Trump and Hegseth have suggested that shooting protesters in the legs would be no big deal, but research shows such wounds can lead to amputation and death -- indicating our "leaders" are not too sharp

 

Police shoot a woman at point-blank range with a  "less lethal" round as she returns home from work (Guardian)

 

A few months ago, most Americans likely could not have imagined a U.S. president and his secretary of defense having protesters shot -- even those peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights on public property. But now, with protesters and military personnel confronting each other in Los Angeles -- and a similarly combustible event set to take place this weekend in Washington, D.C. -- no American should be certain an unimaginable event will not unfold soon in one of those locations -- or at another site where some 1,500 "No Kings" events are planned around the country on Saturday to protest Trump's military parade that day in D.C. Possible clashes might be of particular concern when the president and secretary of defense in question are Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth. It likely is especially troubling for those familiar with the pair's rhetoric about protesters.

The New Republic (TNR) reminds us of the words Trump and Hegseth have spewed on the subject in an article titled "Would Trump and Hegseth Have Protesters Be Shot? See What They’ve Said; The weekend’s events in Los Angeles bring us face-to-face with a possible reality that until this year seemed unimaginable in the United States. Michael Tomasky writes:

If you’d somehow forgotten what Donald Trump said to top military aides in June 2020 about the people gathered in Washington’s Lafayette Park protesting the killing of George Floyd, now seems like a good time to remember.

Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper said in many interviews while promoting his book in 2022 that, during a White House meeting to discuss the protests, Trump turned to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley and asked: “Can’t you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?”

Naturally, Esper and Milley were both aghast. But now fast-forward to this past January, and the confirmation hearing of current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. As fate would have it, Hegseth was among the National Guard troops deployed by Trump to quell those George Floyd protests. Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii asked Hegseth about that day, and how he might handle a similar situation were he the Pentagon chief. Per The Washington Post at the time: 

“In June of 2020, then-President Trump directed former secretary of defense Mark Esper to shoot protesters in the legs in downtown D.C., an order Secretary Esper refused to comply with,” Hirono said. “Would you carry out such an order from President Trump?”

“Senator, I was in the Washington, D.C., National Guard unit that was in Lafayette Square during those events,” Hegseth replied, “carrying a riot shield on behalf of my country.” …

As Hegseth was describing his experience, Hirono pressed the point: “Would you carry out an order to shoot protesters in the legs as directed to Secretary Esper?”

“I saw 50 Secret Service agents get injured by rioters trying to jump over the fence,” Hegseth continued, “set a church on fire and destroy a statue. Chaos.”

“That sounds to me that you will comply with such an order,” Hirono concluded. “You will shoot protesters in the leg.”

The Post’s droll next sentence? “Hegseth didn’t reject her conclusion.” Watch this video, starting at about 3:30; at exactly 4:02, Hegseth had a clear opportunity to say, “No, senator, I can’t imagine ordering that.” He didn’t take it.

This, remember, is the same Hegseth who tweeted over the weekend about possibly calling in the Marines to Los Angeles.

Oh, while we’re recalling stuff, it behooves us to recall this: During a 2023 campaign rally, Trump was talking about those Lafayette Square protests when he said this: “You’re supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in—the next time, I’m not waiting.”

I’m no math whiz, but I’m pretty sure I can add all that up. It equals the very real possibility that somewhere down the dark road ahead of us, under orders of the president of the United States, U.S. soldiers might open fire on U.S. citizens, along with possibly other civilians who don’t happen to be U.S. citizens. The idea of the military firing on civilians on American soil seems impossible to imagine, something more akin to a totalitarian dictatorship or a rogue state. The idea of U.S. soldiers firing on U.S. citizens exercising a constitutional right they’ve secured simply by being born is beyond incomprehensible. But today, under this president and this defense secretary, there seems a better than remote chance that this is where we’re headed.

Let's establish for the record that a gunshot wound to the leg is not a minor inconvenience. Consider the following insights from an article at PubMed and the National Library of Medicine under the title "[Treatment of gunshot fractures of the lower extremity: Part 2: Procedures for secondary reconstruction and treatment results]":

Abstract

Background: Gunshot wounds of the lower extremities are always serious injuries, especially in cases in which bone is affected. Contamination and extensive tissue damage can be life-threatening for the patient and severely affect the function of the extremity. Contamination and local infections with multidrug resistant pathogens are regularly encountered particularly in casualties evacuated from crisis regions. Treatment of this special type of injury, which differs in the form and extent from conventional high-energy trauma of the lower extremities, usually requires lengthy and extensive therapy algorithms in order to preserve the affected extremity.

Patients and methods: Based on the results of 34 gunshot wounds of the lower extremities which were surgically treated in this department between 2005 and 2011, this article reports on procedures used for wound management, soft tissue reconstruction and restoration of bone continuity. This group included 18 patients with a total of 20 gunshot-related fractures, 40% of which affected the lower leg and 35% the thigh. The affected extremities could be salvaged in all cases.

Results: The therapeutic spectrum required for bone reconstruction after soft-tissue coverage demonstrated in these case examples ranged from conventional osteosynthesis with or without local cancellous bone transplant with platelet-rich plasma, to healing in a fixator, bone resection and the Masquelet method, distraction osteogenesis using a fixator in order to restore continuity and definitive secondary extension using an intramedullary skeletal kinetic distractor (ISKD) nail. Out of 15 bullet fractures affecting large tubular bones 8 could be healed without any shortening, axis deviation or malrotation. In 7 cases definitive shortening by an average of 20 mm (minimum 10 mm and maximum 40 mm) was necessary. The average treatment time before full weight-bearing was achieved within tolerable pain limits was 66 weeks (minimum 4 weeks and maximum 267 weeks). Secondary osteitis and osteomyelitis following primary restoration was detected in only one case.

Conclusion: These results show that the treatment of gunshot wounds of the lower extremities is time-consuming and extensive and requires the complete spectrum of modern trauma surgery. Despite the high risk of complications during treatment it is possible and feasible to apply procedures that preserve the extremities.

Extremities can be saved in many instances, but that is not always the case, as an article from PubMed and the National Library of Medicine makes clear under the title "Lower extremity vascular injuries caused by firearms have a higher risk of amputation and death compared with non-firearm penetrating trauma":

Abstract 

Objective: Firearm injuries have traditionally been associated with worse outcomes compared with other types of penetrating trauma. Lower extremity trauma with vascular injury is a common presentation at many centers. Our goal was to compare firearm and non-firearm lower extremity penetrating injuries requiring vascular repair.

Methods: We analyzed the National Inpatient Sample from 2010 to 2014 for all penetrating lower extremity injuries requiring vascular repair based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes. Our primary outcomes were in-hospital lower extremity amputation and death.

Results: We identified 19,494 patients with lower extremity penetrating injuries requiring vascular repair-15,727 (80.7%) firearm injuries and 3767 (19.3%) non-firearm injuries. The majority of patients were male (91%), and intent was most often assault/legal intervention (64.3%). In all penetrating injuries requiring vascular repair, the majority (72.9%) had an arterial injury and 43.8% had a venous injury. Location of vascular injury included iliac (19.3%), femoral-popliteal (60%), and tibial (13.2%) vascular segments. Interventions included direct vascular repair (52.1%), ligation (22.1%), bypass (19.4%), and endovascular procedures (3.6%). Patients with firearm injuries were more frequently younger, black, male, and on Medicaid, with lower household income, intent of assault or legal action, and two most severe injuries in the same body region (P < .0001 for all). Firearm injuries compared with non-firearm injuries were more often reported to be arterial (75.5% vs 61.9%), to involve iliac (20.6% vs 13.7%) and femoral-popliteal vessels (64.7% vs 39.9%), to undergo endovascular repair (4% vs 2.1%), and to have a bypass (22.5% vs 6.5%; P < .05 for all). Firearm-related in-hospital major amputation (3.3% vs 0.8%; P = .001) and mortality (7.6% vs 4.2%; P = .001) were higher compared with non-firearm penetrating trauma. Multivariable analysis showed that injury by a firearm source was independently associated with postoperative major amputation (odds ratio, 4.78; 95% confidence interval, 2.07-11.01; P < .0001) and mortality (odds ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-2.65; P = .01).

Conclusions: Firearm injury is associated with a higher rate of amputation and mortality compared with non-firearm injuries of the lower extremity requiring vascular repair. These data can continue to guide public health discussions about morbidity and mortality from firearm injury.

--------------------------------------------- 

Trump and Hegseth have proven that their thought processes do not go very deep and do not include much forethought before words come pouring out of their mouths. Tomasky, however, sees reason to believe that brainier thinkers, with more consideration than their "leaders," will allow cooler heads to prevail in hot-button environments:

I hope people allow what’s happening in Los Angeles to de-escalate. No one should give up the right to peaceful protest, of course. But everyone should be mindful that Trump and Hegseth, and Tom Homan and Stephen Miller and JD Vance, are just waiting for an excuse to invoke the Insurrection Act. Homan, the border czar, said over the weekend: “You’re going to see more work-site enforcement than you’ve ever seen in the history of this nation. We’re going to flood the zone.” That means more protests, which means more confrontations, which means many more opportunities for something to happen either by intention or even perhaps by accident.

Once we’re down the Insurrection Act road, there’s no telling where this leads. It’s not an accident, by the way, that JD Vance called what happened in L.A. an “insurrection”; labeling it as such makes it easier to invoke the Insurrection Act, whose Section 253, passed into law in 1871 when the Ku Klux Klan was terrorizing people, allows the president to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” in a state that “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.” Vance undoubtedly used the word to troll us about January 6. But there’s also a legal rationale for using it.

Presidents have invoked the act in the past, and our democracy survived just fine. That said, the reasons for those invocations have always been specific, the durations short. Now our concern is that if Trump decides that Blue State X isn’t enforcing the law in the way he wants it enforced, he will call the lawlessness an insurrection and then do who knows what, for who knows how long.

And finally, get a load of this, which Insurrection Act expert Joseph Nunn wrote about last year in Democracy journal (which I also edit): “Because the Insurrection Act refers simply to ‘the militia,’ and not specifically to the National Guard or the organized militia, a president could, in theory, use it to call private individuals into federal service—including members of the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and other private militias.” Nunn notes Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes used this interpretation of the act in his defense at his trial. No wonder that Nunn calls the Insurrection Act “a nuclear bomb hidden in the United States Code.”

Donald Trump won the election. A narrow majority backs his immigration policies (although support drops when people learn more specific facts about how they’re being carried out). Those of us who opposed his election and oppose his immigration policies have to live with this democratic verdict. Our recourse is to do everything we can to make sure the next democratic verdict (assuming there is one) repudiates the man and his policies.

But this is not about immigration policies. This is about the use of state power against the people of the United States, or at least the ones he doesn’t like. And now, potentially, it’s about the state doing violence against those people. Again: We have a president who said, “Next time, I’m not waiting,” and a defense secretary who refused to deny that he’d allow soldiers to shoot protesters.

Photos show Trump admin sent troops to L.A., with no food, water, beds, or toilets -- drawing outrage from those demanding the military be treated with respect

National Guard: No beds, water, food or toilets (SF Chronicle)

 (Note: A second photo from the Chronicle can be viewed at the end of this post.)

By now, no one should be surprised to learn that the Trump administration is incompetent. But three days ago, we received new evidence that "King Donald" is running such a slipshod operation that it's downright nauseating. That's because it involves abusive treatment of our own military personnel. Given that Trump already has made nasty comments about those who have put their lives on the line for our country -- deeming them "suckers and losers," implying a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should be executed, even turning a visit with staffers to Arlington National Cemetery into a campaign event, pushing aside a U.S. Army official in the process . . . well, it's hard to believe that any American still could support such a cretin in the White House.

What makes the latest episode of ineptitude so gross? The San Francisco Chronicle provides the answer under the headline "‘Wildly underprepared’: National Guard troops seen sleeping on floors in exclusive photos." Matthias Gafni reports:

President Donald Trump’s rush to deploy California National Guard troops to Los Angeles has left dozens of soldiers without adequate sleeping arrangements, forced to pack together in one or more federal buildings, resting on the floors of what appear to be basements or loading docks, the Chronicle has learned.

The state troops federalized by the Trump administration over the weekend to confront immigration protesters, without the approval of Gov. Gavin Newsom, were “wildly underprepared,” said a person directly involved with the deployment, who asked to remain anonymous because they were not authorized to speak on the issue.

The troops — whose makeshift quarters are shown in photographs exclusively obtained by the Chronicle — arrived without federal funding for basic necessities, said the source, who was granted confidentiality under Chronicle policies. This person said state officials and the California National Guard were not to blame.

Senior military leaders advised Monday that the California troops could continue sleeping on floors or outdoors until Thursday, at which point federal officials would decide whether to make more permanent lodging plans, the source said. By Monday afternoon, additional National Guard troops were expected to reach Los Angeles, upping the total from around 300 late Saturday to more than 2,100.

It was unclear where the new arrivals would stay at night, the source said, with only a few hundred available tents. 

“This is what happens when the president and (Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth) demand the National Guard state assets deploy immediately with no plan in place … (and) no federal funding available for food, water, fuel and lodging,” the source said. “This is really the failure of the federal government. If you’re going to federalize these troops, then take care of them.”

Is this the Trump administration's way of showing appalling lack of respect for U.S. military personnel, something the president himself has done several times in the past? Is there any other way to put it? Gafni writes:

“Currently, there is no plan for where everyone is sleeping tonight,” the source said, adding that there was an urgent need to find more portable bathrooms and dumpsters for garbage.

The Pentagon referred questions about troop provisions to the California Guard, which in turn referred questions to the U.S. Special Operations Command North, which did not immediately respond to the Chronicle.

Protesters clashed with law enforcement officers through the weekend in Los Angeles, in some cases burning vehicles and hurling rocks. President Trump’s order to deploy the National Guard troops said protest activity or violence that interfered with the activity of immigration officials constituted “a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”

His order deployed the soldiers for 60 days or at Hegseth’s discretion.

National Guard troops can be summoned by any state governor or a U.S. president under certain conditions. Ordinarily, though, presidents activate the National Guard at the request of state leaders and have only rarely made the decision to activate troops independent of a governor’s petition for assistance. In contrast, California officials sharply criticized Trump’s move and sought to reverse it.

The Chronicle published photos of National Guard members sleeping on a floor, prompting a flood of outrage directed at the White House. Conservative users on X attacked the messenger, claiming the photos were fake. Two fact-checking organizations, Snopes and Politifact, looked into the accusations before Pentagon officials confirmed the photos were authentic: 

“The soldiers you saw in the photo were resting as they were not currently on mission and due to the fluid security situation, it was deemed too dangerous for them to travel to better accommodations,” a Defense Department spokesperson told Snopes.

Gafni provides more details about the photos his newspaper published:

The two photos the Chronicle obtained show troops asleep in one or more of the three federal buildings they had been ordered to protect. In one photo, the troops slept next to what appeared to be a security checkpoint, with Red Bulls, backpacks and rifles strewn about the makeshift quarters.

In the second photo, dozens of troops appeared to be sleeping in a larger room on concrete floors with their backpacks and other equipment next to them. The source said they redacted the name of one soldier that appeared in the photo.

Newsom responded to the images by condemning Trump’s handling of the deployment.

“You sent your troops here without fuel, food, water or a place to sleep,” Newsom wrote in a post on X. “Here they are — being forced to sleep on the floor, piled on top of one another.”

Several members of the state Legislature were dismayed by the pictures.

“Oh my God, this is horrible,” said Assembly Member Pilar Schiavo, D-Chatsworth (Los Angeles County), when a Chronicle reporter showed her the photos. “That’s incredibly shocking and concerning.”

Assembly Member Rick Chavez Zbur, D-Los Angeles, said he was “appalled” by the conditions depicted, adding that it “shows the lack of respect” the president has for men and women who serve in the military.

“I think this speaks to what the governor has talked about and others have talked about, a complete lack of coordination and communication, which is what we would expect if you actually want law and order instead of chaos and disorder,” said Assembly Member Ash Kalra, D-San Jose, “This has nothing to do with public safety, it’s all a show, it’s all propaganda, and we’re demanding that it stop.”

 

(SF Chronicle)

Trump threatens "heavy force" against protesters who might dare appear at D.C. military parade, and law enforcement has its eyes peeled for unruly conduct

Tanks are prepared for transit to D.C. parade (Reuters)

Having shown residents of Los Angeles that he is a "tough guy" by calling in the National Guard and Marines to help handle protests of his immigration policies, Donald Trump now is planning to teach a similar lesson to those living in Washington, D.C. How will he do that? It involves the upcoming military parade, which is designed to honor the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary -- but just happens to also fall on Trump's 79th birthday.

If Trump gets his way, the celebration could turn into confrontation -- and one gets the impression that's how the president wants it. Trump's rhetoric sounds like something out of a John Wayne movie, but that doesn't mean his actions will be appropriate or lawful. Under the headline "Trump: Protests in DC will be met with ‘very heavy force’; Nationwide “No Kings” demonstrations are expected on Saturday, the same day as the president’s military parade in Washington," Politico takes a look at a parade that could morph into a test of American values -- and its constitutional principles. Irie Sentner and Hassan Ali Kanu write:

President Donald Trump warned that any protests during this weekend’s major military parade in Washington will be met with “very heavy force.”

“If there’s any protester who wants to come out, they will be met with very big force,” the president said Tuesday during an impromptu Oval Office press conference. “I haven’t even heard about a protest, but [there are] people that hate our country. 

Trump’s threat came as thousands of National Guard troops and about 700 marines are in Los Angeles, clashing with protesters of the president’s immigration agenda. Trump claimed Tuesday without evidence the demonstrators were “paid insurrectionists” and said the city would have experienced “a lot of death and destruction” if he had not sent in the Guard.

Signs of preparation for the parade are appearing in D.C., and behind the scenes, law-enforcement officials are keeping an eye on possible plans for protests. From the Politico report:

“If we didn’t attack this one very strongly, you’d have them all over the country,” Trump said of the Los Angeles protests. “But I can inform the rest of the country that when they do it — if they do it — they’re gonna be met with equal or greater force.”

The comments come as the White House and Washington law enforcement officials are preparing for a military parade on Saturday, which coincides with the Army’s 250th — and Trump’s 79th — birthday.

By Tuesday, a mile-long line of tanks had arrived in Washington, and barricades were going up around the White House complex. It will be the first military parade in the nation’s capital since the country celebrated the end of the Gulf War more than three decades ago.

Large demonstrations were expected in several major cities on Tuesday, and a string of “No Kings” protests is expected from coast to coast on Saturday — including in Washington.

Ahead of Trump’s Oval Office remarks, Communications Director Steven Cheung told POLITICO the White House was not concerned about protests disrupting the military event.

“The parade is a way to celebrate the Army and to celebrate generations of individuals who have fought and paid the ultimate sacrifice for the country,” he said, adding that he expected large crowds of supporters.

Administration officials aren't the only ones keeping track of the event. Officials in D.C. have grown accustomed to hosting "national special security events," and they consider the military parade to be another such occasion. Sentner and Kanu report: 

Law enforcement officials in Washington are also preparing for the event, which will be the fifth designated “national special security event” in the city this year — an unprecedented number in recent memory, according to federal security agencies. Local and federal law enforcement plan to deploy more than 100 metal detectors and multiple drones, according to Matt McCool, the agent in charge of the U.S. Secret Service’s D.C. office.

Officials are tracking a handful of demonstrations — or “First Amendment activity,” as law enforcement calls it — planned for Saturday, but “don’t have any significant concerns,” Jessica Taylor, chief of the U.S. Park Police, told reporters on Monday.

“As far as the First Amendment activity from a Secret Service perspective, it’s simply people using their First Amendment right to protest. We’re not going to do anything with that,” McCool said. “But if that turns violent or if any laws are broken, that’s when [Metro Police], Park Police, Secret Service will get involved, and that will be handled swiftly.”

Trump's call to the National Guard and Marines in L.A. makes him look like a "tough guy," but the law is clear: The president is operating on shaky legal ground

Protesters express their sentiments (Orange County Register)

 

Donald Trump long has been known as a political street fighter, who will engage in feuds of all varieties -- with foes, former friends and allies, enemies (both real and imagined), even family members (except, of course, Ivanka). As of yesterday, Trump is engaged in a real street fight, and he seems to enjoy fanning the flames. It gives Trump an opportunity to play "tough guy," and Lord knows, Trump loves being portrayed as a tough guy -- no matter how many people are injured or killed in the process.

The New York Times (NYT) has the latest story under the headline "What to Know About the Immigration Protests in Los Angeles; Demonstrations against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown have been largely peaceful, but tensions flared after President Trump ordered National Guard troops to deploy to the city"

The Times' story is the most disturbing account of American life in the age of Trump since the violence and carnage at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, which was launched in part by the actions of Alabama-connected extremist Ali (Akbar) Alexander, who has been the subject of more than 30 posts here at Legal Schnauzer -- including posts about an investigation of Alexander in Johnstown, CO, for "solicitation of a minor." That grew from a police report in which Alexander is alleged to have sought "d--k pics" from teen boys. Two of the alleged victims reportedly were ages 15 and 17 at the time. This is the kind of person with whom Trump associates, and we will have more on that in upcoming posts. Not only is Trump a poor judge of people, but he has great difficulty following the law. Maybe that is why he is America's first convicted felon/adjudicated rapist/confessed sexual abuser president.

Trump's poor judgment is on display right now in Los Angeles, where he called out the National Guard and Marines to deal with protests over his own immigration policies, which trample the law and any notion of due process. The protests have been widely described in news accounts as peaceful. Trump surely will point to arrests as a sign that protesters were unruly. But he is the one committing major violations of law, as we will show in a moment. 

Californians have not taken kindly to Trump's aggressive actions, largely bypassing the state's leaders, according to The Times:

As Los Angeles braced for more confrontations between law enforcement and demonstrators, the United States Northern Command said on Monday that the Trump administration was deploying a battalion of 700 Marines to the city to protect federal property and personnel.

The Marines were set to join hundreds of members of the California National Guard who deployed to Los Angeles on Sunday. The Guard troops were called in by President Trump, against the wishes of Gov. Gavin Newsom, after days of clashes over the weekend between the authorities and demonstrators protesting the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.

California’s Democratic leaders have condemned Mr. Trump’s moves. Mr. Newsom said that the order to deploy the National Guard was “purposefully inflammatory” and called for it to be rescinded. On Monday afternoon, he said the order to send hundreds of Marines to California was “a provocation, not just an escalation.”

The state attorney general, Rob Bonta, said California would file a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its move to take control of the state’s National Guard and deploy troops to Los Angeles to protect immigration enforcement agents.

The protests have been largely peaceful but have flared up in pockets of downtown Los Angeles and in nearby suburbs, as well as in San Francisco.

Protests broke out on Friday when federal agents searched the city’s garment district for workers whom they suspected of being undocumented immigrants, as part of the Trump administration’s new focus on raiding workplaces. They were met with protesters, who chanted and threw eggs before being dispersed by law enforcement with pepper spray and nonlethal bullets.

Demonstrations continued Saturday, both downtown and in the mostly Latino and working-class suburb of Paramount, about 15 miles to the south. Law enforcement officers made arrests and in some cases used crowd-control munitions, tear gas and flash-bang grenades against the protesters.

Mr. Trump signed a memo on Saturday ordering 2,000 National Guard members to deploy to Los Angeles to protect federal officers conducting immigration operations, despite the objections of Mr. Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles.

On Sunday, nearly 300 members of the California National Guard took positions in the city. Demonstrations on Sunday afternoon near a downtown detention center were largely peaceful, but some protesters fired fireworks at police officers under a bridge on the nearby U.S. 101 freeway. Several driverless Waymo cars were set on fire in downtown Los Angeles.

The protests were “getting increasingly worse and more violent,” Chief McDonnell of the L.A.P.D. said on Sunday, blaming the violence on “anarchists” and “people who do this all the time,” not people protesting immigration raids.

More than 150 people have been arrested in Los Angeles since Friday, officials said. About 150 more were arrested in San Francisco, where demonstrators and police officers fought on a downtown street on Sunday night.

Did Trump act lawfully by calling in the National Guard and Marines? That question appears to be unsettled, although governors generally control such deployments in their states. That did not happen in this case, raising questions if Trump acted beyond his authority, perhaps recklessly. From The Times:

The National Guard is the only branch of the military that can be deployed both by state governors and by the president. Governors almost always control deployment in their states.

The Guard operates similarly to the Army’s reserve force. Most of its members do not serve full time. They generally hold civilian jobs and attend regular training sessions, and are called into active service only when needed. The Guard is most often called upon during extreme weather events like hurricanes, floods and wildfires.

Before Mr. Trump’s move, the last time a president activated a state’s National Guard troops for such a purpose without being asked to do so by the state’s governor was in 1965, according to Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, an independent law and policy organization.

On that occasion, she said, President Lyndon B. Johnson used troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Alabama.

Signs point to the possibility that Trump is making creative use of language in an effort to justify his actions. California leaders do not seem to be buying it:

On Monday, Mr. Trump said that the protesters in Los Angeles “are insurrectionists,” appearing to adopt a rationale that could allow him to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act and use active-duty U.S. military personnel to deal with protests.

California’s Democratic leaders have blasted Mr. Trump’s moves, saying that the order to deploy the National Guard was unnecessary and an inappropriate use of power, while urging protesters to remain peaceful.

In an interview with The New York Times on Monday, Mr. Newsom said the decision to send the Marines to Los Angeles was “intended to sow more fear, more anger and to further divide.”

Appearing on CNN on Monday morning, Ms. Bass, the mayor, said that on “a few streets downtown, it looks horrible,” but that there was “not citywide civil unrest.” She added that anyone who destroyed cars or engaged in violence would be prosecuted.

Perhaps the question of the moment is one reflected in a Reuters headline: "Does US law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests? Dietrich Knauth writes:

President Donald Trump deployed National Guard troops to California after days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids, saying the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and framing them as a possible “form of rebellion” against the authority of the U.S. government. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday mobilized 700 active duty Marines as part of the government’s response to the protests.

California sued the Trump administration on Monday to end the "unlawful" deployment of troops in Los Angeles County and return the state National Guard to California Governor Gavin Newsom's command.

 WHAT LAWS DID TRUMP CITE TO JUSTIFY THE DEPLOYMENT?

Trump cited U.S. Code Title 10, Sec. 12406, a federal law that outlines the role of the U.S. Armed Forces, in his June 7 order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service. A provision of Title 10 - Section 12 - allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the U.S. is invaded, there is a “rebellion or danger of rebellion” or the president is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

 

WHAT ARE NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS ALLOWED TO DO UNDER THE LAW CITED IN TRUMP'S ORDER?

 

An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the U.S. military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement.

Section 12406 does not override that prohibition, but it allows troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law-enforcement activity and to protect federal property. 

For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests.

 

What is the gist of the Posse Comitatus Act? This is from an article at the Brennan Center for Justice: 

WHAT DOES THE POSSE COMITATUS ACT SAY?

The Posse Comitatus Act consists of just one sentence: “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

In practice, this means that members of the military who are subject to the law may not participate in civilian law enforcement unless doing so is expressly authorized by a statute or the Constitution.  

That seems straightforward enough, but the Reuters article shows there are other issues to consider. Dietrich Knauth writes:

WHAT DOES CALIFORNIA'S LAWSUIT SAY?

California's lawsuit said the deployment of troops in the state without the governor's consent violates federal law and the U.S. Constitution's 10th Amendment, which protects states' rights. 

The state argues the deployment does not meet any of the requirements in Title 10 because there was no “rebellion,” no "invasion" and no situation that prevented the enforcement of U.S. laws in the state.

Trump also did not consult with Newsom before deploying the National Guard, violating Section 12406's requirement that orders to deploy the National Guard "shall be issued through the governors of the States," according to the lawsuit.

 WHAT IS THE LAWSUIT ASKING FOR?

The lawsuit seeks a declaration from the court Trump's order is unlawful and an injunction blocking it from being enforced.

 HOW MIGHT A COURT VIEW THE DISPUTE?

There is little precedent for such a dispute. Section 12406 has only been invoked once to deploy the National Guard, when President Richard Nixon called upon it to deliver the mail during the 1970 Postal Service Strike, according to Bonta. 

Five legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organizations cast doubt on Trump’s use of Title 10 in response to the immigration protests and called it inflammatory and reckless, especially without Newsom's support.

The protests in California do not rise to the level of “rebellion” and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said. 

Legal experts were split on whether a court would back Newsom’s interpretation of the governor’s role under Section 12406. 

Courts have traditionally given great weight to the word “shall” in interpreting other laws, which supports Newsom's position that governors must be involved in calling in the National Guard. But other experts said the law was written to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president's decision to deploy troops.

WHAT OTHER LAWS COULD TRUMP INVOKE TO DIRECT THE NATIONAL GUARD OR OTHER U.S MILITARY TROOPS?

Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent. 

Senior White House officials, including Vice President JD Vance and senior White House aide Stephen Miller, have used the term "insurrection" when discussing the protests, but the administration has stopped short of invoking the act thus far. 

It has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the U.S. in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the trial of Los Angeles police officers who beat Black motorist Rodney King. 

But the last time a president deployed the National Guard in a state without a request from that state's governor was 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama.

 WHAT ABOUT THE MARINES?

Trump has more direct authority over the Marines than the National Guard, under Title 10 and in his constitutional role as commander in chief of the armed forces, legal experts said. 

But unless Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, the Marines are subject to legal restrictions that prevent them from taking part in "any search, seizure, arrest or other similar activity." The Defense Department said on Monday that the Marines were ready to support the National Guard's efforts to protect federal personnel and federal property in Los Angeles, emphasizing the relatively limited scope of their role at the moment.

Let's return to the Reuters question of the moment: Does U.S. law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?

We have highlighted in blue the sections above that address that question. Here is a brief summary of what those sections tell us:

(1) The Posse Comitatus Act is clear: Members of the military who are subject to the law may not participate in civilian law enforcement, unless doing so is expressly authorized by a statute or the Constitution;

(2) California's lawsuit is clear:

a. The deployment of troops in the state without the governor's consent violates federal law and the U.S. Constitution's 10th Amendment, which protects states' rights; 

b. The deployment does not meet any of the requirements in Title 10 because there was no “rebellion,” no "invasion" and no situation that prevented the enforcement of U.S. laws in the state.

c. Trump  did not consult with Newsom before deploying the National Guard, violating Section 12406's requirement that orders to deploy the National Guard "shall be issued through the governors of the States."

d. The lawsuit, of course, has not been decided, but the legal holdings noted above indicate the people of California and their leaders are on solid footing.

(3) Legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organizations cast doubt on Trump’s use of Title 10 in response to the immigration protests and called it inflammatory and reckless, especially without Newsom's support.

The protests in California do not rise to the level of “rebellion” and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said. In short, they agreed with language in the California lawsuit.

 

(4) The Marines are subject to legal restrictions that prevent them from taking part in "any search, seizure, arrest or other similar activity." That means the Marines role is so limited they might as well not be there. It suggests Trump is using the Marines mostly as a scare tactic and a chance to establish his "tough guy" bona fides. In other words, it's a huge waste of taxpayer resources, especially from a president who has taken a hatchet to the lives of federal workers and the expertise of federal agencies, supposedly in the name of cutting the U.S. deficit. Does Trump really care about the deficit? The answer appears to be no. Trump, we've learned, likes to glorify Trump, and his profligate spending of government funds to make abusive use of the Marines reflects a president with narcissistic tendencies. Also, he does not seem to care about public safety. And as we saw on Jan. 6, Trump's poor judgment led to serious injuries, even death. We fear the same thing could happen in Los Angeles.

Trump threatens Musk with "serious consequences" if he begins to financially support Dems, although it's unclear how that would be any of Trump's business

(Instagram)

Donald Trump, sounding like a glorified mob boss, warned Elon Musk -- the world's richest human -- of "very serious consequences" over the weekend if he financially supports Democrats in the wake of a highly publicized falling out with the president. Taking the feud a step further, Trump made it sound as if his relationship with Musk is over. If that is the case, why should Musk give two hoots what Trump thinks about any political leanings he might assume and any money he might put behind them? How would that be any of Trump's business? The answer? It isn't. But all Americans -- especially the MAGAs who provided the votes that put Trump in the White House -- should be alarmed by a president who would stoop so low as to threaten anyone, whether he is a billionaire like Musk or not. The Guardian has the latest under the headline "Trump warns Musk of ‘very serious consequences’ if he backs Democrats; US president says he’s ‘too busy doing other things’ to try to reconcile with the erstwhile ally and campaign backer. Edward Helmore reports:

Donald Trump warned Elon Musk on Saturday that he faces “very serious consequences” if he funds Democratic candidates following the pair’s epic public bust-up this week.

The warning, delivered in an interview with NBC News that was broadcast on Sunday, follows days of feuding and threats after Musk called Republicans’ budget legislation an “abomination.”

Trump told interviewer Kristen Welker his relationship with the tech mogul was over and warned Musk against choosing to fund Democrats after spending close to $300 million in support of Trump’s re-election last year. “If he does, he’ll have to pay the consequences for that,” Trump told NBC News. “He’ll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that,” he added.

Trump was also asked whether he had any wish to repair his relationship with Musk. “No,” he said. Asked whether he thought their relationship was over, he said: “I would assume so, yeah,” and said he had no plans to speak with his erstwhile sidekick.

“I’m too busy doing other things,” Trump said, adding: “I have no intention of speaking to him.”

If Trump is too busy doing other things, how would he find time to inflict "serious consequences" on Musk for choosing to support Democrats? Does any law give Trump the authority to determine how Musk, or any American, chooses to spend his money -- politically or otherwise? My research, so far, has not turned up such a law. Does that mean Trump would be wise to keep his nose out of Musk's business? Probably so.

If I were Musk, I would consider sending a letter to Trump and the GOP, demanding they refund the $300 million I spent to get Trump and other Republicans elected. If the refund was not forthcoming in a timely fashion, I would consult a lawyer about the possibility of suing for the money -- complete with a full-scale discovery effort to uncover every fact and document that would be relevant to our case. It's a safe bet, I'm guessing, that Musk would have no problem finding a lawyer to take his case -- and his money. Trump did his best to downplay the impact of the spat with Musk, Helmore writes:

[Trump claimed] the feud had helped to unify the Republican party around him, saying the “party has never been united like this before. It’s never been. It’s actually more so than it was three days ago.”

Musk’s opposition to the Republican budget bill, formally the “one big beautiful bill act”, would not, he predicted, affect its passage through Congress. The bill narrowly passed the House and is now under consideration in the Senate. However, some conservative Republicans share Musk’s concerns about the need for significant spending cuts and are considering making changes.

The bill extends Trump’s 2017 tax cuts and includes new spending for border security and the military. Some Republicans aim to offset these costs with cuts to programs such as Medicaid, food stamps and green-energy tax credits.

Projections from the Congressional  Budget Office (CBO) and independent analysts indicate the bill would add between $2.3 and $5 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years. White House officials contend that the economic growth generated by tax cuts will offset the increased spending.

Still, Trump told NBC he is “very confident” that the bill will pass the Senate before July 4.

“I think, actually, Elon brought out the strengths of the bill because people that weren’t as focused started focusing on it, and they see how good it is,” Trump said. “So in that sense, there was a big favor. But I think Elon, really, I think it’s a shame that he’s so depressed and so heartbroken.”

Earlier, Musk deleted a post from X, the social-media platform he owns, that asserted links between Trump and disgraced US financier Jeffrey Epstein.

[Trump] also accused Musk of being “disrespectful to the office of the president”.

“I think it’s a very bad thing, because he’s very disrespectful. You should not disrespect the office of the president,” he said.

Everything I've seen that Musk has said or written in recent days has nothing to do with  showing disrespect for the office of president; it's about him having little respect for the current holder of the office. From The Guardian report:

Questioned about the inflammatory post, Trump said: “That’s called ‘old news’, that’s been old news, that has been talked about for years. Even Epstein’s lawyer said I had nothing to do with it. It’s old news.”

Musk has also retracted a threat to begin “decommissioning” SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft used by NASA to ferry astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station.

The original threat came after Trump suggested he might cancel SpaceX’s federal contracts. On Saturday, the president said he hadn’t given the subject any more thought.

“I’d be allowed to do that,” he said, “but I haven’t given it any thought.”

Earlier on Saturday, JD Vance told interviewer and comedian Theo Von that Musk was making a “huge mistake” going after Trump, but downplayed Musk’s attacks as being made by an “emotional guy” who got frustrated.

“I hope that eventually Elon comes back into the fold. Maybe that’s not possible now because he’s gone so nuclear,” the vice president said.

But he added: “Look, it happens to everybody. I’ve flown off the handle way worse than Elon Musk did in the last 24 hours.”

“I actually think if Elon chilled out a little bit, everything would be fine,” Vance said.

After Musk and Trump trade barbs and insults, a thaw in tensions might be brewing -- but fightin' words can leave bruises that are slow to heal and last for years

(Digital Mom Blog) 

 

A feud between Elon Musk and Donald Trump, which detonated in real time yesterday on social media, showed signs of being patched up -- at least a little bit -- last night, according to an article at Axios. Under the headline "Trump-Musk feud shows signs of thawing," Rebecca Falconer examines the tensions that surfaced during much of the day, before a truce appeared to be forming in the evening:

President Trump and Elon Musk struck more conciliatory tones on Thursday night, hours after their feud ignited and then escalated over social media.

The big picture: After a day that was marked by Trump threatening to cancel billions of dollars of government contracts with Musk's companies and the world's richest person calling for the president's impeachment, there are signs that tensions between them might be easing.

Driving the news: White House aides scheduled a call between the pair for Friday, per Politico, which spoke briefly to Trump in a Thursday night phone interview.

Trump sought to reassure the outlet about their relationship during the brief phone call, per Politico. "Oh it's okay," he said when asked about the fallout. "It's going very well, never done better."

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Fox News' "Hannity" Thursday evening that the focus of the president and his administration was "on passing the one big, beautiful bill," which Musk called a "disgusting abomination" in the lead-up to his online clash with Trump.

Leavitt noted to Fox News' Sean Hannity that last Friday, "the president graciously hosted Elon Musk in the Oval Office and Elon thanked the president for his incredible leadership to cut waste, fraud and abuse in our government, which this one big, beautiful bill does."

She added: "So the only difference between Friday and today is Elon went back to his companies. And, as a businessman, he has a right to speak for his companies. But as president, President Trump has a responsibility to fight for this country."

Meanwhile, Musk appeared to walk back an earlier threat he made on X to decommission the Dragon spacecraft, which is essential to NASA's operation.

That came after Trump had fired this missile:

The easiest way to save money in our budget, Billions and Billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it. 

Here is another missile from Trump:

Elon was "wearing thin." I asked him to leave, I took away his EV mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!) and he just went CRAZY!

Musk was quick to return fire, on a subject that is likely touchy in Trump World:

Time to drop the really big bomb:

@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!

Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.

Under the headline "The ugliest things Trump and Musk just said about one another," CNN's Aaron Blake wrote that it was hard to see how the two would get past the spitballs they had tossed around:

It was the kind of clash many predicted would eventually arrive when the two powerful, outspoken and unwieldy billionaires formed their alliance of convenience last year. And it’s now arrived in a big way.

Late Thursday afternoon, Musk responded to an X user who chose Musk over Trump and called for the president’s impeachment by simply saying, “Yes.”

It’s increasingly hard to see how this spat gets resolved without getting even uglier, given what’s being said. . . .

Trump claimed he would have won the crucial state of Pennsylvania even without Musk’s help. But Musk, who spent hundreds of millions of dollars and campaigned for Trump, shot back that he was in fact the reason Trump won the presidency.

“Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk said.

Musk then added in another post: “Such ingratitude.” 

While a thaw in the tension seemed to be brewing, Blake was not convinced it would hold:

Musk seemed to put to rest any illusions that this somehow isn’t devolving into a power struggle.

Responding to an X user who noted lawmakers are feeling pressured to pick a side, Musk made a case for them picking him.

“Oh and some food for thought as they ponder this question: Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years,” Musk wrote.

In other words: Tread carefully. I have lots of money – and time. . . .

It remains to be seen where things go from here. Trump often reconciles with allies, even after ugly things are said.

But rarely is the other figure someone as powerful and outspoken as Musk. The power dynamics are usually such that the other party feels pressured to cave to Trump.

Musk suggests he’s ready for that power struggle. If he is, buckle up.