President Donald Trump and Stephen Miller, the architect of his immigration crackdown, have repeatedly used the word “insurrection” to describe the protests in Los Angeles, hinting they might invoke a rarely-used law by that name to dramatically escalate US military intervention on city streets. But behind the scenes, administration lawyers have been working to craft a much less confrontational way of protecting the federal government’s ability to carry out immigration enforcement, hoping to avoid further inflaming the situation, according to multiple people briefed on the discussions. At issue is the Insurrection Act, which permits the president to use military forces to end an insurrection or rebellion on US soil. On Monday, the administration mobilized more than 700 Marines based out of the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center to join the thousands of National Guard troops Trump activated over the weekend. But they were deployed under a different legal authority and so far, most of those troops have worked to protect federal buildings, not put down civil unrest on city streets. Invoking the Insurrection Act would allow them to expand their mission. Trump has taken part in conversations surrounding the act, according to two sources familiar with the matter, but has not made a final decision on what to do. One administration official said those involved had effectively decided not to use the act – but the lawsuit announced by California Monday challenging the move to federalize National Guard members may change their calculus. Now, that official and others said, the administration is going to weigh what happens on the ground in LA Monday night and over the next few days – and could still invoke the act if necessary. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment. Trump’s top advisers have been watching closely. Over the course of the day Monday, Homeland Security and Pentagon officials provided regular updates on the situation in Los Angeles to the Situation Room, where Miller presided. The message from Miller was clear: the administration wasn’t backing down in LA, and they wouldn’t “give up” the city, according to a source familiar with the discussions. On Monday, Miller posted on X, “This is an organized insurrection against the laws and sovereignty of the United States.” Homeland Security assets, like US Customs and Border Protection resources and personnel, are expected to remain in the city for the foreseeable future as Immigration and Customs Enforcement continues to carry out immigration enforcement operations. Speaking to reporters Monday, Trump said of the protests: “I wouldn’t call it quite an insurrection, but it could have led to an insurrection. I mean that was a serious, that was a lot of, that was a lot of harm that was going on last night. I watched it very closely, and it was amazing the job that the National Guard did.” Hours earlier, Trump said of the demonstrators, “They’re insurrectionists. They’re bad people, they should be in jail.” Attorney General Pam Bondi has been actively involved in crafting the administration’s response. The White House Counsel’s office coordinated with the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s office to help outline the legal strategy for the president’s weekend memorandum that authorized the deployment of National Guard troops under federal authority. That was done over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the sources said. The president’s order in LA relies on what is known as Title 10 powers. In the Justice Department’s view, those powers allow the president to use the military to intervene when enforcement of federal law is being impeded. Trump confronted a similar debate during his first administration, when he and Miller similarly pushed for a heavy-handed use of troops to quell riots in Washington and Portland, Ore., in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd. In 2020, Attorney General Bill Barr rejected a heavier federal response and sent in US Marshals and other civilian law enforcement to protect the federal courthouse, which was under siege from nightly violent protests. In Washington, D.C., the federal government used National Guard military police from other states, under authorization of governors in those states, in Washington, D.C., to help federal law enforcement restore order. Asked in September 2020 about using the National Guard, he suggested he could not intervene in racial justice demonstrations without a request from state authorities. “Look, we have laws. We have to go by the laws,” Trump said at an ABC News town hall: “We can’t call in the National Guard unless we’re requested by a governor.” CNN’s Samantha Waldenberg contributed to this report.
Trump officials quietly discuss moves in LA that avoid invoking Insurrection Act, but it’s not off the table
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Trump Administration Evaluates Legal Options Amid Protests in Los Angeles"
CNN
5.9
TruthLens AI Summary
In recent discussions surrounding the protests in Los Angeles, President Donald Trump and senior advisor Stephen Miller have invoked the term 'insurrection' to describe the civil unrest, raising the possibility of invoking the Insurrection Act. This rarely-used law would allow the President to deploy military forces to suppress insurrections on U.S. soil. However, administration lawyers are exploring alternative legal measures to maintain federal immigration enforcement without escalating tensions further. On Monday, over 700 Marines were mobilized alongside National Guard troops, but their deployment was conducted under different legal authority, focusing on the protection of federal property rather than direct intervention in the protests. Although Trump has participated in discussions regarding the Insurrection Act, a final decision has yet to be made, especially in light of a lawsuit from California challenging federal involvement with the National Guard, which could influence the administration's strategy in the coming days.
As the situation in Los Angeles evolves, Trump’s administration is closely monitoring developments, with updates being relayed to the Situation Room. Miller has emphasized the administration's determination not to relinquish control over the city, labeling the protests as an organized insurrection. While Trump has described the protests as serious and harmful, he stopped short of labeling them a full insurrection. The administration's legal framework for the deployment relies on Title 10 powers, which permit military intervention when federal laws are obstructed. This situation echoes previous tensions during Trump's first term, where similar calls for military intervention were met with caution from legal advisors. The administration's response appears carefully calibrated to balance the enforcement of federal law with the need to avoid inflaming an already volatile situation, indicating a complex interplay of legal, operational, and political considerations.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article sheds light on the discussions among President Trump and his officials regarding potential military intervention in Los Angeles amid ongoing protests. It highlights the delicate balance the administration is trying to maintain between enforcing immigration policies and avoiding the heightened tensions that invoking the Insurrection Act could provoke.
Intent Behind the Publication
The content suggests a strategic intent to inform the public about the administration's considerations without provoking immediate backlash. By discussing the Insurrection Act, the article aims to frame the situation as serious while simultaneously indicating a preference for a less militarized approach.
Public Perception and Response
The framing of the protests as insurrectionary could instill a sense of urgency or fear among the public, influencing how citizens perceive both the protests and the government's response. This language may resonate with certain segments of the population who support a strong law-and-order approach.
Possible Concealments
While the article details the potential military response, it may obscure broader issues surrounding the protests, such as their causes and the voices of those participating. The focus on military deployment could detract from the underlying socio-political issues driving the unrest.
Manipulative Elements
The article carries a manipulative tone by leveraging emotionally charged language like "insurrection" to evoke a specific reaction from the audience. This choice of words serves to frame the narrative in a way that could justify a more aggressive governmental response.
Truthfulness of the Information
The information presented appears credible, given the references to discussions among officials and the deployment of military forces. However, the inherent bias in how the information is conveyed may lead to a skewed understanding of the situation.
Framing and Context
The article attempts to draw a connection between the administration's actions and the protests, illustrating a potential narrative of control versus chaos. This framing is consistent with other news pieces that emphasize law enforcement and military readiness in response to civil unrest.
Reactions from Different Communities
The article may resonate more with communities that prioritize law enforcement and national security. Conversely, it may alienate those who view the protests as legitimate expressions of dissent and demand for social justice.
Economic and Political Implications
The potential invocation of the Insurrection Act and military presence could lead to market volatility, particularly in sectors sensitive to civil unrest and political stability. Stocks in defense and security sectors might see fluctuations based on perceptions of escalating tensions.
Global Power Dynamics
The situation in Los Angeles reflects broader themes of governance and civil liberties, which may have implications for international observers. The U.S. response could influence perceptions of American democracy and its handling of dissent.
Use of Artificial Intelligence
There is no direct indication that AI was utilized in crafting this article, although AI models often process language and sentiment in news coverage. If AI influenced the style, it might have shaped the emotional tone to elicit specific reactions from the audience. The language choices could be seen as steering public sentiment towards a more militarized view of the protests.
In summary, the article serves to highlight the tensions between law enforcement and civil rights, while also suggesting a cautious approach from the administration. The implications of this narrative extend beyond immediate protests, potentially affecting public perception, economic stability, and political dynamics.