Los Angeles streets.”

Representative Maxine Waters speak to the media at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles on Sunday.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

On Sunday morning, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) addressed roughly two dozen National Guard soldiers posted outside the Metropolitan Detention Center on Alameda Street. She had arrived at the center to inquire about Service Employees International Union California President David Huerta, who was injured and detained while documenting an immigration enforcement raid in downtown Los Angeles on Friday.

“Who are you going to shoot?” Waters asked the solders. “If you’re going to shoot me, you better shoot straight.”

Remnants of tear gas used by law enforcement during protests Saturday lingered in the air around the building, at times forcing Waters to cough. Waters, an outspoken critic of the president, called the deployment of National Guard troops an unnecessary escalation of tensions and accused Trump of “trying to make an example” out of Los Angeles, a longstanding sanctuary city.

Leonard Tunstad, a 69-year-old Los Angeles resident, rode his bike up to the edge of the loading dock where troops were stationed and asked them if they really wanted to be loyal to a president that “had 34 felony convictions.” He said he felt compelled to shout facts about Trump at the guardsmen because he feared the young men have been “indoctrinated against their own citizens.”

Tunstad said he believed the deployment was a gross overreaction by the Trump administration, noting the city has been home to far more raucous protests that were handled by local police.

“This is just a show. This is just a spectacle,” he said.

A Department of Homeland Security officer approached one of the louder demonstrators saying that he “didn’t want a repeat of last night” and didn’t want to “get political.” He told protesters as long as they stick to the sidewalk and don’t block vehicle access to the loading dock there wouldn’t be any problems.

Later, DHS and California National Guard troops shoved dozens of protesters into Alameda Street, hitting people with riot shields, firing pellets into the ground and deploying tear gas to clear a path for a caravan of DHS, Border Patrol and military vehicles to enter the detention center.

Jose Longoria struggled to breathe as clouds of tear gas filled Alameda Street. He pointed to a white scuff mark on his shoe, saying that a tear gas canister had hit him in the foot, causing him to limp slightly.

“We’re not armed. We’re just peacefully protesting. They’re acting out,” Longoria said of the officers.

Julie Solis, 50, walked back and forth along Alameda Street holding a Mexican flag and urging the crowd to make their voices heard, but to keep the scene peaceful. She said she believes the National Guard was deployed solely to provoke a response and make Los Angeles look unruly to justify further aggression from federal law enforcement.

People march toward the Metropolitan Detention Center during an immigration march in downtown Los Angeles on Sunday.

(Luke Johnson/Los Angeles Times)

“They want arrests. They want to see us fail. We need to be peaceful. We need to be eloquent,” she said.

National Guard troops were last summoned to Los Angeles and other Southern California cities in 2020, during the George Floyd protests. Those deployments were authorized by Newsom.

However, the last time the National Guard was called on by a president without a request from a state governor was 60 years ago, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators.

Antonio Villaraigosa, former speaker of the California Assembly and a former L.A. mayor, said Trump’s move was “meant to incite more fear and chaos in our community.”

“Trump’s military-style mass deportation ICE raids in California have gone too far, tearing families apart and threatening public safety,” he said in a statement. “The raids at stores and workplaces are wrong, just as it’s wrong to separate families with raids at schools, graduations, and churches.”

In Paramount, a group of camouflaged National Guard troops were stationed in a business park with armored vehicles where a Department of Homeland Security office is located.

Jessica Juarez walked along Alondra Boulevard with a trash bag full of spent tear gas canisters on Sunday morning. Her voice grew hoarse as she helped a group of volunteers clean up after clashes between protesters and law enforcement the day before.

United States Attorney Bill Essayli told NBC in an interview that an officer suffered a broken wrist and others were injured by rocks and cement block pieces that were thrown at them during Saturday’s protest. He said it was “an extremely violent crowd,” but officials are “undeterred.”

An acrid odor still hung in the air from the gas and flash bang grenades law enforcement fired on protesters Saturday, while scorched asphalt marked the intersection outside a Home Depot where federal authorities had staged.

“I’m proud of our community, of the strength we showed,” said Juarez, 40. “It’s like they put so much fear into Paramount and for what? These guys didn’t even clean up after themselves.”

The images of Paramount shrouded in smoke and flanked by police in riot gear are unusual for this community of about 50,000 residents. In many ways, the city became the starting point for the escalating federal response.

“What else do you call it but an attack on Paramount and the people who live here?” said resident and union organizer Alejandro Maldonado. “People in the community were standing up to unjust immigration policies.”

For some, the fight between Los Angeles residents and the federal government is akin to David and Goliath. “It really does seem like they wanted to pick a fight with the little guy,” union organizer Ardelia Aldridge said.

Staff writer Seema Mehta and Brittny Mejia contributed to this report

There are many reasons why people object to the death penalty. Opponents point to the ever-present risk of wrongful conviction. They note that there’s bias against people of color and low-income defendants, as well as geographic disproportionality in its administration. And there’s the fact that most other civilized societies around the world have concluded that it should be abolished.

But these days, there’s also a strong economic argument for doing away with capital punishment. With California facing its most severe fiscal crisis in recent memory — with draconian cuts about to be imposed from Sacramento that will affect every resident of the state — it would be crazy not to consider the fact that it will add as much as $1 billion over the next five years simply to keep the death penalty on the books.

Here’s the math.

Today, California has 678 offenders on death row, more than any other state. Yet, in the last 30 years, we’ve had only 13 executions. With 20 more people sentenced to death each year — and an average wait of 25 years from sentencing to execution — the number of inmates on death row is continuing to climb.

Now consider what capital punishment costs. According to the final report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, which I chaired from 2006 to 2008, the cost of a murder trial goes up by about half a million dollars if prosecutors seek the death penalty. Confinement on death row (with all the attendant security requirements) adds $90,000 per inmate per year to the normal cost of incarceration. Appeals and habeas corpus proceedings add tens of thousands more. In all, it costs $125 million a year more to prosecute and defend death penalty cases and to keep inmates on death row than it would simply to put all those people in prison for life without parole.

On top of that $125-million extra cost per year, California is also facing the need to build a new death house for death penalty inmates at an estimated cost of $400 million.

The commission, whose members were evenly divided between opponents and proponents of the death penalty, agreed that the present system is, as state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George has said, “dysfunctional,” and it unanimously recommended a series of steps to rectify the most serious flaws in the system. We recommended increased staffing in a number of areas, including a 33% increase in the staff of California state public defenders to handle direct appeals and a 500% increase in the California Habeas Corpus Resources Center to take on habeas corpus filings at a much earlier time than is now the case. We also called for a commensurate increase in the staffing of the attorney general’s office to handle the increased caseload.

These staffing increases would cost $95 million more per year. They would bring the time needed to administer California’s death penalty down to about 12 1/2 years, near the national average.

Our report was issued almost a year ago, on June 30, 2008. Since that time, there has been no movement in Sacramento to seek implementation of our proposed reforms. They appear to be in quicksand. And with the fiscal crisis confronting the state, they look to be locked in granite.

So let me make another recommendation. I think it’s time to do away with the death penalty in California.

The system simply isn’t working. No one is being executed; there’s been a moratorium on executions for three years because of legal challenges. Yet death penalty cases are being prosecuted at great expense. We have a lengthy appeals process, death house overcrowding as offenders pile up and millions of dollars being wasted on a system that does not do what it is supposed to do.

It’s time to convert the sentences of those now on death row to life without parole. Doing so would incapacitate some of the worst of the worst for their natural lives, and at the same time ensure that a person wrongfully convicted will not be executed. And it would save $125 million each year.

A courageous governor facing an unprecedented budget crisis would take this step and use the taxpayer money saved to preserve some of the vital services now on the chopping block.

Russian officials said Sunday that Moscow is still awaiting official confirmation from Ukraine that a planned exchange of 6,000 bodies of soldiers killed in action will take place, reiterating allegations that Kyiv had postponed the swap.

On the front line in the war, Russia said that it had pushed into Ukraine’s Dnipropetrovsk region.

Russian state media quoted Lt. Gen. Alexander Zorin, a representative of the Russian negotiating group, as saying that Russia delivered the first batch of 1,212 bodies of Ukrainian soldiers to the exchange site at the border and is waiting for confirmation from Ukraine, but that there were “signals” that the process of transferring the bodies would be postponed until next week.

Citing Zorin on her Telegram channel, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova asked whether it was Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky‘s “personal decision not to take the bodies of the Ukrainians” or whether “someone from NATO prohibited it.”

Ukrainian authorities said plans agreed upon during direct talks in Istanbul on Monday were proceeding accordingly, despite what Ukraine’s intelligence chief, Kyrylo Budanov, called Russian attempts to “unilaterally dictate the parameters of the exchange process.”

People rest in a metro station, being used as a bomb shelter, during a Russian drone attack in Kyiv, Ukraine, on Friday.

(Dan Bashakov/AP)

“We are carefully adhering to the agreements reached in Istanbul. Who, when and how to exchange should not be someone’s sole decision. Careful preparation is ongoing. Pressure and manipulation are unacceptable here,” he said in a statement on Telegram on Sunday.

“The start of repatriation activities based on the results of the negotiations in Istanbul is scheduled for next week, as authorized persons were informed about on Tuesday,” the statement said. “Everything is moving according to plan, despite the enemy’s dirty information game.”

Russia and Ukraine each accused the other on Saturday of endangering plans to swap 6,000 bodies of soldiers killed in action, which was agreed upon during the talks in Istanbul, which otherwise made no progress toward ending the war.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky speaks to journalists during a press conference in Kyiv, Ukraine.

(Evgeniy Maloletka / Associated Press)

Vladimir Medinsky, an aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin, led the Russian delegation. Medinsky said that Kyiv called a last-minute halt to an imminent swap. In a Telegram post on Saturday, he said that refrigerated trucks carrying more than 1,200 bodies of Ukrainian troops from Russia had already reached the agreed exchange site at the border when the news came.

According to the main Ukrainian authority dealing with such swaps, no date had been set for repatriating the bodies. In a statement Saturday, the agency also accused Russia of submitting lists of prisoners of war for repatriation that didn’t correspond to agreements reached Monday.

It wasn’t immediately possible to reconcile the conflicting claims.

Russia says it is heading into Dnipropetrovsk region

In other developments, Russia’s Defense Ministry said Sunday that its forces had reached the western edge of the Donetsk region, one of the four provinces Russia illegally annexed in 2022, and that troops were “developing the offensive” in the neighboring Dnipropetrovsk region. This would be the first time Russian troops had pushed into the region in the more than three-year-old war.

Ukraine didn’t immediately respond to the claim, and the Associated Press couldn’t immediately verify it.

Russia’s advance would mark a significant setback for Ukraine’s already stretched forces as peace talks remain stalled and Russian troops have made incremental gains elsewhere.

Russia and Ukraine exchange aerial attacks

One person was killed and another seriously wounded in Russian aerial strikes on the eastern Ukrainian Kharkiv region. These strikes came after Russian attacks targeted the regional capital, also called Kharkiv, on Saturday. Regional police in Kharkiv said on Sunday that the death toll from Saturday’s attacks had increased to six people. More than two dozen others were wounded.

Russia fired a total of 49 exploding drones and decoys and three missiles overnight, Ukraine’s air force said Sunday. Forty drones were shot down or electronically jammed.

Russia’s defense ministry said that its forces shot down 61 Ukrainian drones overnight, including near the capital.

Five people were wounded Sunday in a Ukrainian drone attack on a parking lot in Russia’s Belgorod region, according to regional Gov. Vyacheslav Gladkov. Two people were wounded when a Ukrainian drone attack sparked a fire at a chemical plant in the Tula region, local authorities said.

Russian authorities said early Sunday that Vnukovo and Domodedovo airports, two international airports serving Moscow, temporarily suspended flights because of a Ukrainian drone attack. Later in the day, Domodedovo halted flights temporarily for a second time, along with Zhukovsky airport.

To hear our national leaders tell it, Los Angeles is in chaos and our governor and mayor are out to lunch with the police, blissfully ignoring reality as the city burns.

“These Radical Left protests, by instigators and often paid troublemakers, will NOT BE TOLERATED,” President Trump wrote on social media, shortly after ordering the National Guard onto our streets.

“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,” he wrote in a memo Saturday, authorizing 2,000 National Guard troops to be deployed in L.A. for at least 60 days.

Put down your matcha lattes and trade in your Birkenstocks for boots, folks. We are the revolution, apparently, so dangerous only a seasoned military can stop us. The only problem, of course, is that Los Angeles is not in chaos on this particular sunny Sunday and the vast majority of Angelenos are just trying to enjoy the weekend without becoming a federal prisoner.

Trump’s memo will go into the history books as a moment when presidential power expanded to put under his control a military force aimed at U.S. civilians. Although not unprecedented, the dean of UC Berkeley’s law school, Erwin Chemerinsky, said it was “stunning.”

All the more so because the deployment is based on a lie. Yes, there has been some violence in the last few days as federal immigration authorities round up criminals and regular folks alike in deportation sweeps. If you keep the camera angle tight on those protests, as many media outlets have done, it does look dire.

Rocks being thrown, even Molotov cocktails. Masked protesters hammering at concrete pillars outside a downtown federal building. Cars on fire.

All of this is terrible and those responsible should be arrested — by our local police and sheriffs, who are more than up to the job of handling a few hundred protesters.

But 99% of this city is business as usual, with brunches and beach walks and church and yoga classes. And even in those few pockets where the protests are happening, such as a march downtown Sunday, this is Los Angeles — I’ve seen more chaos after a Lakers game.

Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School, told my colleague Seema Mehta that although it’s extremely unusual for a president to take federal control of troops, it’s not unprecedented and maybe not illegal. It happened in 1992 during the Los Angeles riots after the Rodney King verdict.

“One of the exceptions is when there is violence and the inability of the federal government to enforce federal laws,” Levinson said. “And that is exactly what the president is arguing is happening.”

My intrepid colleagues at this paper have been on the ground since the first protests began, and, as their reporting shows, the majority of what is happening is peaceful and isolated.

Even the cops agree. And seriously, when the cops are agreeing there’s no riot — there is no riot.

“Demonstrations across the City of Los Angeles remained peaceful and we commend all those who exercised their First Amendment rights responsibly,” the LAPD wrote in a statement Saturday night.

Still, by Sunday morning, those troops, in full military gear with guns in hand (presumably with less lethal ammo, I hope), were arriving. The U.S. Northern Command tweeted that the 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team has some members on the ground in Los Angeles, with more to come.

“These operations are essential to halting and reversing the invasion of illegal criminals into the United States. In the wake of this violence, California’s feckless Democrat leaders have completely abdicated their responsibility to protect their citizens,” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, further explained before they arrived.

Also, as you plan your week, there is now a dress code — at least for civilians, not the authorities intent on hiding their identities.

“(F)rom now on, MASKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to be worn at protests. What do these people have to hide, and why???” Trump wrote.

All this, Gov. Gavin Newsom said, is “not to meet an unmet need, but to manufacture a crisis.”

He’s right — Los Angeles has landed a starring role in Trump’s war on brown people. It makes sense. We are a city of immigrants, of all colors, and a Democratic — and democratic — one at that. What’s not to hate?

Mayor Karen Bass told my colleague Rachel Uranga that her office had tried to talk to the White House to tell them “there was absolutely no need to have troops on the ground,” but got nowhere.

“This is posturing,” Bass said.

“They want violence,” Newsom added in a Sunday email. “Don’t give them the spectacle they want.”

I’m not sure that’s possible. There will always be the bad actors, the violent ones, at any protest. And again — they should be arrested.

But Trump is going to laser-focus on those few to make an example of this city, and to increase his own power.

Because although this “insurrection” is a fantasy, his dream of more power seems all too real.

WASHINGTON — After the raucous rainbow-hued festivities of Saturday’s parade, the final day of World Pride 2025 in the nation’s capital kicked off on a more downbeat note.

More than 1,000 people gathered under gray skies Sunday morning at the Lincoln Memorial for a rally that will lead into a protest march, as the community gathers its strength for a looming fight under President Trump’s second administration.

“This is not just a party,” Ashley Smith, board president of Capital Pride Alliance. “This is a rally for our lives.”

Smith acknowledged that international attendance numbers for the biannual World Pride were measurably down, with many potential attendees avoiding travel to the U.S. because of either fear of harassment or in protest of Trump’s policies.

“That should disturb us and mobilize us,” Smith said.

More than 1,000 people cheered on LGBTQ+ activists taking the stage while waving traditional Pride flags and flags representing transgender, bisexual, intersex and other communities. Many had rainbow glitter and rhinestones adorning their faces. They held signs declaring, “Fight back,” “Gay is good,” “Ban bombs not bathrooms” and “We will not be erased.”

Trump’s campaign against transgender protections and oft-stated antipathy for drag shows have set the community on edge, with some hoping to see a renewed wave of street politics in response.

“Trans people just want to be loved. Everybody wants to live their own lives and I don’t understand the problem with it all,” said Tyler Cargill, who came wearing an elaborate costume with a hat topped by a replica of the U.S. Capitol building.

Wes Kincaid drove roughly six hours from Charlotte, N.C., to attend this year. Sitting on a park bench near the reflecting pond, Kincaid said he made a point of attending this year, “because it’s more important than ever to show up for our community.”

Drag dancer Violeta puts on a show for visitors to Beaches Pride Paradise at the WeHo Pride Street Fair along Santa Monica Boulevard in West Hollywood on May 31.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

Reminders of the cuts to federal government programs were on full display Sunday. One attendee waved a massive rainbow flag affixed on the same staff as a large USAID flag; another held a “Proud gay federal worker” sign; and a third held an umbrella with the logos of various federal programs facing cuts — including the PBS logo.

Trump’s anti-trans rhetoric had fueled fears of violence or protests targeting World Pride participants; at one point earlier this spring, rumors circulated that the Proud Boys were planning to disrupt this weekend’s celebrations. Those concerns prompted organizers to install security fencing around the entire two-day street party on a multi-block stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue.

But so far, the only clear act of aggression has been the vandalizing of a queer bar last week. Late Saturday night, there was a pair of violent incidents near Dupont Circle — one of the epicenters of the World Pride celebrations. Two juveniles were stabbed and a man was shot in the foot in separate incidents. The Metropolitan Police Department says it is not clear if either incident was directly related to World Pride.

Fernando, Hussein, Martin and Pesoli write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — When racial justice protests roiled cities across America at the depths of the pandemic, President Trump, then in his first term, demonstrated restraint. Threats to invoke the Insurrection Act and to federalize the National Guard never materialized.

This time, it took less than 24 hours of isolated protests in Los Angeles County before Trump, more aggressive than ever in his use of executive power, to issue a historic order. “The federal government will step in and solve the problem,” he said on social media Saturday night, issuing executive action not seen since civil unrest gripped the nation in the 1960s.

It was the latest expression of a president unleashed from conventional parameters on his power, unconcerned with states’ rights or the proportionality of his actions. And the targeting of a Democratic city in a Democratic state was, according to the vice president, an intentional ploy to make a political lesson out of Los Angeles.

The pace of the escalation, and the federal government’s unwillingness to defer to cooperative local law enforcement authorities, raise questions about the administration’s intentions as it responds to protesters. The administration skipped several steps in an established ladder of response options, such as enhancing U.S. Marshals Service and Federal Protective Service personnel to protect federal prisons and property, before asking the state whether a National Guard deployment might be warranted.

Local officials were clear that they did not want, or need, federal assistance. And they are concerned that Trump’s heavy-handed response risks escalating what was a series of isolated, heated clashes consisting of a few hundred people into a larger law enforcement challenge that could roil the city.

The president’s historic deployment prompted fury among local Democratic officials who warned of an infringement on states’ rights. Trump’s takeover of the California National Guard, Gov. Gavin Newsom said, was prompted “not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle.”

“Don’t give them one,” he said.

Vice President JD Vance, calling the anti-ICE protesters “insurrectionists,” welcomed the political pushback, stating on X that “one half of America’s political leadership has decided that border enforcement is evil.”

Protests against ICE agents on Friday and Saturday were limited in scale and location. Several dozen people protested the flash raids on Friday afternoon outside the Metropolitan Detention Center, with some clashing with agents and vandalizing the building. The LAPD authorized so-called less-lethal munitions against a small group of “violent protesters” after concrete was thrown at an officer. The protest disbursed by midnight.

On Saturday, outside a Home Depot, demonstrators chanted “ICE go home” and “No justice, no peace.” Some protesters yelled at deputies, and a series of flash-bang grenades was deployed.

“What are you doing!” one man screamed out.

Times reporters witnessed federal agents lobbing multiple rounds of flash-bangs and pepper balls at protesters.

Despite the limited scale of the violence, by Saturday evening, the Trump administration embraced the visuals of a city in chaos compelling federal enforcement of law and order.

“The Trump Administration has a zero tolerance policy for criminal behavior and violence, especially when that violence is aimed at law enforcement officers trying to do their jobs,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Saturday night. “These criminals will be arrested and swiftly brought to justice. The commander-in-chief will ensure the laws of the United States are executed fully and completely.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in a statement Saturday, said the administration is prepared to go further, deploying active-duty U.S. Marines to the nation’s second-largest city. “This is deranged behavior,” responded California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom.

Trump’s decision Saturday to call in the National Guard, using a rarely used authority called Title 10, has no clear historic precedent. President Lyndon Johnson cited Title 10 in 1965 to protect civil rights marchers during protests in Selma, Ala., but did so out of concern that local law enforcement would decline to do so themselves.

By contrast, this weekend, the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department said it was fully cooperating with federal law enforcement. “We are planning for long-term civil unrest and collaborating with our law enforcement partners,” the department said in a statement.

The 2,000 Guardsmen called up for duty is double the number that were assigned by local authorities to respond to much wider protests that erupted throughout Los Angeles in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder in 2020.

Tom Homan, the president’s so-called border czar, told Fox News on Saturday evening that the administration was “already ahead of the game” in its planning for a National Guard deployment.

“This is about enforcing the law, and again, we’re not going to apologize for doing it,” he said. “We’re stepping up.”

National Guard troops began arriving in Los Angeles on Sunday morning, deploying around federal buildings in L.A. County.

“If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can’t do their jobs,” Trump wrote on Truth, his social media platform, “then the federal government will step in and solve the problem.”

To hear Republicans tell it, California is a failed state and Donald Trump won the presidency in a landslide that gives him a mandate to do as he pleases. No surprise there.

But more and more, Democrats are echoing those talking points. Ever since Kamala Harris lost the election, the Democratic Party has been on a nationwide self-flagellation tour. One after another, its leaders have stuck their heads deep into their navels, hoping to find out why so many Americans — especially young people, Black voters and Latinos — shunned the former vice president.

Even in California, a reliably blue state, the soul-searching has been extreme, as seen at last weekend’s state Democratic Party convention, where a parade of speakers — including Harris’ 2024 running mate, Tim Walz — wailed and moaned and did the woe-is-us-thing.

Is it long-overdue introspection, or just annoying self-pity? Our columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak hash it out.

Chabria: Mark, you were at the convention in Anaheim. Thoughts?

Barabak: I’ll start by noting this is the first convention I’ve attended — and I’ve been to dozens — rated “R” for adult language. Apparently, Democrats think by dropping a lot of f-bombs they can demonstrate to voters their authenticity and passion. But it seemed kind of stagy and, after a while, grew tiresome.

I’ve covered Nancy Pelosi for more than three decades and never once heard her utter a curse word, in public or private. I don’t recall Martin Luther King Jr., saying, “I have a [expletive deleted] dream.” Both were pretty darned effective leaders.

Democrats have a lot of work to do. But cursing a blue streak isn’t going to win them back the White House or control of Congress.

Chabria: As someone known to routinely curse in polite society, I’m not one to judge an expletive. But that cussing and fussing brings up a larger point: Democrats are desperate to prove how serious and passionate they are about fixing themselves. Gov. Gavin Newsom has called the Democratic brand “toxic.” Walz told his fellow Dems: “We’re in this mess because some of it’s our own doing.”

It seems like across the country, the one thing Democrats can agree on is that they are lame. Or at least, they see themselves as lame. I’m not sure the average person finds Democratic ideals such as equality or due process quite so off-putting, especially as Trump and his MAGA brigade move forward on the many campaign promises — deportations, rollbacks of civil rights, stripping the names of civil rights icons off ships — that at least some voters believed were more talk than substance.

I always tell my kids to be their own hero, and I’m starting to think the Democrats need to hear that. Pick yourself up. Dust yourself off. Move on. Do you think all this self-reproach is useful, Mark? Does Harris’ loss really mean the party is bereft of value or values?

Barabak: I think self-reflection is good for the party, to a point. Democrats suffered a soul-crushing loss in November — at the presidential level and in the Senate, where the GOP seized control — and they did so in part because many of their traditional voters stayed home. It would be political malpractice not to figure out why.

That said, there is a tendency to go overboard and over-interpret the long-term significance of any one election.

This is not the end of the Democratic Party. It’s not even the first time one of the two major parties has been cast into the political wilderness.

Democrats went through similar soul-searching after presidential losses in 1984 and 1988. In 1991, a book was published explaining how Democrats were again destined to lose the White House and suggesting they would do so for the foreseeable future. In November 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president. Four years later, he romped to reelection.

In 2013, after two straight losing presidential campaigns, Republicans commissioned a political autopsy that, among other recommendations, urged the party to increase its outreach to gay and Latino voters. In 2016, Donald Trump — not exactly a model of inclusion — was elected.

Here, by the way, is how The Times wrote up that postmortem: “A smug, uncaring, ideologically rigid national Republican Party is turning off the majority of American voters, with stale policies that have changed little in 30 years and an image that alienates minorities and the young, according to an internal GOP study.”

Sound familar?

So, sure, look inward. But spare us the existential freakout.

Chabria: I would also argue that this moment is about more than the next election. I do think there are questions about if democracy will make it that long, and if so, if the next round at the polls will be a free and fair one.

I know the price of everything continues to rise, and conventional wisdom is that it’s all about the economy. But Democrats seem stuck in election politics as usual. These however, are unusual times that call for something more. There are a lot of folks who don’t like to see their neighbors, family or friends rounded up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in masks; a lot of people who don’t want to see Medicaid cut for millions, with Medicare likely to be on the chopping block next; a lot of people who are afraid our courts won’t hold the line until the midterms.

They want to know Democrats are fighting to protect these things, not fighting each other. I agree with you that any loss should be followed by introspection. But also, there’s a hunger for leadership in opposition to this administration, and the Democrats are losing an opportunity to be those leaders with their endless self-immolation.

Did Harris really lose that bad? Did Trump really receive a mandate to end America as we know it?

Barabak: No, and no.

I mean, a loss is a loss. Trump swept all seven battleground states and the election result was beyond dispute unlike, say, 2000.

But Trump’s margin over Harris in the popular vote was just 1.5% — which is far from landslide territory — and he didn’t even win a majority of support, falling just shy of 50%.

As for a supposed mandate, the most pithy and perceptive post-election analysis I read came from the American Enterprise Institute’s Yuval Levin, who noted Trump’s victory marked the third presidential campaign in a row in which the incumbent party lost — something not seen since the 19th century.

Challengers “win elections because their opponents were unpopular,” Levin wrote, “and then — imagining the public has endorsed their party activists’ agenda — they use the power of their office to make themselves unpopular.”

It’s a long way to 2026, and an even longer way to 2028.

But Levin is sure looking smart.

Chabria: I know Kamala-bashing is popular right now, but I’d argue that Harris wasn’t resoundingly unpopular — just unpopular enough, with some.

Harris had 107 days to campaign. Many candidates spend years running for the White House, and much longer if you count the coy “maybe” period. She was unknown to most Americans, faced double discrimination from race and gender, and (to be fair) has never been considered wildly charismatic. So to nearly split the popular vote with all that baggage is notable.

But maybe Elon Musk said it best. As part of his messy breakup with Trump, the billionaire tweeted, “Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.”

Sometimes there’s truth in anger. Musk’s money influenced this election, and probably tipped it to Trump in at least one battleground state. Any postmortem needs to examine not just the message, but also the medium. Is it what Democrats are saying that isn’t resonating, or is it that right-wing oligarchs are dominating communication?

Barabak:

Chabria: Mark?

Barabak: Sorry.

I was so caught up in the spectacle of the world’s richest man going all neener-neener with the world’s most powerful man I lost track of where we were.

With all due respect to Marshall McLuhan, I think Democrats need first off to figure out a message to carry them through the 2026 midterms. They were quite successful in 2018 pushing back on GOP efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, if you prefer. It’s not hard to see them resurrecting that playbook if Republicans take a meat-ax to Medicare and millions of Americans lose their healthcare coverage.

Then, come 2028, they’ll pick a presidential nominee and have their messenger, who can then focus on the medium — TV, radio, podcasts, TikTok, Bluesky or whatever else is in political fashion at the moment.

Now, excuse me while I return my sights to the sandbox.

There’s a line in Eric Coomer’s defamation lawsuit against Mike Lindell, the MyPillow guy, that strikes me as the perfect description of what happens when influential partisans belch lies about innocent people in these insanely charged political times:

“The real world consequences for the subjects of those lies,” says the lawsuit, “have been devastating.”

Indeed.

Think of Georgia poll workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss, whose lives were destroyed when Rudy Giuliani, once President Trump’s top campaign lawyer, claimed the pair had rigged the 2020 election outcome in their state. Giuliani even invented a blatantly racist story about the women passing drugs to each other at their Fulton County polling place. Trump amplified the claims. The two women received death threats, were loath to leave home even for groceries and had to go into hiding. I will never forget how sad and broken they seemed during their testimony before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Happily, Freeman and Moss won a $148-million settlement from Giuliani, leading the former New York mayor to unsuccessfully sue for bankruptcy in an effort to dodge his obligation. Now stripped of his license to practice law in New York, Giuliani has fallen so far he’s not even a punchline on late night TV anymore.

Just like Freeman and Moss, Coomer, the former director of product strategy and security for Dominion Voting Systems, was subjected to a torrent of false claims about election rigging by Lindell and other right-wing conspiracy theorists and media outlets. Like Freeman and Moss, he was terrorized and driven into hiding.

He left his job, moved to a new location, placed guns around the house he borrowed from a friend, experienced depression and panic attacks, and believes he will not be able to return to his profession.

“People were essentially taking bets on how my brother’s corpse would be found and which nefarious shadow group would be behind his death,” Coomer’s brother told the New York Times in 2021. “He would be executed by the state or he would be found with a falsified suicide note and two gunshots in the back of his head.”

Coomer, like others, became collateral damage in the misbegotten MAGA campaign to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Fox News hosts, including Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro and Lou Dobbs, completely lost their minds, and the company allowed its highest-profile stars to spew lie after lie about the election in general and Dominion Voting Systems in particular, knowing full well (as News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch admitted under oath) that Dominion was blameless and that Joe Biden had won fair and square.

That unsavory chapter ended up costing Fox $787.5 million in a settlement to Dominion, which allowed the right-wing network to avert a trial.

Coomer, who has filed lawsuits against Giuliani and several others who spread lies about him, now gets his day in court against Lindell. The defamation trial, which began Monday, is expected to last through the end of this week. (Coomer settled suits against conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell; Newsmax; One America News Network, or OAN; and an OAN correspondent. His suit against Guiliani is pending.)

The false claims against Coomer were dreamed up by a conservative Colorado podcaster, Joseph Oltmann, who told listeners that he had infiltrated an “Antifa conference call” in which “Eric, the Dominion guy” claimed to have rigged the election against Trump. (Coomer’s defamation suit against Oltmann is also pending.)

“Oltmann,” says Coomer’s lawsuit, “claimed this supposed call happened on some unspecified date months before the election, but that he did not think to take action until after the election was called for President Biden …. Oltmann’s story is inherently implausible.”

Not to mention, outlandish and preposterous.

In his campaign against Coomer, Oltmann posted a photo of the Dominion executive’s home on his social media and urged his followers to “blow this sh— up. Share, put his name everywhere. No rest for this sh—bag … Eric we are watching you.”

Lindell, who seems never to have come across a right-wing conspiracy theory he couldn’t embrace, picked up on Oltmann’s fantasies about Coomer and began spreading them far and wide — in interviews, on his website, in social media, etc.

On his FrankSpeech media platform, Lindell addressed Coomer directly: “You are disgusting and you are treasonous. You are a traitor to the United States of America.” (Classic case of projection, imho.)

Lindell could have settled as so many others have done. Instead, he has chosen to fight on, hawking pillows, sheets and slippers to pay his legal bills as he goes. His attorney said that because he believed what he was saying was true, it’s not defamation. “It’s just words. All Mike Lindell did was talk,” Lindell’s attorney told the jury. “Mike believed that he was telling the truth.”

Before the trial, Lindell stood on the federal courthouse steps in Denver and proclaimed that his only goal in all this was to ban electronic voting machines and replace them with paper ballots.

“If we can get there,” he said, “I would sacrifice everything.”

If Coomer wins his defamation case against Lindell — and I really hope he does — Lindell will have lost a lot and gained very little. First, the case has nothing to do with the validity of voting machines. Second, an estimated 98% of American voters already cast ballots that leave a paper trail because that’s one way voting machines record votes.

But Lindell, like so many of his MAGA compatriots, still won’t let reality stand in the way of Trump’s Big Lie.

@rabcarian.bsky.social Threads: @rabcarian