Category: National Security

LAPD Chief Denies Trump on National Guard Necessity in LA

In a recent statement, LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell made it clear that he did not request the National Guard to assist with ongoing immigration protests in Los Angeles, contradicting President Donald Trump’s portrayal of the situation. Trump’s administration asserted that the deployment was necessary, but McDonnell emphasized that the LAPD had sufficient resources to manage the protests without military intervention.

During an interview on CNN, McDonnell stated, “We’re nowhere near a level where we would be reaching out to the governor for National Guard at this stage.” His comments directly counter Trump’s claims of impending chaos without federal military presence, reaffirming that local law enforcement was effectively handling the protests.

Moreover, President Trump attempted to use McDonnell’s past statements to justify his decision to bypass California Governor Gavin Newsom, suggesting that if not for military involvement, the city would have faced severe disorder. However, McDonnell reiterated that such a request for National Guard aid was not necessary.

Trump, undeterred, continued to assert on social media that the National Guard’s presence was pivotal in maintaining order, describing Los Angeles as a potentially chaotic crime scene without it. He further criticized Governor Newsom, claiming responsibility for the stability in the city. However, Newsom dismissed Trump’s rhetoric as a “brazen abuse of power,” indicating his frustration with the federal response to local governance.

This incident highlights the ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and state officials, as Trump repeatedly attempts to assert control over state matters, reflecting a broader pattern of undermining local governance while emphasizing a narrative of national crisis that bears little resemblance to the reality on the ground.

(h/t: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5346247-lapd-chief-donald-trump-national-guard-la-protests/)

Trump’s Reckless Deployment of 4,000 Troops in Los Angeles Threatens Public Safety and Democracy

President Donald Trump has ordered the deployment of an additional 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles, compounding the initial 2,000 troops dispatched just days prior. California Governor Gavin Newsom made this announcement, criticizing the move as reckless and detrimental to both public safety and the morale of U.S. troops.

According to Newsom, the first contingent of troops was left without proper provisions, as only about 300 ended up in the city, with the remainder stationed in federal buildings. He argues that the deployment is primarily intended to satisfy Trump’s inflated ego rather than to address any real safety concerns.

The deployment escalated tensions in Los Angeles, already heightened by ongoing protests against the actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The situation was further aggravated when Trump ordered approximately 700 Marines to assist in protecting federal personnel, a move that Newsom has deemed “un-American.” He emphasized that the esteemed role of the Marines should not be to confront civilians over issues stemming from a malicious and authoritarian political agenda.

Newsom accused Trump of fabricating a crisis, asserting that the National Guard was being misused for political purposes related to recent protests against ICE raids. This militarization of local enforcement has prompted California’s attorney general to file a lawsuit against Trump, arguing that such actions represent an overreach of executive power.

The unrest in Los Angeles and Trump’s harsh military response underscore the growing pattern of authoritarian tactics employed by his administration in dealing with dissent. Instead of fostering dialogue and understanding, Trump resorts to increased military presence to intimidate citizens, further threatening the democratic principles of the nation.

Trump’s Deployment of 500 Marines in LA Escalates Tensions Amid Immigration Protests

President Donald Trump has escalated tensions in Los Angeles by authorizing the deployment of an additional 2,000 National Guard troops amid ongoing protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions. The deployment, which involves about 700 U.S. Marines, aims to protect federal personnel and property in the wake of civil unrest fueled by perceived abuses during immigration enforcement operations. California Governor Gavin Newsom has vehemently opposed this militarized response, declaring it a dangerous attempt to bolster Trump’s fragile ego rather than a genuine concern for public safety.

Newsom, who filed a lawsuit against Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth earlier on the same day, criticized the initial deployment of National Guard troops, claiming that most were left idle without adequate provisions. He pointed out that the first batch of National Guard members lacked essential supplies like food and water and were not effectively utilized. Newsom’s tweet highlighted the absurdity of federal troops being stationed without clear orders amid escalating protests that cry out for responsible management.

The deployment reflects a perilous trend, as Trump’s administration utilizes military force to suppress dissent, bringing Marines into domestic situations where their lack of proper training for managing civilian protests can create more chaos than resolution. Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, condemned Trump’s actions as inflammatory, questioning the appropriateness of involving Marines in domestic law enforcement, potentially violating civil rights and constitutional freedoms.

Trump’s Administration has taken a particularly confrontational stance, with Trump even suggesting potential arrests of Newsom for allegedly obstructing federal immigration enforcement. This alarming rhetoric only fuels further conflict between state and federal authorities. Legal experts assert that Trump’s order exceeds his constitutional authority, marking the first time since 1965 that a president unilaterally deployed state National Guard without the governor’s request.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer blasted Trump for using military personnel as a political distraction, asserting it undermines state sovereignty and exacerbates tensions without delivering real solutions. The chaotic situation in Los Angeles encapsulates the broader disdain Trump and his administration exhibit towards democratic norms and the rule of law, choosing instead to wield state power against their opponents in an increasingly authoritarian fashion.

(h/t: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/06/09/trump-sued-national-guard-la-california-newsom.html)

Trump’s New Travel Ban Targets 12 Countries Citing Security

In a recent proclamation, U.S. President Donald Trump has banned nationals from 12 countries, asserting that these measures are essential for national security. The countries affected by this prohibition include Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Additionally, Trump has imposed partial travel restrictions on seven other nations: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. The order goes into effect on June 9, 2025, at 12:01 am EDT, although visas issued prior to this date will not be revoked.

In a video announcing the ban, Trump declared, “We will not allow people to enter our country who wish to do us harm.” The newly restricted countries were chosen based on their alleged “large-scale presence of terrorists,” lack of cooperation on visa security, and deficiencies in verifying the identities of travelers. Trump’s rationale reflects a continuity of his administration’s hardline immigration stance, harking back to his earlier bans on travelers from predominantly Muslim countries.

The decision follows a recent incident in Boulder, Colorado, where a gasoline bomb was thrown at pro-Israel demonstrators by an Egyptian national, underscoring Trump’s claim of a national security threat, despite Egypt not being on the restricted list. Trump’s broader immigration policies aim to intensify security vetting of foreigners seeking admission to the U.S. and suggest additional potential restrictions could come in the future.

In response, countries like Somalia and Venezuela have expressed concern. Somalia’s ambassador indicated a desire for dialogue to address the security issues raised by the ban. Conversely, Venezuelan officials accused the U.S. of pursuing a fascistic agenda and warned their citizens of the dangers they could face in the U.S., highlighting the broader implications Trump’s policies have not only on travel and immigration but also on international relations.

This latest prohibition reflects Trump’s ongoing focus on a security-first approach to immigration, a policy style that has been criticized as reactionary and inherently discriminatory. Critics argue that these moves reaffirm a pattern of exclusion and discrimination against countries that do not align with Trump’s political narrative, exacerbating divisions and fostering anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States.

(h/t: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/trump-signs-proclamation-banning-travel-12-countries-cbs-news-reports-2025-06-04/)

Gabbard’s Plans to Tailor Intelligence Briefing to Trump’s Preferences Threatens Objectivity and Integrity

National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard is exploring changes to the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) that align more closely with Donald Trump’s preferences, reflecting his ongoing distrust of traditional intelligence assessments. This effort reportedly includes soliciting input from current and former intelligence officials to tailor the briefing’s content and format to fit Trump’s consumption style. One proposal suggests transforming the PDB into a video format reminiscent of a Fox News broadcast, potentially featuring Fox News producers and personalities.

Currently, the PDB is presented as a digital document with written text and graphics, but Trump has historically preferred less formal, more visual methods of information intake. Since taking office, Trump has received the PDB less frequently than his predecessors, indicating a possible disregard for standard intelligence briefings. Trump’s competitive relationship with intelligence officials, underscored by his previous claims of their dishonesty, further complicates this dynamic, creating a challenge for Gabbard’s reform initiative.

Concerns have been raised regarding the potential politicization of intelligence under Gabbard’s direction. Critics argue that the adjustments might serve to validate Trump’s political narratives, especially after recent firings of officials whose assessments conflicted with Trump’s views, particularly regarding Venezuela. This raises ethical questions about whether intelligence analysis is being manipulated for political gain, rather than being presented objectively.

Additionally, Gabbard’s discussions of including specific topics relevant to Trump, such as trade and economy, while downplaying issues like the war in Ukraine, suggest a deliberate customization of the PDB. This represents a shift from impartial reporting to one that aligns with Trump’s interests, thereby undermining the integrity of the intelligence process. Rep. Jim Himes, a prominent Democratic lawmaker, warned that this could foster a culture of bias and intimidation within the intelligence community.

The challenges facing Gabbard in reforming the PDB underscore broader concerns about Trump’s leadership style and his administration’s relationship with factual reporting. By attempting to reshape intelligence gatherings to suit an individual leader’s preferences, the risk of impairing the fundamental principles of democratic governance and integrity in analysis becomes all too real. Together with questions regarding potential influences from Fox News, these developments signal troubling trends toward a politicized and compromised intelligence apparatus.

(h/t: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/gabbard-considering-ways-revamp-trumps-intelligence-briefing-rcna209805)

Trump Crypto Dinner Is Corruption Festival for Elites

Donald Trump hosted a gala dinner at his Virginia golf club, surrounded by guests eager to invest in his personal cryptocurrency, signaling an alarming blend of business and politics. As protesters gathered outside, condemning the event as a brazen display of corruption, attendees entered with hopes of influencing U.S. financial regulations favoring the cryptocurrency market. Many guests openly expressed their intention to sway Trump’s policies, demonstrating a blatant intersection of personal profit and presidential power.

The dinner served as a promotional event for Trump’s $TRUMP cryptocurrency, a memecoin tied to online speculation. Attendees included prominent figures from the global crypto industry, eager to network with Trump and potentially shape the regulatory environment in their favor. Critics, including Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, labeled the dinner a pinnacle of corruption, equating it with a blatant sell-out of democratic principles to foreign investors eager to curry favor with the Trump administration.

Various attendees, such as Chinese billionaire Justin Sun and other international investors, were reportedly looking to bend U.S. policies to suit their interests amid a backdrop of changing regulations. Trump’s rhetoric reinforced a narrative that previous administrations were hostile to crypto, setting the stage for his administration to embrace the industry and further his personal wealth.

The evening showcased extravagant elements such as a lavish menu and a display of wealth amid ongoing ethical concerns. Guests attended in formal attire, with some presenting foreign passports as identification, highlighting the international interest in Trump’s ventures. This event foreshadows troubling implications for democracy, as it highlights how Trump’s financial dealings continue to blur the lines between his presidential duties and personal business interests.

Notably, Trump’s family directly profits from the $TRUMP cryptocurrency, which has generated significant fees through transactions, raising serious ethical questions about their role in governance. The dinner, explicitly aimed at enriching Trump’s family and aligning with foreign interests, underscores the dangerous normalization of corrupt practices in American politics.

(h/t: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/22/us/politics/trump-memecoin-dinner.html)

Trump’s Qatar Gift Raises Serious Ethical Concerns Over Foreign Influence and Corruption

In a controversial arrangement, the Trump administration is set to accept a luxurious Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from Qatar, which is described as a “flying palace.” This aircraft will be used as Air Force One until just before Trump leaves office, after which it will be transferred to his presidential library foundation. The unprecedented gift has raised significant legal and ethical concerns regarding foreign influence, especially considering it involves direct dealings with a foreign government.

Sources indicate that Trump plans to announce this gift during his upcoming visit to Qatar, although it will not be presented while he is overseas. Despite Trump’s claims that the transaction is “very public and transparent,” the arrangement has been met with skepticism, particularly about its legality in light of U.S. laws regarding foreign gifts to government officials, including the emoluments clause.

White House and Department of Justice lawyers have concluded that the gift can legally be accepted since it is being given to the U.S. Air Force rather than directly to Trump himself. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Trump’s chief lawyer David Warrington produced a legal analysis asserting that conditioning the gift’s acceptance on its future transfer to the Trump library does not violate any laws against bribery. However, this interpretation raises questions about accountability and the potential for corruption.

Critics, including Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Adam Schiff, have called out the blatant act of foreign influence. Schumer remarked that it reflects a troubling shift in American policy and raises concerns about Trump’s commitment to putting America first. Schiff pointedly noted the corruption involved, criticizing the ease with which the Trump administration facilitates such transactions that could enrich him and his family post-presidency.

With an estimated value of $400 million, the aircraft could be a significant asset for Trump’s library foundation. Yet the underlying motives of this transaction—and its implications for U.S. sovereignty and ethics—cannot be ignored. The Trump administration’s transparency claims ring hollow amidst such dealings, indicative of a broader pattern of corruption that threatens American democracy.

(h/t: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-administration-poised-accept-palace-sky-gift-trump/story?id=121680511)

Trump Fires National Security Staff After Meeting with White Supremacist Laura Loomer

In a disturbing display of loyalty to extremist ideologies, multiple staff members of the National Security Council were fired following a meeting between President Donald Trump and far-right activist Laura Loomer. This meeting, held in the Oval Office, involved Loomer questioning the commitment of certain staffers to Trump’s agenda, which is increasingly aligned with white supremacist and fascist rhetoric.

The fired staffers include Brian Walsh, Thomas Boodry, and David Feith, all of whom had served under Trump’s administration. Their dismissal follows Loomer’s claims that some personnel were insufficiently aligned with Trump’s extreme vision. Loomer’s presence in the Oval Office, and her influence over national security matters, raises grave concerns about the political integrity of the Trump administration.

Loomer took to social media to discuss her meeting with Trump, describing it as an “honor” and insisting on the necessity of strong vetting within the National Security Council to safeguard national security. Her radical views, including promoting conspiracy theories and fostering division, underline the dangers of allowing such individuals access to decision-making power at the highest levels of government.

The meeting, which also included Trump’s chief of staff Susie Wiles and national security adviser Mike Waltz, exemplifies a trend in Trump’s administration to purge individuals perceived as insufficiently loyal to his increasingly radicalized agenda. This reflects a broader push by Trump and his allies to consolidate power through the removal of dissenting voices.

The implications of this purge extend beyond staff changes; they indicate an alarming shift towards an official endorsement of discriminatory and extremist views within the federal apparatus, further entwining Trump’s presidency with the ideologies of white supremacy and authoritarianism.

Hegseth’s Reckless Decision to Bring Wife to Pentagon Meeting Threatens National Security

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is under scrutiny for compromising sensitive military discussions by bringing his wife, a former Fox News producer, to meetings with foreign military officials. This troubling revelation raises serious questions about Hegseth’s judgment regarding national security protocols. One particularly significant meeting took place at the Pentagon on March 6, involving Hegseth and U.K. Secretary of Defense John Healey, amidst delicate circumstances following the U.S. decision to halt military intelligence sharing with Ukraine.

According to multiple sources familiar with the discussions, the meeting was attended by top military leaders, including Adm. Tony Radakin, head of the U.K. armed forces. The agenda focused on sensitive military strategy and future collaborations. By including his wife in these discussions, Hegseth not only blurred the lines of professionalism but also jeopardized the integrity of U.S. military operations and relationships with allies.

This incident reflects broader trends within the Trump administration, where nepotism and disregard for ethical standards are rampant. Hegseth’s actions exemplify a blatant lack of respect for the sanctity of military meetings, further demonstrating the administration’s tendency to prioritize personal interests over national security. This situation calls into question the administration’s commitment to safeguarding sensitive information amid rising tensions on the global stage.

Bringing an unqualified individual into critical discussions about military strategy highlights ethical problems within the Trump administration, which has consistently shown a troubling pattern of undermining the norms of governance. By normalizing such behavior, Hegseth continues to paint a picture of an administration that prioritizes loyalty and personal connections over qualified expertise.

As these patterns emerge, they underscore the urgent need for accountability and reform within the Trump administration, which continues to unravel American democratic principles and governance standards. Elevating unqualified connections over merit compromises not only military integrity but also poses significant risks to national security.

(h/t: https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/hegseth-brought-his-wife-to-sensitive-meetings-with-foreign-military-officials-c16db0ea?mod=hp_lead_pos1)

Trump Administration’s Major Security Breach Highlights Hypocrisy Over Clinton’s Emails

Washington is in a state of outrage following a serious breach involving unnamed senior officials from the Trump administration, who mistakenly added journalist Jeffrey Goldberg to a group chat where sensitive discussions about military plans were held. This incident, disclosed by Goldberg, saw high-ranking officials deliberating imminent attacks against Houthi rebels in Yemen.

The group, created on the encrypted app Signal, included notable figures such as national security adviser Mike Waltz, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. Details about weaponry, targets, and timing were shared within the chat just two hours prior to the commencement of military operations on March 15.

Goldberg expressed disbelief upon realizing the authenticity of the chat, given the recklessness it implied regarding national security communications. National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes confirmed the chat’s legitimacy, stating that they are reviewing how Goldberg was inadvertently added. He described the threads as reflective of policy coordination among senior officials and claimed the military actions pose no threat to national security.

The breach has drawn sharp rebuke, particularly from Democrats, who have seized upon it to highlight the Trump administration’s hypocrisy after it vehemently criticized Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server while in office. There’s a growing call for accountability, urging congressional Republicans to investigate Hegseth and other officials involved in this reckless communication lapse.

This scandal raises significant questions about the Trump administration’s handling of classified information and its commitment to transparency. As calls for accountability grow louder, the ramifications for those involved in this war planning misstep are sure to unfold in the coming days.

1 2 3 … 7