It feels like we’re in a calm before the storm, on multiple fronts.
There are 4,000 federalized National Guard troops and 700 Marines presently in L.A., at an estimated cost of $134 million for a 60-day deployment. Their mission is a little unclear, and perhaps changing by the day: there is now a lawsuit, styled Newsom v. Trump, requesting a TRO to prevent the administration from proceeding with their purported “plans to use Marines and federalized National Guard to enforce immigration laws and other civil laws on the streets of our cities,” as contrasted with the more legitimate use of soldiers to protect federal property and personnel.
The propaganda battle over what exactly is going on right now in L.A. has run amok. California’s lawsuit asserts that “there is no invasion or rebellion in Los Angeles; instead there is civil unrest that is no different from episodes that regularly occur in communities throughout the country, and that is capable of being contained by state and local authorities”. Contrast that with the rhetoric coming from Trump and his allies, using words like “invasion” and “insurrection” to describe the L.A. protests, and with Trump asserting that “if we didn’t do what we did, Los Angeles would be burning to the ground.”
Trump’s politicization of the military took another turn yesterday with a speech at Fort Bragg (renamed by Trump in March, after having been changed to Fort Liberty by Biden in 2023), ostensibly to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the formation of the U.S. Army, but in practice a standard-issue Trump rally but with uniformed troops cheering on the President’s partisan attacks. So much for the long-standing Department of Defense directive prohibiting active-duty personnel from engaging in partisan political activities.
In other news the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, issued a per curiam order granting the administration a stay pending appeal in the V.O.S. Selections case, which means the IEEPA tariffs remain in effect for now. The order signals the intention for oral arguments to take place on July 31st, noting that “these cases present issues of exceptional importance warranting expedited en banc consideration of the merits in the first instance.”
Speaking of tariffs, there was news today that trade talks in London between China and U.S. had resulted in an agreement, but as of this writing we are still waiting to see exactly what that agreement is. From the New York Times: “For many analysts, the London meetings raised questions about what exactly had been gained by Mr. Trump’s aggressive trade tactics against China over the past few months, or whether his actions had ultimately backfired. ‘What exactly are we getting that we weren’t already getting before?’ asked Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow with the Mercatus Center, a libertarian think tank. ‘This deal suggests there was never a real plan.'”
Nothing to speak of out of SCOTUS so far this week, although tomorrow is a scheduled day for issuance of opinions. Within the past couple of days, both sides have submitted their briefs in Trump v. AFGE, the administration’s request for a stay of the lower court’s order preventing the administration from (as plaintiffs put it) acting to “unilaterally dismantle agencies across the federal government without allowing the federal courts adequate opportunity to consider and rule on the serious separation of powers concerns”. SCOTUS action on this and other shadow docket cases could come at any time, rather than as part of the more orderly roll-out of opinions on orally argued cases.
Still nothing substantive out of the Senate on OBBBA, although that could change any day. Trump has set an objective that he wants to be able to sign a bill by July 4th.
While it’s unlikely to have legislative legs, yesterday Senator Hawley (R-MO) co-sponsored a bill to increase the federal minimum wage to $15. In 2016, the addition of the $15 minimum wage to the Democratic party platform was considered a major victory for Sen. Sanders and the party’s left-wing; now, the policy has been embraced by one of the most socially conservative, albeit simultaneously populist, members of the Senate.
Finally, in a widening of the administration’s wars on D.E.I. as well as on (Columbia and) Harvard, today there is reporting from Bloomberg that the Treasury Department plans on issuing an IRS Revenue Procedure that would “bar private, nonprofit schools from remaining tax exempt if they favor any racial groups in matters such as financial assistance, loans, use of facilities or other programs,” which would likely require “ending many programs that try to counter longstanding disparities in wealth and higher educational experience among certain minority groups, including Black and Hispanic students”.