The country hangs on a hugely significant precipice, as President Donald Trump moves toward making good on his long-running suggestions of an extraordinary step: deploying the military on US soil. About 700 Marines have now been mobilized to join the National Guard in Los Angeles to deal with demonstrations over federal immigration raids, CNN reports. The Marines were previously on “ready to deploy” status. (It is still unclear what their specific task will be once in Los Angeles, sources told CNN. And like the National Guard troops, they are prohibited from conducting law enforcement activity such as making arrests unless Trump invokes the Insurrection Act.) But to hear the White House tell it, this show of force is not just the right thing to do but also a political winner. Responding to a poll showing 54% of Americans approved of Trump’s deportation program, White House spokesman Steven Cheung wrote on X Sunday, “And the approval number will be even higher after the national guard was sent to LA to beat back the violence this weekend.” But whether the American people actually want this military activation isn’t nearly so clear. In fact, they’ve rejected such things in the past. The administration may be making a huge gamble on the American people’s tolerance for a heavy-handed federal response. And while Americans might not have much sympathy for the demonstrators in Los Angeles who engage in violence or for undocumented immigrants, recent surveys have shown they often say Trump goes too far in his attempts to address such problems. There is something of an analog for the current situation. It came in 2020 when federal law enforcement suddenly moved to clear Lafayette Square, near the White House, of racial justice demonstrators, resulting in violent scenes. This wasn’t the military, but it was controversial – in part because Trump then walked across the square with military leaders for a photo-op. (Then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper also resisted Trump’s suggestions of using active-duty military at the time.) The American people did not like what they saw. A USA Today/Ipsos poll conducted a week later showed 63% of Americans opposed the use of rubber bullets and tear gas that day. It also showed Americans opposed deploying military forces in other states by 10 points, 51-41%. Similarly a CNN poll conducted by SSRS at the time asked a broader question – whether it would be appropriate for a president to “deploy the U.S. military in response to protests in the United States.” Americans said this would be “inappropriate” by a wide margin, 60-36%. All of which suggest Americans are predisposed to viewing such actions skeptically. These numbers come with caveats, though. The CNN poll question is a great window into how this could be received. But it’s possible people’s views have shifted or could shift with circumstances, including the role the Marines end up playing in Los Angeles. Back in 2020, the racial justice protests were relatively popular, and people didn’t view them as particularly violent. Americans sympathized with the cause, believing George Floyd had been murdered by police. It’s too early to tell how people view the demonstrators in Los Angeles. And the plight of the undocumented immigrants whom the administration is trying to deport is probably less sympathetic than the racial justice protesters’ cause. (Clear majorities generally support deporting undocumented immigrants, who are in this country without authorization.) But when it comes to the administration’s immigration crackdown, Americans have also expressed nuanced feelings. And the poll the White House cited this weekend is a case in point. In the CBS News/YouGov survey, which was conducted before Saturday’s protests broke out in Los Angeles, Americans said they approved of Trump’s deportation program, 54-46%. They also liked its “goals,” 55-45%. But that’s not quite the same as saying they approved of the administration’s actions, full stop. The same poll asked whether people liked “the way you think [Trump] is going about” the deportations. And there, Americans actually disliked his approach by double-digits, 56-44%. While independents were about evenly split on Trump’s deportation program, they disliked how he’s gone about it by 30 points, 65-35%. This is a dichotomy we see in lots of polling of Trump’s deportation actions. Americans like the idea of mass deportation, but not so much the implementation. They like the president a lot on securing the border. But they like him significantly less on “immigration,” and they like him even less when “deportation,” specifically, is invoked in the question. One possible reason: Americans see the administration moving haphazardly. That could most notably be the case with things like deporting the wrong people and actions that have been halted by the courts, including ones in which judges have said people haven’t been given enough due process. It’s possible that people could come to sympathize with the cause of the Los Angeles protesters – if not the violent ones – at least to some degree. While Americans generally favor mass deportation, those numbers decline significantly when you mention the prospect of deporting otherwise-law-abiding people with jobs and those who have been in this country for a long time. (For example, a recent Pew Research Center poll showed Americans opposed deporting undocumented immigrants who have jobs, 56-41%, and they opposed deporting the parents of US citizen children 60-37%.) But the raids that set off the protests have been directed at workplaces generally – not necessarily at criminals or gang members. The Department of Homeland Security has claimed at least five of the people arrested during Sunday immigration sweeps in Los Angeles had criminal convictions or were accused of crimes. Through it all, the administration has made a rather Machiavellian political calculation: that however much people dislike the means, their support for the ends will carry the day. Maybe people say they don’t like the lack of due process the administration has provided – or the wrong people getting sent to a brutal Salvadoran prison – but how much do they really care if the end result is lots of deportations? Similarly, the administration could be making the calculation that scenes of violence in Los Angeles could marshal support for a previously unthinkable step of deploying the military domestically against protesters – something Americans opposed by 24 points just five years ago. So much depends on what the Marines end up doing in Los Angeles and whether Trump invokes the Insurrection Act to allow them to engage in policing activities. But the Trump administration has clearly gone too far for people before as part of their deportation efforts. And the one big crackdown on protesters we have seen in the Trump era didn’t go well. This would appear pretty fraught – not just practically, but politically.
Why Trump’s move toward using the military on US soil is so fraught
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Concerns Rise Over Potential Military Deployment Amid Immigration Protests"
CNN
7.6
TruthLens AI Summary
As President Donald Trump considers deploying the military on U.S. soil, particularly in response to protests in Los Angeles over federal immigration raids, the implications of such a move are significant and contentious. Approximately 700 Marines have been mobilized to support the National Guard in Los Angeles, although their specific duties remain unclear. Under current legal restrictions, they cannot engage in law enforcement activities unless Trump invokes the Insurrection Act. The White House has framed this military presence as a necessary measure to maintain order, particularly following a poll indicating that 54% of Americans support Trump's deportation initiatives. However, public sentiment about military involvement in domestic situations is complex and historically fraught, with many Americans expressing skepticism about the appropriateness of such actions during protests. In the past, similar measures have not been well-received, exemplified by public backlash against the use of federal law enforcement to clear Lafayette Square during racial justice protests in 2020, where a significant majority opposed the methods employed by the administration.
Despite some support for the goals of Trump's deportation program, there is a notable divide in public opinion regarding the methods used. Many Americans approve of the idea of mass deportation but disapprove of the administration's approach, particularly concerning due process and the deportation of individuals who are otherwise law-abiding. Surveys indicate that while there is support for deportations, especially against undocumented immigrants with criminal records, there is significant opposition to deporting individuals who have established lives in the U.S. Recent protests in Los Angeles have sparked renewed debate about the administration's tactics, with the potential for shifting public sympathy towards demonstrators. The Trump administration seems to be gambling on the notion that the ends justify the means, believing that public support for deportations might outweigh concerns about the methods used. Ultimately, the effectiveness and reception of deploying military forces domestically hinge on the actions taken by the Marines and the broader public response, making this an especially precarious political maneuver for the administration.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article provides an in-depth look at President Trump's recent decision to mobilize Marines alongside the National Guard in Los Angeles in response to protests against federal immigration actions. The move signifies a significant shift towards military involvement in domestic affairs, raising pressing questions about legality, public sentiment, and historical precedents.
Implications of Military Deployment
Mobilizing military forces on U.S. soil is a highly contentious issue. Historically, the deployment of armed forces in domestic situations has been met with skepticism and resistance from the public. The article notes that while a poll indicates a majority of Americans support Trump's deportation program, the acceptance of military intervention remains uncertain. Past incidents, such as the clearing of Lafayette Square in 2020, highlight the potential backlash that can arise from using force against civilians, even if the intention is to restore order.
Public Perception and Political Gamble
The administration appears to be banking on the belief that Americans will support a stern response to protests, particularly those involving violence. However, the article suggests a disconnect between the government’s perception of public sentiment and reality. Many Americans express concern that Trump’s approaches may be excessive. This indicates a precarious gamble by the administration, as the public may not be as receptive to heavy-handed tactics as the White House hopes.
Comparison to Historical Contexts
Drawing parallels with past events, the article highlights that the current situation echoes previous controversies over law enforcement and military actions against protesters. The mention of the 2020 incident serves as a reminder of the potential consequences of deploying military forces domestically, which could lead to increased tensions and public outcry.
Economic and Political Consequences
The implications of this military action extend beyond immediate public safety concerns. It has the potential to influence the political landscape by energizing opposition groups and stirring public debate over civil liberties. Economically, uncertainty surrounding such actions could affect investor confidence and market stability, particularly within sectors that are sensitive to political turmoil.
Target Audience and Support Base
This type of news may resonate more with conservative audiences who favor strong law enforcement and view immigration as a critical issue. Conversely, it may alienate more liberal constituents who advocate for civil rights and nonviolent protest methods, indicating a clear ideological divide in public support.
Market Impact and Global Considerations
The article's focus on military deployment could influence stock markets, particularly in defense sectors or companies involved in security and law enforcement technologies. Investors may react to perceived increases in domestic unrest, leading to fluctuations in market confidence.
Use of AI in News Writing
The writing style of the article suggests that it may have been assisted by AI technology in terms of structuring and presenting information coherently. However, the nuanced understanding of public sentiment and historical context indicates human oversight in crafting the narrative. AI could have contributed to data analysis or generating polls referenced in the article, but the human element remains crucial for emotional and contextual depth.
In summary, the article underscores the complexities and potential ramifications of Trump's military mobilization on U.S. soil, illustrating the fine line between maintaining order and respecting civil liberties. The overall reliability of the news is contingent upon the sources cited and the context provided, but it effectively highlights the contentious nature of this issue.