Punishing blue cities was always on the agenda

The Trump administration’s decision to federalize the California National Guard to repress the demonstrators demonstrating against the ice in the city, in the absence of a request from the State Governor – and even despite the insurance of the local law application that things were, for the most part, under control – is itself the convergence of two threats that Trump on the campaign campaign.

There is, of course, Trump’s wish to deploy the army at the national level, an impulse on which he is looking forward to acting since his return to power. Throughout the 2024 campaign cycle, he repeatedly launched the idea of ​​deploying soldiers against demonstrators. When he defeated Vice-President Kamala Harris last fall, he dreamed of a social truth on his desire to bring “military assets” to help his mass expulsion program.

He signed an executive decree shortly after his return to the White House which widened the use of the military inside the American borders, a single component of his first actions to push the ice towards faster and expel migrants – both those who have legal status and undocumented immigrants. This has been subjected to a repression of the so-called violent gang members who illegally entered the United States, a general justification which, of course, made innocent people withdrew in the street in the last three months.

When he issued the order this weekend, claiming to federate the California National Guard and directing the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to deploy 2,000 soldiers in Los Angeles, it was the culmination of this vision that he kept for years: bringing the military to create a great show of the application of immigration.

But there is another element of the Trump II agenda that the deployment bangs by undermining the authority of the officials of the State of California and local officials in Los Angeles to determine when and how they could ask for a safeguard in the face of the troubles. The Trump administration has sought ways to punish blue cities and blue states since it returned to functions. In November, the Washington Post reported that Trump and his advisers discussed how elected officials of the time could remove federal funding from Chicago and other blue cities as a punishment for obtaining its planned deportation program.

One of the first measures taken by Trump’s new Ministry of Justice after the president was sworn in in January sought to warn local officials and the state against the protest of immigration to the new administration. In the memo, the general vice-prosecutor, Emil Bove, warned that state officials and local who do not cooperate with Trump’s expulsion efforts could face federal proceedings.

At the end of April, the administration sought to compensate for this early program to strip the funds of sanctuary cities when he signed a directing decree of the Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Secretary of Internal Security Krisi Noem to bring together a list of “local states and jurisdictions which obstruct the application of federal immigration laws (sanctuary jurisdictions)”. In order, Trump also ordered its director of the Russian OMB Vought to “identify the federal funds appropriate to sanctuary jurisdictions, including subsidies and contracts, for suspension or termination, as the case may be.”

This list of the supposed cities of sanctuaries was published last week, to be withdrawn a few days later due to the development – the administration had thrown too wide and included many municipalities which were not, in fact, sanctuary cities, angry with local officials.

These are only a few of the recent actions that the administration has taken to punish the municipalities of the State and the premises which refuse to cooperate with an element of the scandal and radical deportation mandates of Trump. The effort, months ago, to reject the accusations of corruption against the mayor of New York, Eric Adams, would have been formulated in a program to force Adams to allow the ice to walk freely in protected spaces through the city.

Even Trump’s allies in Congress took the threats of Trump against blue cities in their hands, while the Republicans on the Surveillance Committee of the Chamber drag in the mayors of the Blue City to testify under oath on the sanctuary policies of their cities, part of a messaging effort to turn the public against an attempted holding of prudent communities for migrants of legal status.

California in particular has been in the Trump administration’s reticle. Friday, before the decision to federate the State National Guard was made, CNN indicated that the Trump administration had prepared to announce a radical cancellation of state funding for the state on a litany of perceived crimes such as the authorization of the Trans athletes to participate in a sporting event and to have a governor that Trump does not like.

The events of the weekend simply gave the president an opening to make another blow in the blue state and make a show of his largest blue city.

Get WTS in your reception box

Most of you read where things extend from the Home page of TPM. Or maybe you found it on social networks. Did you know that you can now have it delivered directly to your reception box? This is a new thing that we literally launch today, so do not feel excluded if it is the first that you hear about it.

That said, if you are a faithful WTS reader, it would mean a lot to me if you have also subscribed to substitution. This is another opportunity to engage with TPM on a new platform while we are traveling the mud and try to meet this moment well. Register here!

Some GoPers are not content to swallow Cups in Doge

As we have been reporting for some time, it is difficult to know how much the republican members of the congress will be willing to take and adopt the package of cancellations that the White House sent to the Congress last week. The package includes a small part of the billions of federal funding that Elon Musk has canceled or canceled in the last months of Doge’s unleashing in the executive power, as well as some other republican pets for pets, such as the PBS Cup and the NPR from federal funds.

Certain whispers of resistance to the idea have surfaced in recent days, while some republicans of the house confronted with difficult re -election perspectives raise problems with the foreign help cuts described in the packaging. And at least one Republican will fight for public broadcasting. By the hill:

Representative Mark Amodei (R-NEV.) Urge the Trump administration on Monday to reconsider a request for the congress of public broadcasting discounts, warning of the potential impact that certain local communities are confronted if funding is fell.

In a joint declaration, Amodei and the representative Dan Goldman (DN.Y.), the co -chairs of the Caucus of public broadcasting, defended the financing of public broadcasting, claiming that the capacity of local stations to “continue to offer free and high quality programming would be eliminated if federal funding was canceled”.

Finance Dems calls for a public marking audience

The Democrats of the Senate Finance Committee sent a letter to President Mike Crapo (R-ID) to ask him to plan a public increase “so that members can play their role in the exam” of the Committee on the Bill of Reconciliation before moving to the Senate.

The Finance Committee is in charge of the part of the text which causes the most tension among the Senate Republicans, including Medicaid reductions, clean energy tax credits and other key tax reductions.

“If Trump and the Republicans in the Congress will deprive millions of Americans of their health care so that the millionaires and rich companies can obtain massive tax reductions, this should not be done in the secret-shop secret negotiations. This should be done in light of the day, including by a complete markup in the Senate financing committee”, wrote the member of Ron Wyden letter.

The letter intervenes in the midst of questions if the Senate republicans will hold traditional audiences, open to advertising or will completely jump the markings and directly bring the revised version of the reconciliation package directly.

“My opinion is the reason why they did not want a markup is because they know that they will enter the committee and will try to defend the indefensible,” Wyden told journalists on Wednesday, just two days before the sending of the letter. “And the American people will be furious.”

“Their positions on Medicaid are indefensible, their positions on the incentives for the tax on clean energies, which I have written, are indefensible,” added the Oregon Democrat. “These types of problems will be what they will face an open markup, and that is why they do such somersauts to do other things.”

– Emine Yücel

In case you missed it

Trump has long wanted to use the army in the American streets

Consider the live cover of TPM here: the Trump administrator calls the National Guard against the Los Angeles demonstrators

Of TPM CAFE: the deployment of Los Angeles Guard raises the spectrum of Kent State

The most read story of yesterday

More reflections on the course crisis in California

What we read

Sly Stone, maestro of a multiple hit band, dies at 82

Guide to the invocations of the Insurrection Act

The National Guard in Los Angeles