this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
586 points (98.8% liked)

politics

24024 readers
4867 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
[–] Bieren@lemmy.world 8 points 5 hours ago (1 children)
[–] P1k1e@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

More like Yes but in two weeks

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 35 points 8 hours ago

Trump is again violating the Constitution. he does not have Title 10 authority to federalize the National Guard for anything short of national emergencies. The Constitution assigns that responsibility to the governors of the states, not the President.

Trump’s repeated unconstitutional seizing of power should have had him forcibly removed from office many times over. That Congress has not performed their duty to the people and our Constitution is all the proof we need that a purge is required if we want to survive.

[–] Ironfist79@lemmy.world 17 points 10 hours ago

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

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Build the state guard. Stop using the national guard.

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 13 hours ago

Hell, deploy state guard to protect protestors.

[–] demizerone@lemmy.world 17 points 17 hours ago (1 children)
[–] propitiouspanda@lemmy.cafe 23 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] Pnut@lemm.ee 2 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] wanderingmagus@lemm.ee 4 points 6 hours ago

Something you shouldn't be talking about on Lemmy.

[–] propitiouspanda@lemmy.cafe 1 points 6 hours ago

We need to change our culture.

Stop valuing consumerism and consumerist tendencies.

I don't think we can do it unless we're forced to, though.

wanderingmagus has a good point. Since the people exploiting us are also using their power to control what we value, fighting back directly and without permission may be the only option.

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 103 points 1 day 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 50 points 1 day ago (10 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 73 points 23 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 19 points 13 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 10 points 13 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 4 points 13 hours ago

Same but even smaller.

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 5 points 15 hours ago

I have formally requested the Trump Administration

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

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 139 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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 41 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] aramova@infosec.pub 72 points 1 day ago (22 children)

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

load more comments (22 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] LePoisson@lemmy.world 80 points 1 day ago (16 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.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 19 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Oh my gosh. We got him, guys.

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

[–] mysticpickle@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 hours ago

The dude is such a sleazebag.

load more comments
view more: next ›