Trump

The United States Marines have deployed to Los Angeles following criticism and legal battles over whether President Donald Trump had the authority to use the military to quell civilian protests without state approval.

On Friday, Major General Scott Sherman of the US Army confirmed that 200 Marines were arriving in southern California to protect a federal building. A total of 700 Marines have been authorised for deployment to the region.

“I would like to emphasise that the soldiers will not participate in law enforcement activities,” Sherman said during a briefing.

Later in the day, the news agency Reuters confirmed with the military that the Marines had carried out their first-known detention, restraining a civilian with zip ties. The Trump administration has said the Marines will accompany Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on raids and arrests.

“Any temporary detention ends immediately when the individual can be safely transferred to the custody of appropriate civilian law enforcement personnel,” a military spokesperson told Reuters.

Federal law generally prohibits the military from participating in civilian law enforcement activities, and military officials have been careful to draw a line between temporary detentions and formal arrests — the latter of which they cannot do.

The Marines join National Guard troops already in the Los Angeles area following the eruption of protests on June 6, when residents took to the streets to express their displeasure with President Trump’s immigration raids, some of which targeted local hardware stores and other workplaces.

While many of the demonstrations were mostly peaceful and limited to a small part of the city, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) did experience tense clashes with some protesters, who hurled objects and set driverless Waymo vehicles on fire. Police responded with flashbangs, tear gas and rubber bullets.

Trump, meanwhile, dubbed the protesters “bad people” and “insurrectionists” and announced the deployment of the National Guard on the evening of June 7.

The president cited Title 10 of the US Code, which allows a president to call up the National Guard if there is a “rebellion or danger of rebellion” against the federal government. Trump and his allies framed the demonstrators as part of a migrant “invasion” imperilling the US.

“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,” Trump wrote in a presidential memorandum.

A legal battle

It was the first time since 1965 that a US president had authorised the National Guard’s deployment to a state without the governor’s permission. The last time was to protect civil rights protesters who were marching through segregated Alabama and faced threats of violence.

Presidents have called up the National Guard to address domestic unrest in the years since, but only with the cooperation of local authorities. In 1992, for instance, then-President Bill Clinton answered a request from California’s governor at the time to send National Guard members to address the Rodney King protests in Los Angeles.

Trump’s decision to circumvent the authority of California’s present-day governor, Gavin Newsom, has led to a legal fight over whether he exceeded his powers as president.

Newsom filed a lawsuit to block the use of military troops outside of federal sites, and on Thursday, a pair of court decisions left the future of the recent deployment unclear.

First, on Thursday afternoon, District Court Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco sided with Newsom, calling Trump’s actions “illegal” and a violation of the US Constitution.

In his 36-page decision, Breyer ruled that the Trump administration had failed to show a danger of rebellion in Los Angeles.

“While Defendants have pointed to several instances of violence, they have not identified a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole,” he wrote. “The definition of rebellion is unmet.”

He added that he was “troubled” by the Trump administration’s argument that a protest against the federal government could be tantamount to rebellion, warning that such logic could violate the First Amendment right to free speech.

“Individuals’ right to protest the government is one of the fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment, and just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone,” Breyer said.

He called for an injunction against Trump’s use of National Guard members, saying “it sets a dangerous precedent for future domestic military activity” and “deprives the state for two months of its own use of thousands of National Guard members”.

Nearly 4,000 members of the California National Guard have been authorised for deployment to Los Angeles under Trump’s command.

But the Trump administration quickly appealed Judge Breyer’s injunction. By late Thursday, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals had temporarily blocked the injunction, allowing Trump to continue using the National Guard until a hearing could be held on the matter next week.

On Friday, Trump celebrated that decision on his social media platform, Truth Social.

“The Appeals Court ruled last night that I can use the National Guard to keep our cities, in this case Los Angeles, safe,” Trump wrote.

“If I didn’t send the Military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now. We saved L.A. Thank you for the Decision!!!”

Newsom, meanwhile, has continued his call for Trump to end what he framed as illegal control of the National Guard. He has also accused the military presence of heightening tensions with protesters, not dissipating them.

“@RealDonaldTrump, you must relinquish your authority of the National Guard back to me and back to California,” Newsom wrote on social media Thursday.

He has called the Republican president’s federalisation of the National Guard an “unmistakable step toward authoritarianism”.

The California governor is seen as a possible Democratic contender for the presidency in the 2028 election cycle.

The Trump administration has argued that Khalil, a Columbia University student, did not disclose past affiliations.

A United States federal judge has allowed the administration of President Donald Trump to keep student protester Mahmoud Khalil in custody based on allegations of immigration fraud.

On Friday, Judge Michael Farbiarz of Newark, New Jersey, ruled that Khalil’s legal team had not adequately shown why his detention on the charge would be unlawful.

It was a major setback for Khalil, who had been a negotiator for the student protesters at Columbia University demonstrating against Israel’s war on Gaza. He was the first high-profile protester to be arrested under Trump’s campaign to expel foreign students who participated in pro-Palestinian advocacy.

Just this week, Farbiarz appeared poised to order Khalil’s release, on the basis that his detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was unconstitutional.

That law stipulates that the secretary of state – in this case, Marco Rubio – has the power to remove foreign nationals who have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”. But Farbiarz ruled that Rubio’s use of the law violated Khalil’s freedom of speech.

Still, the Trump administration filed additional court papers saying it had another reason for wanting to deport Khalil.

It alleged that Khalil, a permanent US resident, had omitted information from his green-card application that would have otherwise disqualified him from gaining residency.

The Trump administration has long accused Khalil of supporting terrorism through his protest-related activities, something the former graduate student has vehemently denied.

In the case of his green-card application, it argues that Khalil failed to disclose his work with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), a humanitarian organisation. Politicians in Israel and the US have accused UNRWA of ties to the armed group Hamas, an allegation reportedly made without evidence.

Khalil, however, has denied he was ever an “officer” in UNRWA, as alleged. Instead, his legal team points out that he completed a United Nations internship through Columbia University.

The Trump administration also argues that Khalil did not accurately identify the length of his employment with the Syria Office of the British Embassy in Beirut. Khalil and his legal team, meanwhile, say he accurately identified his departure date from the job as December 2022.

Judge Farbiarz had set Friday morning as a deadline for the Trump administration to appeal Khalil’s release on bail. But that deadline was extended to give the government more time to challenge Khalil’s release.

Ultimately, Farbiarz allowed the Trump administration to continue its detention of Khalil. He advised Khalil’s lawyers to seek release on bail from the immigration court where his deportation trial is being held in Louisiana.

Farbiarz had been weighing a separate habeas corpus petition from the Khalil team that called into question the constitutionality of his continued detention.

Marc Van Der Hout, a lawyer for Khalil, told the Reuters news agency that immigration fraud charges are exceedingly rare, and the Trump administration’s use of such charges was simply a political manoeuvre to keep Khalil in lock-up.

“Detaining someone on a charge like this is highly unusual and frankly outrageous,” said Van Der Hout. “There continues to be no constitutional basis for his detention.”

Another lawyer representing Khalil, Amy Greer, described the new allegations against his green-card application as part of the government’s “cruel, transparent delay tactics”. She noted that Khalil, a new father whose child was born in April, would miss his first Father’s Day, which falls this Sunday in the US.

“Instead of celebrating together, he is languishing in ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] detention as punishment for his advocacy on behalf of his fellow Palestinians,” Greer said in a statement.

“It is unjust, it is shocking, and it is disgraceful.”

With Los Angeles reeling from immigration sweeps and unsettled by nightly clashes between protesters and police, Mayor Karen Bass was asked by a reporter: What she did she have to say to President Trump?

Bass, standing before a bank of news cameras, did not hold back.

“I want to tell him to stop the raids,” she said. “I want to tell him that this is a city of immigrants. I want to tell him that if you want to devastate the economy of the city of Los Angeles, then attack the immigrant population.”

After taking office in 2022, L.A.’s 43rd mayor carefully avoided public disputes with other elected officials, instead highlighting her well-known penchant for collaboration and coalition-building.

The high-profile Democrat, who spent a dozen years in Congress, largely steered clear of direct confrontation with Trump, responding diplomatically even as he attacked her over her handling of the Palisades fire earlier this year.

Those days of tiptoeing around Trump, and avoiding head-to-head conflict, are over.

Bass is now sparring with the president and his administration at a perilous moment for her city and possibly for democracy.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers point non-lethal weapons at protesters.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

At the same time, the tumultuous events of the past week have given her a crucial opportunity for a reset after the Palisades fire, recalibrating her public image while leading her city through another historic crisis.

“Having two moments of crisis during the first six months of this year has really tested her mettle as mayor,” said GOP political strategist Mike Madrid, a long-standing Trump critic. “I think it’s fair to say she did not perform to expectations during the fires. I think she’s considerably improved during the current situation.”

Since agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal authorities fanned out across the region, searching for undocumented immigrants at courthouses, car washes and Home Depot parking lots, Bass has accused Trump of creating a “terrible sense of fear” in her city.

Bass said Trump is on track to waste more than $100 million on troops who were neither requested nor needed. On multiple occasions, she said Trump wrongly gave credit to the National Guard for bringing calm to downtown L.A. on Saturday, when those troops had not even arrived yet.

In many ways, Trump has emerged as the ideal foil for a mayor who, for much of the past six months, had been on her back feet.

In the immediate aftermath of the Palisades fire, which erupted when she was out of the country, Bass struggled to show a command of the details and was savaged by critics over what they viewed as her lack of leadership. Months later, she released a budget that called for the layoffs of 1,600 workers, drawing an outcry from labor leaders, youth advocates and many others.

Bass has been quicker to respond this time around, announcing a nightly curfew for downtown, warning of consequences for those who vandalize or commit violence and spelling out the real-world impacts of the ICE arrests on her constituents.

The pushback reached a crescendo on Thursday, when — with just a few hours notice — Bass assembled more than 100 people from religious, community, business and civic groups to denounce the raids. It made for a potent tableau: a multi-ethnic, multiracial crowd of Angelenos cheering on the mayor as she declared that “peace begins with ICE leaving Los Angeles.”

An ICE agent during a news conference in Los Angeles.

(Luke Johnson / Los Angeles Times)

Bass said she had received reports of ICE agents entering hospitals, workers not showing up to their jobs, parents afraid to attend their own children’s graduations. An immigrant rights advocate said Trump had brought cruelty and chaos to Los Angeles. A church pastor from Boyle Heights said his parishioners “feel hunted.”

Trump and his administration have disparaged Bass and her city since the raids began. Stephen Miller, the president’s deputy chief of staff, accused Bass on X of using “the language of the insurrectionist mob” while discussing her city. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem called L.A. “a city of criminals” whose law breakers have been protected by Bass.

Republicans have begun threatening reprisals against outspoken Democrats, including Bass, with some hinting at criminal prosecution.

Asked about Bass’ comments over the past week, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said ICE agents would not be “deterred from carrying out their mission.”

“We will not apologize for enforcing immigration law and carrying out the mandate the American people gave President Trump in November: Deport illegal aliens,” she said.

Fernando Guerra, who heads the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University, said Angelenos fully expect their mayor to confront the president head on. Democrat Kamala Harris secured more than 70% of the vote in L.A. during last year’s presidential election, while Trump received less than 27%.

“I’m not surprised by what she’s doing,” Guerra said. “I would even suggest she push a little more. I don’t think there’s a cost to her politically, or even socially, to taking on Trump.”

Mayor Karen Bass speaks to the media at City Hall.

(Luke Johnson / Los Angeles Times)

The mayor is regularly calling in to TV and radio stations, as well as securing prime-time hits on national cable shows. In appearance after appearance, she has warned that L.A. is becoming “a grand experiment” — a testing ground for Trump to see if he can usurp the authority of Democratic mayors or governors in other states.

On Tuesday, while addressing troops at Fort Bragg, Trump described L.A. as “a trash heap,” with entire neighborhoods being controlled by “transnational gangs and criminal networks.” Hours later, Bass clapped back on MSNBC, saying: “I have no idea what he’s talking about.”

Bass has spoken repeatedly about traumatized Angelenos who could not locate loved ones caught up in the ICE raids.

“For the most part, the people that have been detained have been denied access to legal representation,” Bass said during an appearance at the city’s Emergency Operations Center. “This is unprecedented.”

The raids, and their impact on families and children, are deeply personal for a mayor who cut her teeth organizing with immigrant rights activists decades ago.

Bass’ own family reflects the multiethnic nature of her city. Her late ex-husband was the son of immigrants from Chihuahua, Mexico. Her extended family includes immigrants from Korea, Japan and the Philippines. Immigration agents were recently seen making arrests outside her grandson’s Los Angeles school, she said.

The arrival of ICE, then the National Guard, then the U.S. Marines has caused not just Bass but several other Democrats to step out in ways they might have previously avoided.

Sen. Alex Padilla is removed from a news conference with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem at the Wilshire Federal Building.

(Luke Johnson / Los Angeles Times)

U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, a soft-spoken political figure for decades, was handcuffed and forcibly removed from a news conference in Westwood on Thursday after interrupting Noem’s remarks.

Gov. Gavin Newsom recently accused Trump of a “brazen abuse of power,” calling him “unhinged” and filing a lawsuit to block the deployment of the National Guard — not a huge departure for Newsom, who relishes both confrontation and the spotlight.

Head-to-head accusations are much more out of character for Bass, who spent her first two years at City Hall boasting of her success in “locking arms” with her fellow elected officials on homelessness and other issues. In recent months, the mayor has praised Trump for the speedy arrival of federal resources as the city began cleaning up and rebuilding from the Palisades fire.

Long before winning city office, Bass prided herself on her ability to work with other politicians, regardless of party affiliation, from her early days as a co-founder of the South L.A.-based Community Coalition to her years in Congress.

Bass’ strategy of avoiding public spats with Trump during the first few months of his administration was no accident, according to someone with knowledge of her thinking who was not authorized to speak publicly. The mayor, that person said, viewed an extended tit-for-tat as an impediment to securing federal funding for wildfire relief and other urgent needs.

“That’s more her brand — to get things done with whoever she needs to get them done with,” said Ange-Marie Hancock, who leads Ohio State University’s Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity.

Mike Bonin, who heads the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at Cal State L.A., said he thinks that Bass’ career of building multiracial, multiethnic coalitions makes her uniquely suited to the moment.

Now that Trump has “all but declared war on Los Angeles,” Bass has no choice but to punch back, said Bonin, who served on the City Council for nearly a decade.

“I don’t see that she had any political or moral alternative,” he said.

WASHINGTON — The tanks are staged and ready to roll. Fencing and barriers are up. Protective metal plating has been laid out on Washington’s streets.

And more than 6,000 troops are poised to march near the National Mall to honor the Army’s 250th anniversary on Saturday, which happens to be President Trump’s 79th birthday.

With preparations well in hand, one big unknown is the weather. Rain is in the forecast, so there is a chance the parade could be interrupted by thunderstorms.

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said Thursday that rain or shine the parade will go on. But it could be delayed if there is lightning.

“No matter what, a historic celebration of our military service members will take place!” Kelly said in a statement.

Daylong festivities celebrating the Army are planned on the National Mall — featuring NFL players, fitness competitions and displays — culminating in the parade, which is estimated to cost $25 million to $45 million. The Army expects as many as 200,000 people to attend.

A special reviewing area is being set up for the president, where he will be watching as each formation passes the White House.

Here’s what to expect at the parade Saturday:

The troops

A total of 6,169 soldiers as well as 128 Army tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery will parade before the president and viewers, while 62 aircraft will pass overhead.

The parade will tell the Army’s story, starting with the Battle of Lexington — the first battle of the Revolutionary War — and move all the way to present day.

Each conflict will have 150 troops in period costume, followed by a section of hundreds of troops in modern-day dress. For the last several weeks, Army planners have been working out how to get it timed to exactly 90 minutes, Army spokesman Steve Warren said.

Planners first tried marching troops five across and 12 deep — but the parade ran long. To get it down to the exact time, each section will have soldiers marching seven across and 10 deep, Warren said. That means, for example, the Civil War gets exactly three minutes and 39 seconds and World War II gets 6 minutes and 22 seconds.

The tanks and aircraft

Then there are the tanks. For fans, 8 minutes and 23 seconds into the procession, the first World War I Renault tank will make its appearance.

Compared with today’s tanks, the Renaults are tiny and almost look like a robotic weapon out of “The Terminator.” But they were groundbreaking for their time, lightweight and enabling movement in that conflict’s deadly trench warfare.

The first aircraft will fly over starting 13 minutes and 37 seconds into the parade, including two B-25 Mitchell bombers, four P-51 Mustang fighter aircraft and one C-47 Skytrain. The latter was made famous by the three stripes painted on the wings and body to mark it friendly over U.S. battleships on June 6, 1944, as thousands of Skytrain aircraft dropped more than 13,000 paratroopers into France on D-Day.

The procession will move along into the Gulf War, the war on terror and the modern day, showcasing the Army’s M1A2 Abrams tanks and other troop carriers, like the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle and Stryker combat vehicle.

There will even be six High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HIMARS — the mobile rocket launchers that have been highly valued by Ukraine as it has defended itself against Russia’s invasion.

A massive show of Army air power will begin 48 minutes in, when a long air parade of UH-60 Black Hawk, AH-64 Apache and CH-47 Chinook helicopters fly overhead as the Army’s story swings toward its future warfare.

The parade finale

The final sections of marching troops represent the Army’s future. The band at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point will lead hundreds of future troops, including members of the Texas A&M Army Corps of Cadets, new enlistees just going through Army initial entry training, and cadets from the Virginia Military Institute and the Citadel in South Carolina.

The last section includes 250 new recruits or soldiers who are reenlisting. As they reach the president, they will turn toward him and raise their right hand, and Trump will swear them into service.

The parade will end with a celebratory jump by the Army’s Golden Knights parachute team, which will present Trump with an American flag.

After the parade, a 19-minute fireworks show and concert will round out the celebration.

Copp writes for the Associated Press.

President Trump got his way Friday, just not on his terms.

Two weeks after Trump said he fired the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery director, Kim Sajet, she stepped down of her own accord.

“It has been the honor of a lifetime to lead the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery. This was not an easy decision, but I believe it is the right one,” Sajet wrote in a note to staff shared in an email by the Smithsonian Institution’s leader, Lonnie Bunch. “From the very beginning, my guiding principle has been to put the museum first. Today, I believe that stepping aside is the best way to serve the institution I hold so deeply in my heart. The role of a museum director has never been about one individual — it is a shared mission, driven by the passion, creativity, and dedication of an extraordinary team.”

The news follows Trump’s May 30 post on Truth Social that he was firing Sajet, the first woman to hold her post at the National Portrait Gallery, for being “a highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI.”

Trump’s authority to fire Sajet immediately came under question. The Smithsonian is not part of the executive branch, and the president does not choose its Board of Regents. Reports soon surfaced that Sajet continued to show up at work each day.

On Monday the Board of Regents held a lengthy meeting and then issued a statement that said Secretary Bunch had the board’s support “in his authority and management of the Smithsonian.” The statement declared the institution’s full independence, including in personnel decisions. The statement said Bunch had been directed to “articulate specific expectations to museum directors and staff regarding content in Smithsonian museums, give directors reasonable time to make any needed changes to ensure unbiased content, and to report back to the Board on progress and any needed personnel changes based on success or lack thereof in making the needed changes.”

It is unclear if Sajet, who served as the museum’s director for 12 years, made her decision prior to the Board of Regents meeting. The Smithsonian did not respond to a question about that.

“Once again, we thank Kim for her service. Her decision to put the museum first is to be applauded and appreciated,” Bunch wrote in his email to staff. “I know this was not an easy decision. She put the needs of the Institution above her own, and for that we thank her.”

Kevin Gover, the undersecretary for museums and culture, will serve as acting director, Bunch said.

The Smithsonian has a delicate task ahead as it moves forward following Trump’s March 27 executive order titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” It directs Vice President JD Vance to remove “improper ideology” from the Smithsonian’s 21 museums and the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., and threatens to end federal funding for exhibitions and programs based on racial themes that “divide Americans.”

Bunch’s email to staff stressed that the organization has an imperative to remain nonpartisan.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who was wrongfully deported from the United States, has pleaded not guilty to human smuggling charges in a federal court in Nashville, Tennessee.

Friday marked the first opportunity for Abrego Garcia, a Maryland construction worker, to confront the criminal charges the administration of President Donald Trump has levelled against him.

The Trump administration has sought to portray Abrego Garcia as a member of the MS-13 criminal gang following his deportation to El Salvador on March 15.

Abrego Garcia had been protected from deportation under a 2019 protection order, given his fear of gang violence if he returned to El Salvador. His removal to that country sparked public outrage and questions about the legality of Trump’s “mass deportation” campaign.

In the months since, the Trump administration has faced increasing pressure to return Abrego Garcia to the US, with the Supreme Court in April affirming that the government needed to “facilitate” his release.

A lower court, led by US District Judge Paula Xinis, had signalled that it was considering whether to hold the Trump administration in contempt of court for not complying with orders to secure his return.

That abruptly changed, however, on June 6, when Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Abrego Garcia was on his way back to the US to face charges that he helped smuggle undocumented migrants in the US.

In a 10-page indictment, the Trump administration accused Abrego Garcia of leading “more than 100 trips between Texas to Maryland and other states”, starting in 2016.

It cites as evidence a traffic stop in Tennessee around November 30, 2022, when Abrego Garcia was observed driving a Chevrolet Suburban with nine passengers, all of whom appeared to be undocumented men headed to Maryland.

The administration has released body camera footage of that incident, where a police officer can be heard speculating that Abrego Garcia is part of a smuggling ring. But the footage shows no confrontation, and Abrego Garcia was not charged with any offence following the traffic stop.

Prosecutors have noted that Abrego Garcia could face a maximum of 10 years in prison for each migrant he smuggled, if convicted.

Critics, however, question whether the recently unveiled criminal indictment was an attempt by the Trump administration to save face and dodge contempt charges, given the scrutiny over whether it was defying court orders.

Abrego Garcia’s defence team, meanwhile, has called the charges against him “preposterous”.

“There’s no way a jury is going to see the evidence and agree that this sheet-metal worker is the leader of an international MS-13 smuggling conspiracy,” one of his lawyers, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, told The Associated Press.

His case has nevertheless gained a national profile, with the Trump administration facing multiple legal challenges over whether it violated migrants’ right to due process: the right to a fair legal hearing.

Even administration officials have acknowledged that his swift deportation had been the result of an “administrative error”.

In Friday’s court hearing, US Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes spoke directly to Abrego Garcia, assuring him that he would receive a fair trial.

“You are presumed innocent, and it is the government’s burden to prove at trial that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” Holmes said, reiterating fundamental principles of the US justice system.

The Trump administration has sought to keep Abrego Garcia detained while the trial unfolds, using additional allegations that are not included in the indictment as justification. Prosecutors have accused Abrego Garcia, among other things, of child pornography, abusing women and taking part in a murder in El Salvador. They also argue he is a flight risk.

But Judge Holmes warned on Friday that the court cannot keep someone in detention simply on the basis of allegations.

The human smuggling charges against Abrego Garcia have already caused discord within the Justice Department, with one prosecutor appearing to step down in protest.

That prosecutor, Ben Schrader, was the chief of the criminal division at the US Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Tennessee.

He posted on social media on the day of the indictment that he was leaving. “It has been an incredible privilege to serve as a prosecutor with the Department of Justice, where the only job description I’ve ever known is to do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons,” he wrote.

Outside the court on Friday, Abrego Garcia’s wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, called on supporters to keep fighting for his freedom: “Kilmar wants you to have faith.”

She saw her husband for the first time in three months on Thursday.

Donald Trump is using the Los Angeles anti-deportation protests as a pretext to use the US military against domestic critics and his threats to invoke the Insurrection Act should be taken seriously, warns the American Civil Liberties Union’s Sarah Mehta.

The US and China are finalizing a trade agreement, according to US President Trump.

The deal is said to include the US being able to access Chinese rare earth minerals, while Chinese students can study in the United States.

“Our deal with China is done, subject to final approval from President Xi and me,” Trump wrote.

The US-China trade war tensions were one of several macroeconomic headwinds that have suppressed crypto prices in recent weeks. This new trade agreement could mark the beginning of a new chapter in which the world’s superpowers cooperate rather than oppose one another, thus bolstering economic prosperity.

US inflation data came in yesterday at a lower level than expected, providing another tailwind for crypto prices in the coming weeks.

As more of these catalysts stack up, the potential for crypto prices to explode amplifies. So, what is the best crypto by now?

Solaxy

However, this raises a pressing issue: congestion. During periods of peak network activity, wait times extend and transaction failure rates increase. That’s why Solaxy could be a smart buy. It’s the world’s first Solana layer 2 blockchain.

While Solana can compute 6,500 transactions per second (TPS), Solaxy aims for 10,000. This doesn’t just mean it’s faster; it’ll also be cheaper and more reliable than Solana.

The project is currently undergoing a presale and has raised $47 million to date.

With the market appearing ready for a breakout, Solaxy’s use case firmly positions $SOLX for big price growth. Visit Solaxy.

Snorter

Snorter is another project set to directly benefit from the bullish market conditions.

It’s an automated trading bot that enables users to capitalize on explosive projects, even while they sleep.

Snorter supports Solana, Ethereum, BSC, Base, and Polygon. It offers features such as automated token sniping, copy trading, honeypot detection, and dynamic stop-losses.

Imagine being able to outline trading parameters, and a bot monitors the market 24/7, buying and selling based on your requirements. Or imagine following the moves of the most successful on-chain traders.  Or a tool that automatically detects scam tokens. It’s all possible with Snorter.

It’s also undergoing a presale and has raised $600K so far.

However, with a use case that helps users maximize their profit-making abilities, there’s every chance the $SNORT price will explode after it hits exchanges, especially considering the bullish market outlook. Visit Snorter.

SPX6900

According to SPX6900’s most famous proponent Murad, SPX6900 addresses these issues.

It offers an alternative path, filled with laughter, community, and huge potential for gains. That’s why it’s outperforming the market.

Uniswap

Uniswap is the top decentralized exchange (DEX) on Ethereum and the industry’s leading DEX coin by market cap.

While there’s no doubt that Solana leads the way in terms of active users, Ethereum  remains the go-to chain for crypto whales.

It has a total value locked of $65 billion, over 7 times more than Solana. This is why Uniswap has real growth potential.

But Uniswap is more than a DEX; it also has its own crypto wallet app and even its own Ethereum layer 2 blockchain, Unichain.

It’s a multifunctional ecosystem built on top of Ethereum’s robust liquidity infrastructure. As the Ethereum ecosystem heats up in the bull market, Uniswap will likely soar.

Uniswap is also one of the better-performing altcoins this week, with a 26% gain.

Best Wallet Token

Best Wallet Token is the new cryptocurrency that powers Best Wallet. It offers trading fee discounts, higher staking yields, governance rights, and access to promotions on partner projects.

Best Wallet is quickly making a name for itself in the cryptocurrency industry, thanks to its comprehensive range of features and cross-chain functionality, with support for over 90 different blockchains.

Some of Best Wallet’s features include a cross-chain DEX, derivative trading, a crypto debit card, a presale aggregator, an NFT gallery, and much more.

It’s the first crypto wallet to boast such an extensive ecosystem, so it certainly has a lot of potential.

It is currently available to buy via a token presale, where it has raised over $13 million so far.

The project’s early stage, combined with the powerful use case, is a setup that could result in huge gains for $BEST.Visit Best Wallet.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not provide financial advice. Cryptocurrencies are highly volatile, and the market can be unpredictable. Always perform thorough research before making any cryptocurrency-related decisions.

ATLANTA — A federal judge on Friday blocked President Trump’s attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S., siding with a group of Democratic state attorneys general who challenged the effort as unconstitutional.

The Republican president’s March 25 executive order sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline.

The attorneys general said the directive “usurps the States’ constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat.” The White House defended the order as “standing up for free, fair and honest elections” and called proof of citizenship a “commonsense” requirement.

Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts said in Friday’s order that the states had a likelihood of success as to their legal challenges.

“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Casper wrote.

Casper also noted that, when it comes to citizenship, “there is no dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship.”

Casper cited arguments made by the states that the requirements would “burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs” to update procedures.

The ruling is the second legal setback for Trump’s election order. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., previously blocked parts of the directive, including the proof-of-citizenship requirement for the federal voter registration form.

The order is the culmination of Trump’s longstanding complaints about elections. After his first win in 2016, Trump falsely claimed his popular vote total would have been much higher if not for “millions of people who voted illegally.” Since 2020, Trump has made false claims of widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines to explain his loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

He has said his executive order secures elections against illegal voting by noncitizens, though multiple studies and investigations in the states have shown that it’s rare and typically a mistake. Casting a ballot as a noncitizen is already against the law and can result in fines and deportation if convicted.

The order also would require states to exclude any mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day and puts states’ federal funding at risk if election officials don’t comply. Currently, 18 states and Puerto Rico accept mailed ballots received after Election Day as long they are postmarked on or before that date, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Oregon and Washington, which conduct their elections almost entirely by mail, filed a separate lawsuit over the ballot deadline, saying the executive order could disenfranchise voters in their states. When the lawsuit was filed, Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs noted that more than 300,000 ballots in the state arrived after Election Day in 2024.

Trump’s order has received praise from the top election officials in some Republican states who say it could inhibit instances of voter fraud and will give them access to federal data to better maintain their voter rolls. But many legal experts say the order exceeds Trump’s power because the Constitution gives states the authority to set the “times, places and manner” of elections, with Congress allowed to set rules for elections to federal office. As Friday’s ruling states, the Constitution makes no provision for presidents to set the rules for elections.

During a hearing earlier this month on the states’ request for a preliminary injunction, lawyers for the states and lawyers for the administration argued over the implications of Trump’s order, whether the changes could be made in time for next year’s midterm elections and how much it would cost the states.

Justice Department lawyer Bridget O’Hickey said during the hearing that the order seeks to provide a single set of rules for certain aspects of election operations rather than having a patchwork of state laws and that any harm to the states is speculation.

O’Hickey also claimed that mailed ballots received after Election Day might somehow be manipulated, suggesting people could retrieve their ballots and alter their votes based on what they see in early results. But all ballots received after Election Day require a postmark showing they were sent on or before that date, and that any ballot with a postmark after Election Day would not count.

Cassidy writes for the Associated Press.

President Donald Trump has urged Iran to agree to US demands to restrict its nuclear programme as Tehran promised a strong response to Israeli air strikes targeting its nuclear sites and military facilities, killing at least two senior military commanders and several nuclear scientists.

Writing on his Truth Social platform on Friday, Trump warned that the “next already planned attacks” on Iran would be “even more brutal” and urged Iranian officials to “make a deal before there is nothing left”.

“Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left… JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE,” he said.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio earlier said that the United States had no part in the Israeli attacks and urged Iran not to target American interests or personnel in the region in retaliation, but Tehran said Washington would be “responsible for consequences”.

Iran promised a harsh response to the barrage, and Israel said it was trying to intercept about 100 drones launched towards Israeli territory in retaliation.

Iranian state media has reported that Hossein Salami, commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and Mohammad Bagheri, the chief of staff of Iran’s Armed Forces, were both killed in the attacks. Nuclear scientists Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi and Fereydoun Abbasi were also killed.

Some 200 Israeli warplanes took part in overnight air strikes on Iran, hitting more than 100 targets in the country, according to Israeli army spokesman, Brigadier General Effie Defrin.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel struck at the “heart of Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme”, taking aim at the main uranium enrichment facility in Natanz.

The attacks would “continue as many days as it takes”, he said.

Iranian media reported explosions, including some at the main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation said Natanz had sustained damage but no casualties had been reported.

On Friday afternoon, Iran’s Tasnim news agency reported a new Israeli attack in the city of Tabriz, northwest of Iran.

‘Severe punishment for Israel’

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned Israel that it “must expect severe punishment” after the assault. The country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs added that Tehran has a “legal and legitimate” right to respond.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who is expected to address the public, also said in a statement on his official X account: “The Zionist regime will regret its action today.”

Israel’s military said on Friday it was intercepting Iranian drones. The country’s public broadcaster and Channel 12 reported that Israel also intercepted drones over Saudi Arabia.

At about 08:00 GMT, Israeli media reported that an earlier order requiring citizens to remain near protected areas had been lifted.

In the Iranian city of Qom, hundreds of protesters gathered at the Jamkaran Mosque to demand a “severe punishment” for Israel in response to the strikes.

Mohammad Eslami, a research fellow at Tehran University, said Iranian leaders are preparing an imminent strike on Israel targeting military and nuclear facilities.

“The Iranian military were thinking about this scenario for many years and also in recent days, we have heard lots of statements by the Defence Ministry of Iran that they are ready for any strike by the Israelis,” he told Al Jazeera from Tehran.

“Most Iranian political parties support defending the country because all Iranians [know] the history of Iraq attacking Iran. This is not about political points of view,” he added.

Nuclear talks

US and Iranian officials are due to attend a sixth round of talks over Iran’s nuclear programme in Oman on Sunday.

The two sides have been negotiating over Iran’s enrichment of uranium, with Trump stating recently that “zero” enrichment should be allowed in Iran. He has also said repeatedly that Iran will not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.

Tehran has consistently said that its nuclear programme is only for civilian purposes.

Iran said in a statement that Israel’s “cowardly” attack showed why Iran had to insist on enrichment, nuclear technology and missile power.

The International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors on Thursday declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in almost 20 years.

This Saturday, a parade celebrating the Army’s 250th anniversary kicks off in Washington. It will include nearly 10,000 soldiers and dozens of helicopters, tanks and armored fighting vehicles. The 90-minute event is expected to cost $45 million — factoring in the roughly $16 million for anticipated damage to roads not accustomed to such heavy tracked vehicles.

In a recent interview, President Trump promoted the event, which also falls on his 79th birthday: “We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And we’re going to celebrate it.”

Thing is — after 25 years in the Army, from West Point to Iraq — I (like everyone else who’s worn a uniform) can affirm that our equipment isn’t what makes us great. Our Army and all America’s armed services are made of men and women, not metal and wire. The gear always changes; the Americans who serve and sacrifice are the constant.

It’s not just the parade. Other recent events suggest the commander-in-chief could use a friendly nudge toward the right way to honor our military. On May 24, Trump gave a graduation speech at West Point with his red campaign hat on, veered into a five-minute story about avoiding “trophy wives,” blew off the traditional handshake with cadets by saying, “I’m going back now to deal with Russia, to deal with China” — and then flew straight to his golf club in New Jersey.

The next morning, Trump began with a Truth Social message: “HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY TO ALL, INCLUDING THE SCUM THAT SPENT THE LAST FOUR YEARS TRYING TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY.” Which made his next “weave,” during what’s typically a somber speech at Arlington National Cemetery, seem almost tame: “We have the World Cup and we have the Olympics…. Now look what I have. I have everything.”

Of course, neither is exactly the right tone to memorialize those who’ve fallen. (Who even says “happy” Memorial Day?)

But gaffes like this raise a far more important question: How should we honor our military? How ought civilians properly thank those in uniform, past and present?

It can be awkward. I know from experience. I was a 24-year-old lieutenant when I got home from my first yearlong tour in Iraq. I was wearing my camo uniform when someone loudly said, “Thanks for your service!” from about 15 feet away. I didn’t know what to do, so I nodded in response. I was embarrassed at the acknowledgment. Better men whom I served with didn’t come home.

I’m not the first to feel that feeling. Eighty years ago, nearly to the day, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered an address in London just after the end of the Second World War. He said, “Humility must always be the portion of any man who receives acclaim earned in the blood of his followers and the sacrifices of his friends.” Anyone who’s served in real close combat knows full well that when you’re fortunate enough to get to come home, you can be proud, very proud of your service — but you never brag or boast.

So here’s the right way to think about honoring our military: We appreciate a modest acknowledgment — no more, never less — of our unique role in defending our country and way of life.

“No more” because we are not special. Soldiers aren’t movie superheroes — if we were, there would be nothing to honor because there’d be no risk. We come to service from among you. We’re the guy you sat next to in chemistry, the girl you played with on the playground. We’re not always victims, we’re not always villains, we’re not always valorous, and we’re not always victorious. We’re some blend of all these things. Even George Washington, arguably our greatest general, who won the war that mattered most and protected America when it was still in its crib — worried constantly about losing. He was scared because he was human, and so have been all those since who’ve worn an American uniform.

“Never less” because we are unique. We train to get over our fears to fight. We go where we’re sent, not where we choose. We trade soldiers’ lives for our nation’s protection, for objectives, for time, for military value. Nobody ever said this better than John Ruskin. “The soldier’s trade, verily and essentially, is not slaying, but being slain,” the English historian wrote in the 1800s. “Put him in a fortress breach, with all the pleasures of the world behind him, and only death and his duty in front of him, he will keep his face to the front; and he knows that this choice may be put to him at any moment.”

But just as we acknowledge this unique role, we in uniform must also equally appreciate those who make our service possible. For those in uniform aren’t the only ones in America who sacrifice. Imagine the parents who send their only daughter or son into combat — would anyone dare say they do not also risk everything?

Or other forms of service. My mother was a special education teacher in a poorer part of town and struggled for years to give a chance to otherwise forgotten kids. My father was among the first to join the Transportation Security Administration after 9/11. So I’ve seen civilians serving, even when it was hard.

There are some who misguidedly claim military members have a monopoly on service. This myopia is best captured by a bumper sticker shaped in a soldier silhouette: “Freedom Isn’t Free — I Paid for It.”

This claim is as flimsy as the sticker it’s printed on. It ignores those who also contribute to the fullness of freedom: journalists who free the truth, doctors who free us of disease, clergy who free our souls, teachers who free us of ignorance, lawyers who free the innocent, and so many more in society who silently serve every day. After all, each soldier is the direct result of this entire community. And while basic security may be necessary for the exercise of freedom, it’s certainly not sufficient to ensure “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” That takes a bigger American team.

It’s taken me two decades to figure out how to respond to “Thanks for your service.” I now say, “It’s been the greatest privilege — thank you for making it possible.”

That doesn’t cost $45 million or even 45 cents. All it should ever cost is a brief moment of direct eye contact, a few genuinely felt words — and never ever forget the handshake.

ML Cavanaugh is the author of the forthcoming book “Best Scar Wins: How You Can Be More Than You Were Before.” @MLCavanaugh

June 12 (UPI) — The House-passed budget reconciliation bill promoted by the Trump administration would benefit higher earners at the expense of lower-income Americans, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

The CBO’s findings said between 2026 and 2034, after-tax federal benefits “would decrease for households toward the bottom of the income distribution, whereas resources would increase for households in the middle and top of the income distribution,” the report said.

“If you are a hardworking American that is struggling to take care of your family, you are going to love this legislation,” Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said during an interview on Fox News last week.

But the CBO report indicates that the top 10% of earners would receive the highest tax cuts.

The CBO analysis shows that households earning up to $107,000 yearly will see an average tax cut of $1,200 annually through 2034. People making up to $138,000 annually will see a $1,750 tax cut; those earning up to $178,000 will see a $2,400 yearly benefit; those bringing in $242,000 will see a $3,650 benefit; and households earning up to $682,000 a year can expect an annual $13,500 tax benefit.

A recent analysis by the Joint Taxation Committee reflected the results of the CBO report and also suggested that lower income Americans would benefit less from the legislation than higher earners.

The budget bill, which has seen staunch opposition from Democrats, faith leaders and social service advocates, faces a tough road in the Senate, where even some members of the GOP have expressed concern about the depth of the cuts, especially to Medicaid services and SNAP benefits, which would fall most squarely on the most vulnerable Americans.

Academics and scientists have also been critical of proposed reductions in research funding in the budget bill while adding trillions of dollars to the national debt.

WASHINGTON — The mission of President Trump’s extraordinary deployment of U.S. Marines and National Guardsmen to Los Angeles depends on whom you ask — and that may be a problem for the White House as it defends its actions in court on Thursday.

The hearing, set before U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco, will set off a rare test over the legality of a military deployment on American soil.

While California has asked for a temporary restraining order against the government, a judicial decree ordering a full withdrawal would be extraordinary, scholars said. But so, too, was the deployment itself, raising the stakes for the judge entering Thursday’s hearing.

Breyer, a veteran of the bench appointed by President Clinton and the younger brother of Stephen Breyer, the former Supreme Court justice, could instead define the parameters of acceptable troop activity in a mission that has been murky from its start over the weekend.

In an interview, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta told The Times that he was told that Trump’s mission set for both the Marines and the National Guard in Los Angeles “is to protect federal property, functions and personnel.”

“The property part may well be compliant with the Posse Comitatus Act,” Bonta said, referring to a landmark law passed after the Civil War prohibiting the use of U.S. troops to engage in local law enforcement.

“If all the Marines do is protect buildings, that might be compliant,” he added. “But it needs to be made clear that they cannot go out into the community to protect federal functions or personnel, if that means the ‘functions’ of civil immigration enforcement conducted by the ‘personnel,’ ICE. That means they’ll be going to Home Depots, and work sites, and maybe knocking on doors.”

Vague mission set

Trump told reporters Tuesday that without federal involvement, “Los Angeles would be burning down right now,” suggesting their role was to confront violent rioters throughout the city. But that same day, Air Force Gen. Gregory Guillot told The Times that Marines sent to L.A. County were limited in their authority and without arrest power, deployed only to defend federal property and personnel. The Los Angeles Police Department continues to lead the response to the protests.

Still a third potential mission set emerged within 24 hours, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement posted a photo on Facebook indicating that National Guardsmen were accompanying its agents on the very immigration raids that generated protests in the first place. And White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told The Times that the president’s primary motivation behind the federal show of force was to send a message to protesters — an effort to deter agitators in the crowd from resorting to violence.

Clarifying the true nature and purpose of the deployment — whether to protect federal property, to supplement ICE raids, to quell unrest, or all of the above — will prove critical to the administration’s success on Thursday. Breyer denied California’s request for an emergency restraining order on Tuesday, instead giving both sides 48 hours to prepare their case for the hearing.

“He’s the most well-regarded district judge in the United States,” said Robert Weisberg, a professor at Stanford Law School. “He will be very meticulous in asking all of these questions.”

‘Posse Comitatus’

Unprecedented though Trump’s actions may be, signs of caution or restraint in his decision to refrain from invoking the Insurrection Act could ultimately salvage his mission in court, experts said.

The Insurrection Act is the only tool at a president’s disposal to suspend Posse Comitatus and deploy active-duty Marines on U.S. soil. While Trump and his aides have made a coordinated public effort to reference the L.A. protesters as insurrectionists, he has, so far, stopped short of invoking the act.

The president instead invoked Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which grants him the authority to federalize the National Guard. Even still, California argues that Trump has overstepped the law, which still requires directives to the Guard “be issued through the governors of the States.” And the White House has suggested that Title 10 authority also justifies the Marine deployment.

“We expect an order from the court making clear what’s lawful and what’s unlawful, and part of that is making clear that the deployment of the National Guard by Trump is unlawful,” Bonta said.

“And so he might just strike down that deployment,” he added, “returning the National Guard to the command of its appropriate commander-in-chief, the governor.”

Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, said that Title 10 “requires a ‘rebellion or danger of rebellion,’ and inability of regular law enforcement authorities to execute the laws.”

“I would be shocked if a court determined that those conditions were met by what is actually happening in L.A. at the moment, as those of us living here know,” Arulanantham added.

Yet, by relying on Title 10 authorities and by refraining from invoking the Insurrection Act, Trump could save himself from a definitive loss in court that would probably be upheld by the Supreme Court, Weisberg said.

“I do think that Trump is trying to take just one step at a time,” Weisberg said, “and that he contemplates the possibility of invoking the Insurrection Act, but it’s premature.”

“There’s always the possibility he’s being rational,” he added.

Another front in California vs. Trump

For Bonta, the case before Breyer is just the latest in a series of legal battles California has brought against the Trump administration — cases that have compelled the White House to lay out evidence, based on truth and facts, before seasoned judges.

Moments before Bonta spoke with The Times, Leavitt told reporters in a briefing that “the majority of the behavior that we have seen taking place in Los Angeles” has been perpetrated by “mobs of violent rioters and agitators.”

“It’s completely untrue and completely unsurprising,” Bonta responded. “It’s what the Trump administration — the press secretary, the secretary of Defense and the secretary of Homeland Security — it’s what they’ve been on a full 24-hour campaign to try to do, to manufacture and construct a reality that’s not actually true.”

The LAPD and L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, Bonta noted, have dealt with worse in the past, not just during major historic events such as the Rodney King riots of 1992 or the George Floyd protests of 2020, but after relatively routine annual events, such as the NBA Finals or the Super Bowl.

“There is absolutely no doubt that the National Guard was unnecessary here,” Bonta said, adding, “They’re using words like insurrection and emergency and rebellion and invasion, because those are the words in the statutes that would trigger what they really want. They want the president to be able to seize more power.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: 9-year-old Torrance Elementary student deported with father to Honduras
The deep dive: Newsom, in California address, says Trump purposely ‘fanned the flames’ of L.A. protests
The L.A. Times Special: Brian Wilson, musical genius behind the Beach Boys, dies at 82

More to come,
Michael Wilner

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

McALESTER, Okla. — Oklahoma executed a man Thursday whose transfer to state custody was expedited by the Trump administration.

John Fitzgerald Hanson, 61, received a three-drug lethal injection at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester and was pronounced dead at 10:11 a.m., prison officials said. Hanson was sentenced to die after he was convicted of carjacking, kidnapping and killing a Tulsa woman in 1999.

“Peace to everyone,” Hanson said while strapped to a gurney inside the prison’s death chamber.

The execution began at 10:01 a.m. After the lethal drugs began to flow, a doctor entered the death chamber at 10:06 a.m. and declared him unconscious.

Hanson, whose name in some federal court records is George John Hanson, had been serving a life sentence in federal prison in Louisiana for several unrelated federal convictions. Federal officials transferred him to Oklahoma’s custody in March to follow through on President Trump’s sweeping executive order to more actively support the death penalty.

Hanson’s attorneys argued in a last-minute appeal that he did not receive a fair clemency hearing last month, claiming that one of the board members who denied him clemency was biased because he worked for the Tulsa County district attorney’s office when Hanson was prosecuted. A district court judge this week issued a temporary stay halting the execution, but that was later vacated.

Prosecutors alleged Hanson and accomplice Victor Miller kidnapped Mary Bowles from a Tulsa shopping mall. Prosecutors alleged the pair drove Bowles to a gravel pit near Owasso, where Miller shot and killed property owner Jerald Thurman. The two then drove Bowles a short distance away, where Hanson shot and killed Bowles, according to prosecutors. Miller received a no-parole life prison sentence for his role.

Thurman’s son, Jacob Thurman, witnessed Thursday’s execution and said it was the culmination of “the longest nightmare of our lives.”

“All families lose in this situation,” he said. “No one’s a winner.”

Bowles’ niece, Sara Mooney, expressed frustration that the litigation over Hanson’s death sentence dragged on for decades, calling it an “expensive and ridiculous exercise.”

“Capital punishment is not an effective form of justice when it takes 26 years,” she said.

During last month’s clemency hearing, Hanson expressed remorse for his involvement in the crimes and apologized to the victims’ families.

“I’m not an evil person,” Hanson said via a video link from the prison. “I was caught in a situation I couldn’t control. I can’t change the past, but I would if I could.”

Hanson’s attorneys acknowledged that he participated in the kidnapping and carjacking, but said there was no definitive evidence that he shot and killed Bowles. They painted Hanson as a troubled youth with autism who was controlled and manipulated by the domineering Miller.

Both Oklahoma Atty. Gen. Gentner Drummond and his predecessor, John O’Connor, had sought Hanson’s transfer during President Biden’s administration, but the U.S. Bureau of Prisons denied it, saying the transfer was not in the public interest.

Murphy writes for the Associated Press.

President Trump broke the law when he mobilized thousands of members of the California National Guard to the streets of Los Angeles amid protests over immigration raids, and must return control of the troops to Gov. Gavin Newsom, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco granted the state of California’s request for a temporary restraining order Thursday evening, but also delayed enforcement of the order until noon Friday, giving the Trump administration time to file an appeal with the U.S. 9th Circuit.

In a 36-page decision, Breyer wrote that Trump’s actions “were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Breyer added that he was “troubled by the implication” inherent in the Trump administration’s argument that “protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion.”

Newsom, who filed the lawsuit along with the state of California, called the ruling “a win for all Americans.”

“Today was really about the test of democracy, and today we passed the test,” Newsom told reporters in a building that houses the California Supreme Court in San Francisco.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

The ruling, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta told reporters, is “a critical early indication that upon quick review of the facts of our case, the court sees the merits of our argument.”

“We aren’t in the throes of a rebellion,” Bonta said. “We are not under threat of an invasion. Nothing is preventing the federal government from enforcing federal law. The situation in Los Angeles last weekend didn’t warrant the deployment of military troops, and their arrival only inflamed the situation.”

The Trump administration filed a notice of appeal in the case late Thursday, and is seeking to delay Breyer’s order until the 9th Circuit decides on the case. If the 9th Circuit granted the request for a stay, control of the National Guard would not revert back to Newsom on Friday, Bonta said.

If the 9th Circuit does not grant the stay, Breyer’s order will take effect Friday afternoon, sending the National Guard back to Newsom’s control. Newsom said troops would go back to working on counter drug enforcement, border security and forest management.

During a hearing Thursday, Breyer seemed skeptical of the Justice Department’s argument that courts could not question the president’s judgment on key legal issues, including whether the protests and unrest in Los Angeles constituted either “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion.”

“We’re talking about the president exercising his authority, and of course, the president is limited in his authority,” Breyer said. “That’s the difference between the president and King George.”

Trump and the White House have argued that the military mobilization is legal under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Forces, which gives the president the authority to federalize the National Guard if there is “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.”

“The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion,’” Breyer wrote. There were instances of violence, he said, but the Trump administration did not identify “a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole.”

“The evidence is overwhelming that protesters gathered to protest a single issue—the immigration raids,” Breyer wrote.

Title 10 of the U.S. Code also requires that orders from the president “be issued through the governors of the States.”

As governor, Newsom is the commander in chief of the California National Guard. Last Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sent a memo to the head of the California Guard to mobilize nearly 2,000 members, who then sent the memo to Newsom’s office, the state’s complaint said. Neither Newsom nor his office consented to the mobilization, the lawsuit said.

Newsom wrote to Hegseth on Sunday, asking him to rescind the troop deployment. The letter said the mobilization was “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.”

“I’m trying to figure out how something is ‘through’ somebody, if in fact you didn’t send it to him,” Breyer asked. “As long as he gets a copy of it at some point, it’s going through?”

Breyer was less willing, however, to engage in the legality of Trump’s deployment of U.S. Marines to Los Angeles. Attorneys for California noted that 140 Marines were scheduled to relieve and replace Guardsmen over the next 24 hours.

Protests emerged across Los Angeles on Friday in response to a series of flash raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents across the county. A handful of agitators among the protesters committed violence and vandalism, prompting Trump to quickly deploy the California National Guard to respond. He added active-duty Marines to the operation Monday. Protests, and some sporadic violent rioting, have continued since the deployments.

Trump has said that the mobilization was necessary to “deal with the violent, instigated riots,” and that without the National Guard, “Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated.”

Breyer said that the Trump administration had identified “some stray violent incidents relating to the protests,” and from there, he said, “boldly claim that state and local officials were ‘unable to bring rioters under control.’”

“It is not the federal government’s place in our constitutional system to take over a state’s police power whenever it is dissatisfied with how vigorously or quickly the state is enforcing its own laws,” Breyer wrote.

The attorneys general from 18 other states, as well as Los Angeles City Atty. Hydee Feldstein-Soto, supported California’s position in the case.

Wilner reported from Washington, D.C., Wong from San Francisco and Nelson from Los Angeles.

June 12 (UPI) — People from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela on Thursday began receiving notices of termination of their temporary protected status. They were told to self-deport.

The Department of Homeland Security used email to send the TPS termination notices to inform more than 500,000 affected people that the parole and work authorizations granted by the Biden administration have been revoked with immediate effect, CBS News reported.

Those who have not obtained other lawful immigration approvals are encouraged to self-deport.

The Supreme Court on May 30 upheld the Trump administration’s cancellation of the TPS status for the affected people, which the Biden administration first used in 2022.

The program granted protected status for those from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela while they awaited the outcome of their respective immigration proceedings.

“This program was abused by the previous administration to admit hundreds of thousands of poorly vetted illegal aliens into the United States,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said Thursday in a news release.

“The Biden administration lied to America,” McLaughlin said. “They allowed more than half a million poorly vetted aliens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela and their immediate family members to enter the United States through these disastrous parole programs.”

She said the Biden administration gave them “opportunities to compete for American jobs and undercut American workers” while forcing career civil servants to promote the programs even after fraud was identified.

The Biden administration “then blamed Republicans in Congress for the chaos that ensued and the crime that followed,” McLaughlin added.

She said those affected can use the CBP Home Mobile App to obtain travel assistance and a $1,000 exit bonus upon arrival in their home countries.

The self-deport notices started going out on the same day that the House of Representatives approved a measure ending the District of Columbia’s Sanctuary Values Amendment Act, the Washington Post reported.

The House voted 224-194 to require the nation’s capital to comply with federal immigration laws, requests for information on individuals’ respective immigration status and lawful detainer requests.

Eleven Democrats voted with Republicans to approve the resolution.

A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration’s deployment of California’s National Guard to Los Angeles and called the move illegal.

The judge’s order to return control of the troops to California Governor Gavin Newsom will not go into effect immediately and the administration has filed an appeal.

The state sued President Donald Trump on Monday over his order to deploy the troops without Gov Newsom’s consent.

Trump said he was sending the troops – who are typically under the governor’s authority – to stop LA from “burning down” in protests against his immigration crackdown. Local authorities have argued they have the situation in hand and do not need troops.

Judge Charles Breyer said the question presented by California’s request was whether Trump followed the law set by Congress on the deployment of a state’s National Guard.

“He did not,” the judge wrote in his decision. “His actions were illegal… He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.”

Gov Newsom posted on social media after the order was filed that “the court just confirmed what we all know — the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets”.

WASHINGTON — The House narrowly voted Thursday to cut about $9.4 billion in spending already approved by Congress as President Trump’s administration looks to follow through on work done by the Department of Government Efficiency when it was overseen by Elon Musk.

The package targets foreign aid programs and the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, which provides money for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service as well as thousands of public radio and television stations around the country. The vote was 214-212.

Republicans are characterizing the spending as wasteful and unnecessary, but Democrats say the rescissions are hurting the United States’ standing in the world and will lead to needless deaths.

“Cruelty is the point,” Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said of the proposed spending cuts.

The Trump administration is employing a tool rarely used in recent years that allows the president to transmit a request to Congress to cancel previously appropriated funds. That triggers a 45-day clock in which the funds are frozen pending congressional action. If Congress fails to act within that period, then the spending stands.

“This rescissions package sends $9.4 billion back to the U.S. Treasury,” said Rep. Lisa McClain, House Republican Conference chair. “That’s $9.4 billion of savings that taxpayers won’t see wasted. It’s their money.”

The benefit for the administration of a formal rescissions request is that passage requires only a simple majority in the 100-member Senate instead of the 60 votes usually required to get spending bills through that chamber. So if they stay united, Republicans will be able to pass the measure without any Democratic votes.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said the Senate would likely not take the bill up until July and after it has dealt with Trump’s big tax and immigration bill. He also said it’s possible the Senate could tweak the bill.

The administration is likening the first rescissions package to a test case and says more could be on the way if Congress goes along.

Republicans, sensitive to concerns that Trump’s sweeping tax and immigration bill would increase future federal deficits, are anxious to demonstrate spending discipline, though the cuts in the package amount to just a sliver of the spending approved by Congress each year. They are betting the cuts prove popular with constituents who align with Trump’s “America first” ideology as well as those who view NPR and PBS as having a liberal bias.

In all, the package contains 21 proposed rescissions. Approval would claw back about $900 million from $10 billion that Congress has approved for global health programs. That includes canceling $500 million for activities related to infectious diseases and child and maternal health and another $400 million to address the global HIV epidemic.

The Trump administration is also looking to cancel $800 million, or a quarter of the amount Congress approved, for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and sanitation, and family reunification for those forced to flee their own country.

About 45% of the savings sought by the White House would come from two programs designed to boost the economies, democratic institutions and civil societies in developing countries.

Democratic leadership, in urging their caucus to vote no, said that package would eliminate access to clean water for more than 3.6 million people and lead to millions more not having access to a school.

“Those Democrats saying that these rescissions will harm people in other countries are missing the point,” McClain said. “It’s about people in our country being put first.”

The Republican president has also asked lawmakers to rescind nearly $1.1 billion from the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, which represents the full amount it’s slated to receive during the next two budget years. About two-thirds of the money gets distributed to more than 1,500 locally owned public radio and television stations. Nearly half of those stations serve rural areas of the country.

The association representing local public television stations warns that many of them would be forced to close if the Republican measure passes. Those stations provide emergency alerts, free educational programming and high school sports coverage, and highlight hometown heroes.

Advocacy groups that serve the world’s poorest people are also sounding the alarm and urging lawmakers to vote no.

“We are already seeing women, children and families left without food, clean water and critical services after earlier aid cuts, and aid organizations can barely keep up with rising needs,” said Abby Maxman, president and chief executive of Oxfam America, a poverty-fighting organization.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said the foreign aid is a tool that prevents conflict and promotes stability, but the measure before the House takes that tool away.

“These cuts will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, devastating the most vulnerable in the world,” McGovern said.

“This bill is good for Russia and China and undertakers,” added Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.).

Republicans disparaged the foreign aid spending and sought to link it to programs they said DOGE had uncovered.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said taxpayer dollars had gone to such things as targeting climate change, promoting pottery classes and strengthening diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Other Republicans cited similar examples they said DOGE had revealed.

“Yet, my friends on the other side of the aisle would like you to believe, seriously, that if you don’t use your taxpayer dollars to fund this absurd list of projects and thousands of others I didn’t even list, that somehow people will die and our global standing in the world will crumble,” Roy said. “Well, let’s just reject this now.”

Freking writes for the Associated Press.

United States President Donald Trump has signed a series of congressional resolutions to roll back standards in California that would have phased out petrol-powered cars and promoted the use of electric vehicles (EVs).

But Thursday’s signing ceremony gave Trump a platform to strike blows against several of his political foes, including the Democratic leadership of California and ally-turned-critic Elon Musk.

Musk famously leads the electric vehicle company Tesla. California, meanwhile, has long been a Democratic stronghold, and since taking office for a second term in January, Trump has continuously sparred with its governor, Gavin Newsom.

Thursday’s resolutions gave Trump a chance to skewer one of Newsom’s signature environmental achievements: a state mandate that would have gradually required new cars in California to produce zero greenhouse gas emissions.

That goal was meant to unfold in stages. By 2026, 35 percent of all new cars sold would be emission-free vehicles. By 2030, that number would rise to 68 percent. And by 2035, California would reach 100 percent.

But Trump argued that California’s standards would hamper the US car industry and limit consumer choice. Already, 17 other states have adopted some form of California’s regulations.

“Under the previous administration, the federal government gave left-wing radicals in California dictatorial powers to control the future of the entire car industry all over the country — all over the world, actually,” Trump said on Thursday.

“ This horrible scheme would effectively abolish the internal combustion engine, which most people prefer.”

But critics point out that many carmakers did not necessarily oppose California’s mandate: Rather, automobile companies like General Motors had already put in place plans to transition to electric-vehicle manufacturing, to keep up with global trends.

Already, California and 11 other states have announced they will sue to keep the electric vehicle mandate in place. Here are three takeaways from Thursday’s signing ceremony.

A continuing feud with California

The decision to roll back California’s electric-vehicle standards was only the latest chapter in Trump’s long-running beef with the state.

Just last week, protests broke out in the Los Angeles area against Trump’s push for mass deportation, as immigration raids struck local hardware stores and other workplaces.

Trump responded by deploying nearly 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to southern California, in the name of tamping down protest-related violence.

Though Thursday’s ceremony was ostensibly about the electric-vehicle mandate, Trump took jabs at the state’s management of the protests, blaming Governor Newsom for allowing the situation to spiral out of control.

“If we didn’t go, Los Angeles right now would be on fire. It would be a disaster. And we stopped it,” Trump said, accusing Newsom of having “a faulty thought process” and trying to protect criminals.

Trump also drew a parallel to the wildfires that ravaged the Los Angeles area in January, whose flames were whipped and spread by dangerous wind conditions that kept aerial support out of the skies.

“Los Angeles would be right now burning to the ground just like the houses burned to the ground,” Trump said, referencing the wildfires. “It’s so sad, what’s going on in Los Angeles.”

California’s electric-vehicle mandate, he argued, would have likewise spurred another emergency.

“Today, we’re saving California, and we’re saving our entire country from a disaster. Your cars are gonna be thousands of dollars less,” Trump said.

“Energy prices would likewise soar as the radical left forced more electric vehicles onto the grid while blocking approvals for new power plants,” he continued. “ The result would be rolling blackouts and a collapse of our power systems.”

Earlier this week, Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta dismissed Trump’s concerns as little more than an attack on state rights.

“Trump’s all-out assault on California continues — and this time he’s destroying our clean air and America’s global competitiveness in the process,” Newsom said in a statement. “We are suing to stop this latest illegal action by a President who is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big polluters.”

Newsom has also denounced the deployment of troops to Los Angeles as an “unmistakable step toward authoritarianism” and has sued to limit that action as well.

Trump weighs in on Elon Musk

As Trump continued to outline his reasoning for peeling back the EV mandates, his speech briefly veered into another area of conflict: his recently rocky relationship with Musk.

A billionaire, Musk leads several high-profile companies with government contracts, including the rocket manufacturer SpaceX and the satellite communication firm Starlink. And then, of course, there is Musk’s car company Tesla, which produces electric vehicles.

Musk was one of the largest donors in the 2024 elections, spending north of $280m to back Trump and other Republicans. Trump, for his part, featured Musk on the campaign trail and named him the leader of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) shortly after his election.

In January, Musk joined the Trump administration as a “special government employee”, an advisory role with a time limit of about 130 days per year.

As he reached the end of that term, Musk became increasingly outspoken about Trump’s signature budget legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill. While the bill would have cemented Trump’s 2017 tax cuts and funnelled more money into immigration enforcement, it would have also increased the national debt by trillions of dollars.

Musk also objected to the “pork” — the extra spending and legislative provisions — that were packed into the lengthy, thousand-page bill. The billionaire took to social media to call the bill a “disgusting abomination“, as the two men entered into an increasingly heated exchange of words.

Trump called Musk “crazy”, and Musk suggested Trump should be impeached. The billionaire has since said he “regrets” some of his remarks.

On Thursday, Trump repeated his assertion that Musk’s outburst was the result of his policies towards electric vehicles, something Musk has denied. Early in his second term, Trump pulled the plug on a goal set under former President Biden to have 50 percent of all new vehicles sold be electric by 2030.

“On my first day in office, I ended the green new scam and abolished the EV mandate at the federal level,” Trump said on Thursday. “Now, I know why Elon doesn’t like me so much. Which he does, actually. He does.”

He continued to muse on their unravelling relationship, saying that Musk “never had a problem” with his electric vehicle policies.

“I used to say, ‘I’m amazed that he’s endorsing me,’ because that can’t be good for him,” Trump said.

“He makes electric cars, and we’re saying, ‘You’re not going to be able to make electric cars, or you’re not gonna be forced to make all of those cars. You can make them, but it’ll be by the market, judged by the market.’”

Trump added that he feels Musk “got a bit strange” but that he still likes the car company Tesla — and “others too”.

An increase in auto tariffs ahead?

Amid the talk about his feuds with Musk and California, Trump also dropped a possible bombshell: More automobile tariffs may be on the way.

Already, Trump has relied heavily on tariffs — taxes on imported products — to settle scores with foreign trading partners and push for greater foreign investment in domestic industries, including car manufacturing.

“If they want a Mercedes-Benz, you’re going to have it made here. It’s OK to have a Mercedes, but they’re going to make it here,” he said on Thursday. “Otherwise, they’re going to pay a very big tariff.  They already are.”

Currently, automobiles imported to the US from abroad are subject to a 25-percent tax, a cost that critics say is passed along to the consumer.

But Trump warned on Thursday that he is prepared to go higher, as he has done with taxes on steel and aluminium.

“ To further defend our auto workers, I imposed a 25-percent tariff on all foreign automobiles. Investment in American auto manufacturing is surging because of it,” Trump said.

“Auto manufacturing — all manufacturing — is surging. I might go up with that tariff in the not-too-distant future. The higher you go, the more likely it is they build a plant here.”

Trump pointed to his negotiations over steel imports as a success story.

“American Steel is doing great now because of what we did. If I didn’t put tariffs on steel, China and a lot of other countries were dumping steel in our country,” he said. “Garbage steel, dirty steel, bad steel, not structurally sound steel. Real garbage.”

But by raising tariffs from 25 to 50 percent earlier this month, Trump said he protected the US steel industry. He also shared details about a deal that would see the Japanese company Nippon invest in the company US Steel.

“We have a golden stock. We have a golden share, which I control — or the president — controls. Now, I’m a little concerned whoever the president might be, but that gives you total control,” Trump said. “It’s 51-percent ownership by Americans.”

US industry leaders had been concerned that the deal with Nippon would see further erosion of the US manufacturing industry, which suffered from decades of foreign competition. The deal with Nippon has been previously described as a takeover, prompting concerns about the future and independence of the US steel industry.

SACRAMENTO — President Trump craves attention and will stoop to any depth to grab it — even pour gasoline on a kindling fire in Los Angeles. But this time he unwittingly provided priceless attention for an adversary.

Because Trump needlessly deployed National Guard troops and — more ridiculous, a Marine battalion to L.A. — California Gov. Gavin Newsom was granted a prime-time speaking slot on national cable television to respond.

“We honor their service. We honor their bravery,” Newsom said of the troops. “But we do not want our streets militarized by our own armed forces. Not in L.A. Not in California. Not anywhere … .

“California may be first — but it clearly won’t end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault right before our eyes. The moment we’ve feared has arrived.”

I’m not sure the “democracy is under assault” message has much traction, but keeping armed combat forces off our streets must be a salable pitch.

Regardless, governors almost never get national TV time to deliver entire speeches, even as brief as Newsom’s. You’ve practically got to be nominated for president. But the publicity-thirsty sitting president provided the cameras for California’s governor.

Newsom’s strong address probably boosted his stock within the Democrat Party and revived dormant speculation about a 2028 presidential bid.

No longer was the Democratic governor playing respectful nice guy and tempering criticism of the Republican president. Now he was standing up to the bully who loves to use California, Newsom and our progressive politics as a punching bag. Trump’s red-state supporters love every swipe at this “left coast” state.

Newsom rose to the occasion, using his greatest asset: invaluable communication skills coupled with telegenic looks.

He laid out his version of what happened to turn relatively peaceful protests against federal immigration raids into destructive street violence. And it’s the correct version by objective accounts.

On Saturday, Newsom said, federal immigration agents “jumped out of an unmarked van” near a Home Depot parking lot and “began grabbing people. A deliberate targeting of a heavily Latino suburb … . In response, everyday Angelenos” exercised their constitutional right to protest.

Police were dispatched to keep the peace and mostly were successful, the governor continued. But then tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades were used — by federal agents, Newsom implied.

Then Trump deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops “illegally and for no reason,” the governor asserted.

“This brazen abuse of power by a sitting president inflamed a combustible situation … . Anxiety for families and friends ramped up. Protests started again … . Several dozen lawbreakers became violent and destructive.”

Newsom warned: “That kind of criminal behavior will not be tolerated. Full stop.” And hundreds have been arrested.

But he emphasized: “This situation was winding down and was concentrated in just a few square blocks downtown. But that’s not what Donald Trump wanted … . He chose theatrics over public safety.”

In Trump’s twisted view, if he hadn’t sent in the National Guard, “Los Angeles would be completely obliterated.” Never mind that the violence was confined to a few downtown blocks, a fraction of a city that spreads over 500 square miles.

“We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free and clean again,” the president promised.

Veteran Republican strategist Mike Murphy had it right, telling CNN: “He’s lighting the fire as an arsonist, then claiming to be the fireman.”

It reminded me of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s manufactured Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964 that Congress passed, enabling him to vastly escalate U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Johnson reported a North Vietnamese attack on U.S. destroyers that many experts later concluded never happened.

But I think Trump mainly is obsessed with attracting attention. He knows he’ll get it by being provocative. Never mind the accuracy of his words or the wisdom of his actions. Sending in the Marines certainly was an eye-opener. So is staging a military parade on his birthday — an abuse of troops for attention, personal glorification and exercise of his own power.

He’ll say anything provocative without thinking it through: Tariffs one day, suspended the next. He’ll boast of sending San Joaquin Valley water to L.A. for fighting fires when it’s physically impossible to deliver it.

While Trump was playing politics with immigrants and L.A. turmoil, a poll finding was released that should have pleased him.

Californians no longer support providing public healthcare for immigrants living here illegally, the independent Public Policy Institute of California reported. Adult state residents were opposed by 58% to 41% in a survey taken before the L.A. trouble erupted.

By contrast, a PPIC poll in 2021 found that Californians favored providing state healthcare for undocumented immigrants by 66% to 31%.

Polling director Mark Baldassare concluded the public opposition stems mostly from the view that California taxpayers can’t afford the costly program — not that they agree with Trump’s anti-immigrant demagoguery.

In fact, Newson has proposed paring back the state’s multibillion-dollar program of providing Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented immigrants because the state budget has been spewing red ink.

Given all the rhetoric about the L.A. protests, the statement that particularly impressed me came from freshman Assemblyman Mark Gonzalez (D-Los Angeles), whose downtown district stretches from Koreatown to Chinatown.

“Rocks thrown at officers, CHP cars and Waymo vehicles set on fire, arson on the 101 freeway — have nothing to do with immigration, justice or the values of our communities,” he said in a statement Sunday. “These are not protesters — they were agitators. Their actions are reckless, dangerous and playing into exactly what Trump wants.”

Gonzalez is a liberal former chairman of the L.A. County Democratic Party who stuck to his point: Hoodlums can’t be tolerated.

And, thanks to Trump, Newsom was able to make a similar point about the president on national TV: His dangerous, self-serving actions can’t be tolerated either.