this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
495 points (99.0% liked)

politics

23990 readers
4084 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

California Governor Gavin Newsom has formally requested Trump administration officials to rescind the order to deploy the National Guard and return control of the force to California, calling the initial order unlawful and "intentionally designed to inflame the situation."

"I have formally requested the Trump Administration rescind their unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles county and return them to my command," Newsom wrote on X, formerly Twitter. "We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. This is a serious breach of state sovereignty — inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed. Rescind the order. Return control to California."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ironfist79@lemmy.world 3 points 36 minutes ago

Yeah, I'm sure if you just ask nicely the nazis will go away.

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Build the state guard. Stop using the national guard.

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 3 hours ago

Hell, deploy state guard to protect protestors.

[–] demizerone@lemmy.world 10 points 7 hours ago (1 children)
[–] propitiouspanda@lemmy.cafe 11 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

We're ruled by rich people who know exactly what they're doing.

[–] Pnut@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

Not to be aggressive or contrary. But what would you suggest we do?

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 17 points 11 hours ago

Oh my gosh. We got him, guys.

As a Californian, I think our governor is such a douchebag.

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 87 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I have so much more faith in East LA to fight back than anyone in a position of power.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 41 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

This is an example of somebody in a position of power fighting back. He may be a shitbag in general, but he is fighting back.

[–] osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org 60 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Fighting back would have been ordering them to withdraw using his lawful authority, and if they refused, ordering their arrest. This is just fucking around.

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 10 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I’m torn.

On the one hand, CA has no military, so attempting diplomacy and formal protocol is logical, even responsible. By “responsible,” I simply mean that picking a fight you know you can’t win, and doing so on behalf of the people you represent, is usually irresponsible, since they will be the ones who suffer.

On the other hand, the closest thing to diplomacy Trump understands is some combination of posturing and quid pro quo. Historically, formal correspondence of rival leaders tends to have a varnish of politeness like this, even in the midst of bloody wars. (Indeed this “formal request” does convey a demand, an accusation, and a veiled threat.) But is someone with a demonstrably facile notion of power capable of understanding such subtext, or will they see only weakness?

Most importantly, I think there comes a time to commit to the inevitable conclusion. If you know the authoritarian will continue to threaten brutality against your people to ensure their compliance, it becomes your duty to say “do your worst or pound sand,” since you know compliance only delays and worsens their suffering, and a threat to the will of a people is always greater.

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

We do, it's just small. And shares membership with the national guard.

https://calguard.ca.gov/csg/

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 2 points 3 hours ago

Same but even smaller.

I have formally requested the Trump Administration

"With a strongly-worded letter, no less!"

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 21 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

We didn’t have a problem until Trump got involved.

Is an insane thing for the Governor to claim when ICE was snatching random people off the street.

Paramount had a huge problem when ICE just started grabbing people out of the front of a Home Depot for being brown. That triggered the public backlash which got the news coverage which lead to Trump trying to launch a Fallujah style invasion of LA.

The situation was fully fucked by lawless ICE officially kidnapping people well before Trump tried to ratchet tensions further.

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 32 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

You're conflating two different problems. Yes, ICE kidnapping people was a problem before the national guard thing, but Newsom's words were specifically about a problem with the protests.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 126 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (4 children)

Yeah okay. Like a strongly worded letter is gonna do anything?

Gavin: Just fly to DC and physically smack Trump around. You're in way better shape than he is, you're guaranteed to win.

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 35 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

I'm assuming that he's just creating a paper trail for when things inevitably escalate. If this is all he's got, though, it's pretty weak.

[–] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago

Sure smells like it. Paper trail

[–] aramova@infosec.pub 66 points 16 hours ago (14 children)

Strongly worded letters are all the current Dems are good at.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] LePoisson@lemmy.world 74 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

I don't understand how Newsom can't just order the CA national guard to not follow unlawfully given orders.

I'm not a lawyer but the statute in the Constitution that is written into the executive order as the authorization for it literally says the national guard are under control of the state Governor.

Why can't Newsom give the guard orders and tell Trump to go fuck himself and see what happens? I guess at that point you'll have conflicting orders from federal and state but, in theory, the national guard are under command of the state Governor and he's their highest authority. So they should follow Newsom's orders.

Like I said IANAL so I'm sure I'm missing something but for fuck sake this is outrageous. We're rounding people up for not having a paper, they're not even hardened criminals. If this was hardcore enforcement of actual dangerous people that would be one thing. These are just innocent undocumented migrants trying to live the their lives same as the rest of us.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 22 points 13 hours ago

I don’t understand how Newsom can’t just order the CA national guard to not follow unlawfully given orders

That would mean confronting Trump directly, and Newsom is a coward who doesn't really expect the Nat Guard to follow his orders over Trump's.

[–] Carmakazi@lemmy.world 50 points 15 hours ago (12 children)

I don't remember the law or EO that made it so, but sometime after September 11th the President was granted the power to take command of the National Guard. That's not what the Constitution says? Throw it on the pile.

In practical terms, in any given situation where both are giving conflicting or even antagonistic orders, do you listen to the governor of your state or the President of the United States?

[–] dhhyfddehhfyy4673@fedia.io 30 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

It seems ignoring the constitution while continually & increasingly granting power to the federal government for more than a century may have had some consequences.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 41 points 15 hours ago (1 children)
[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 7 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

When fascists said "states rights", they actually meant "localized tyranny". As in, the ability for them to impose their tyranny on whatever size jurisdiction they currently held.

Anyone who isn't a neoliberal cuck warned they would seize the opportunity to impose their beliefs on the whole country, or the entire planet, the moment the option became available to them, because they are criminally corrupt, sociopathic authoritarian megalomaniacs, and always have been.

[–] Reality_Suit@lemmy.world 30 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (15 children)

Send state troopers after the national guard. Nothing matters anymore. Form a california militia, fuck all. Send a message to the gangs that they won't prosecute crimes against the national guard because this is self-defense.

[–] WhiteRabbit@lemmy.today 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

That would incite civil war.

[–] Ironfist79@lemmy.world 1 points 34 minutes ago

What's your alternative? Roll over and let them win?

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 3 points 8 hours ago

Great way to start civil war.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›