FilAm AG Rob Bonta leads lawsuit against giant media merger

AG OFFICE

Attorney General Rob Bonta speaks in front of the iconic Hollywood sign in Los Angeles.

Filipino American California Attorney General Rob Bonta is refusing to let a rigged market dictate the future of Hollywood. Standing in front of the landmark Hollywood sign, Bonta announced that he is leading a multi-state coalition of 12 attorneys general to block the massive $111 billion mega-merger between Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery. 

The antitrust lawsuit, filed July 13 in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, directly challenges the transaction.

“Today, I am leading a coalition of states in challenging the proposed merger of Warner Bros. and Paramount and asking the court to block the deal," Bonta said in a statement Monday. 

"The unlawful merger of these two entertainment behemoths would lead to higher prices, lower quality, and less content for film and television, harming movie theaters, basic cable distributors, and ultimately, audiences on every sofa and movie theater seat in the US," said Bonta while standing in front of the famous Hollywood sign.

"California's film and entertainment industry touches the lives of Americans daily — it comes into the living rooms of families, has a starring role in many young people's first dates, and is a point of immense pride and employment for Californians up and down our state. 

"Consolidation here not only leads to higher prices — it also leads to fewer opportunities for important stories to come to life, and fewer ways for audiences to encounter stories, ideas, and perspectives beyond their own experiences. In this country, no one is above the law. With this lawsuit, California and our sister states are fighting for free and fair markets, not rigged markets. America has no kings in government or our economy."

Trump regime paves the way

The Trump Department of Justice cleared the massive entertainment merger, ignoring the severe antitrust implications. Critics highlight the deep political ties linking the deal directly to the Trump administration:

Lawmakers like Senator Elizabeth Warren have criticized the federal approval as "reeking of corruption."

This prooposed merger could be a massive victory for Trump and his supporters. By approving the deal, the administration effectively hands oversight of CNN and CBS News—two networks that have long been the targets of Trump’s media attacks — to Paramount Skydance’s David and Larry Ellison, who have close ties to Trump.

        RELATED: The future of news media

Paramount’s chief legal officer is Makan Delrahim, who previously served as the head of the DOJ's antitrust division under Trump.

Bonta argues that bypassing competition benefits a tiny group of handpicked winners while squeezing working class audiences and creative talent. The coalition points out that the combined entertainment giant would control nearly one-third of all wide-release theatrical film distribution and one-third of basic cable programming. Bonta stated, "America has no kings, not in government or the economy."

The consolidation of major news networks like CNN and CBS under a single corporate umbrella has raised significant public concern about media independence and political influence. Critics argue that this level of ownership concentration limits diverse perspectives and can lead to a softening of critical news coverage to avoid upsetting regulatory authorities or corporate interests.

The close ties between the Trump administration and the acquiring executives have fueled fears among media watchdogs that news coverage could be shifted to favor the administration's political agenda.

The big worry for everyday people

If this corporate marriage goes through, Hollywood's major film studios shrink from five to four. For consumers, Bonta's lawsuit alleges that means less competition, higher subscription prices, and lower content quality. For creative professionals, it means fewer places to sell their work, leading to severe job losses and a hit to creative diversity.

Beyond the economic argument against the merger, critics argue this gives the administration unprecedented leverage to reshape the news by putting CNN and CBS under a single, friendly corporate umbrella could soften critical news coverage.

It would give Trump and his ultra-rich allies a strong voice in the movie buisness. Hollywood and most of its celebrities are generally perceived by Trump as one of his enemies, routinely accusing them of having "Trump Derangement Syndrome" and pushing biased political agendas.

For Trump's base, seeing these major mainstream media outlets taken over by friendly leadership feels like the ultimate win against what they have long criticized as hostile newsrooms.

The argument that corporate-owned media inherently shapes narratives to serve corporate and political allies is a central focus of media criticism. Those who share this view point out that when a small number of massive conglomerates control the vast majority of news outlets, public access to independent, investigative journalism can suffer.

In this case, opponents worry that the merger serves as a tool to neutralize adversarial reporting from networks that have traditionally been highly critical of the administration.

Conversely, proponents of the merger and corporate media ownership argue that large-scale consolidation is a financial necessity in the modern digital age. They contend that traditional media companies must scale up to pool resources, remain financially viable, and effectively compete against major tech and streaming platforms like Netflix, Apple, and Amazon. 

From this perspective, a financially stronger media entity is better equipped to fund robust journalism, and editorial independence can still be maintained through professional journalistic standards, regardless of corporate ownership or the political leanings of executives.

Trump has openly called the Ellisons his "friends and allies."

The Ellisons

Despite the high-sounding rhetoric from supporters, the Ellison's have made no secret about their allegiance to Trump. When they took over CBS they essentially neutrereditsnews division, including the prestigious 60 Minutes, who Trump has accused in the past to being biased against him.

David Ellison, left, and his tech billionaire Larry Ellison want to be media moguls.

The Ellison family’s cozy alignment with Donald Trump is sending shockwaves through both Silicon Valley and Hollywood. Tech billionaire Larry Ellison and his son, media mogul David Ellison, have firmly established themselves as key financial backers and strategic allies of the (Trump regime).

For a community and country constantly navigating the intersection of corporate power and media influence, the evidence of this alliance raises serious questions about who controls the narrative in America.

Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, who recently moved his primary residence to Florida just minutes away from Mar-a-Lago, has deep ties to Trump. The elder Ellison dropped a massive $45 million donation to a pro-Trump political nonprofit during the campaign, securing his spot in Trump's inner circle.

In the chaotic days following the 2020 election, Ellison was reportedly on strategy calls with Trump aides trying to find ways to invalidate election results in Georgia and Pennsylvania.

Under the current administration, Oracle was handed the architectural reins for the federal government's massive $500 billion artificial intelligence infrastructure initiative.

The son also rises

While father Larry dominates tech, son David Ellison—the head of Paramount Skydance — is leveraging Washington connections to reshape American media despite not having any media experience or even if they are aware of traditional journalistic principles. The implications for diversity, news integrity, and representation are staggering.

The Trump regime’s Justice Department swiftly cleared Skydance’s massive purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery without demanding any major antitrust concessions. Trump has openly called the Ellisons his "friends and allies."

Reports from the Wall Street Journal indicate the Ellisons assured the administration they would aggressively overhaul CNN's editorial direction if the merger went through.

The lawsuit of Bonta and the other 12 attorneys generals is not happening in isolation. A day after Bonta's complaint, a Paramount Skydance shareholder  filed a major lawsuit in Delaware's Chancery Court to block the proposed merger, explicitly alleging that the Ellisons cut a corrupt deal with Trump — offering private media benefits in exchange for regulatory favors.

The Ellisons have strongly denied any deal with Trump and their stated goal of delivering honest, fact-based journalism.

Views from the edge

The proposed merger gives the administration unprecedented media leverage to:

• Reshape the news: Putting CNN and CBS under a single, friendly corporate umbrella could soften critical news coverage.

• Add Tik Tok to the media emprire: The Ellisons also are the primary owners of Tik Tok, US, which operates as a major disseminator of news, functioning as a primary information source for a significant portion of the global population, particularly younger demographics

• Control the narrative: Executives aligned with the administration will have the power to steer political reporting and drop corporate diversity programs.

• Neutralize critics: For Trump's base, seeing these major mainstream media outlets taken over by friendly leadership feels like the ultimate win against what they have long criticized as hostile newsrooms.

Besides the Ellisons, Trump's allies  and enablers already control major media outlets like Fox, the New York Post, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times and the Sinclair Broadcast Group and the Nextstar Media controup between them own over 400 television stations.

Now, with billions in tech infrastructure contracts and the keys to a global media empire on the line, the Ellisons have shown exactly where their loyalties lie. As independent media observers, we have to ask: when billionaires buy up the airwaves to please the White House, who is looking out for the rest of us?

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X, BlueSky or at the blog Views From the Edge. If you find this perspective interesting, please repost.

Nov. 4 Special Election: California acts to prevent voter intimidation

CalMatters

Federal and state election monitors will be present at some of California voting sites.

With the Special Election just days away, California Attorney General Rob Bonta  and Gov. Gavin Newsom held a virtual press conference to announce that the state will monitor the federal monitors sent by Donald Trump for the Nov. 4 election day.

Trump's weaponized Department of Justice will deploy election monitors to five California counties on Election Day, the department announced a week ago, in what it describes as an effort to “ensure transparency, ballot security, and compliance with federal law.”

While it is not uncommon to have monitors at the polls, Trump's order is seen by state officials as an an attempt to suppress voting by voters of color through intimidation after the GOP-controlled Supreme Court approved racial profiling by federal agents, including agents from ICE and the Border Patrol.

“Our election laws provide the backbone for a free and fair election, and as California’s top law enforcement officer, I will do everything in my power to protect your right to vote," said Bonta at a press conference.

Attorney General Bonta, a son of immigrant parents from the Philippines, enforces California’s election laws to ensure free and fair elections. In the lead up to the election and on Election Day, the California Department of Justice will be on call to provide assistance to the Secretary of State’s Office in enforcing California’s election laws, as needed, through a team of attorneys and administrative staff located across the state.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Atty General Rob Bonta assure no interference from
federal monitors during the November 4 Special Election.

Arrests of Asians by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have tripled compared to 2024, according to a study by UCLA.

“Voting is one of our most powerful tools for creating change. Thanks to its voters, its leaders, and the work of many organizations, California has become a national leader in making voting more accessible, more convenient, and more inclusive for everyone,” said Shilpi Agarwal, Legal Director at ACLU Northern California. “But rights cannot stand on their own — we must defend and exercise them. And we can do just that by voting — and voting early — in upcoming special election.”

“CAUSE’s 'Together We Vote' programming shows that civic participation can be creative, fun, and community-driven,” said Nancy Yap, Executive Director of the Center for Asian Americans United for Self Empowerment (CAUSE). “Together takes many forms — whether you join us at a community event, drop your ballot in an official drop box, or vote early at a local vote center, every act of voting connects us and strengthens our collective voice.”

The California Voter Bill of Rights is printed in 23 different Asian languages. It is available in English, Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, Khmer, Korean, Tagalog, Thai, Vietnamese, Arabic, Armenian, Bengali, Burmese, Gujarati, Hmong, Ilocano, Indonesian, Laotian, Mien, Mongolian, Nepali, Persian, Punjabi, Syriac, Tamil, Telugu, and Urdu.

Proposition 50

There is only one issue to vote on Nov. 4: Proposition 50. The measure is in response to Texas legislation redrawing five Democratic-leaning Congressional districts to include more Republican voters as ordered by Trump, who wants to retain the GOP majority in the US House of Representatives. The Texas Governor has already signed the order gerrymandering those districts.

In retaliation, California Governor Gavin Newsom, is targeting five Republican Congressional districts to favor Democrats.

The big difference between the two actions is that California voters will decide whether or not the districts can be redrawn; whereas in Texas, the state legislature and governor rammed it down the throats of the voters, who have no say in the gerrymandering.

The request for federal watchdogs came from the California Republican Party, the Associated Press reports.

A "Yes" vote approves the temporary measure allowing the redistricting. Polls indicate that the proposition will pass in the heavily Democratic state. However, the Republican a long-shot strategy, with no hope of winning the majority in a fair election, is to limit Democratic-inclined voters from casting their ballots.

Voter intimidation

California Democrats immediately denounced the presence of DOJ monitors as a weaponization of the Justice Department against the state’s voters.

Latino American voters are particularly vulnerable to intimidation with ICE and the  Border Patrol arresting, detaining and deporting anyone who looks like an immigrant, even if they are here legally. Media reports have found that at least 170 US citizens have been detained or arrested by poorly trained federal agents.

FYI: The Secretary of State’s Office issued an updated memorandum concerning voter intimidation explaining, in part, that:

• It is a felony for any person to possess a firearm at a voting location or in the immediate vicinity of a voting location.
• It is illegal for any uniformed peace officer, private guard, or security personnel or any person who is wearing a uniform of a peace officer, guard, or security personnel to be stationed at or in the immediate vicinity of a voting location.
• Shirts, hats, or other displays that indicate a person is with "Election Security" or "Ballot Security" or apparel or accessories with any semblance of a logo or display that might be confused with any private guard or security company or government agency are prohibited. This includes observers and anyone who is not there to vote. 

While the majority of California's voters cast their ballots by mail, in the past, most Latino Americans preferred to vote in person as an expression of their patriotism, according to a survey by Latino Community Foundation. The presence of federal watchdogs might dissuade voters at the polls on election day.

However, the survey also found that two-thirds of the Latino voters surveyed said they were at least somewhat worried that ICE or Border Patrol agents could show up at polling places.

State Sen. Anna Caballero, a Democrat representing Merced, a city in one of the targeted districts, told CalMatters that US citizens told her they’re afraid to go outside, especially when there have been reports of ICE sightings in the region.

ICE said that there are no plans to have their agents at polling sites. However, the spokesperson said that if agents are monitoring a suspect and that person goes to the polls, agents can make an arrest at the voting site.

“They’re not going to be allowed to interfere in ways that the law prohibits,” Bonta, a Democrat, told reporters during the virtual news conference. “We cannot be naive. The Republican Party asked for the US DOJ to come in.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X, BlueSky or at the blog Views From the Edge. 

California argues against Trump's use of troops against L.A. demonstrators

California's Attorney General Rob Bonta.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta expressed confidence that the state's legal team presented the best argument that Donald Trump's use of the US Marines and the California National Guard in Los Angeles was illegal.

“Before the trial began, I issued a statement  August 13 expressing confidence that the evidence would show that the Trump Administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act. Now that the trial has ended, I remain confident. Our legal team did a great job,” said the Filipino American attorney general in a press statement.

“We asked the court to grant a permanent injunction to stop the Administration from using the military for domestic law enforcement and maintaining a standing army in Southern California. We made a compelling case — backed by facts and specifics — and we look forward to getting a decision in the near future.”

RELATED: Respond and network when agents against agents

The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits members of the military from engaging in civilian law enforcement activities. During the three-day trial, California showed that, in its orders to the federalized California National Guard and Marines, the Trump Administration violated the three applicable tests under the Act: 

• The Trump Administration is making direct, active use of military personnel to execute the law, including through the provision of armed perimeter support and blockades, apprehension and detention of civilians, and — in the weeks following the June mobilization orders — participating in an estimated three out of every four immigration raids in Los Angeles and surrounding areas.

• The Trump Administration’s use of military personnel clearly pervades the activities of civilian law enforcement.

• Under the Trump Administration’s command, federalized National Guard members have subjected civilians to the exercise of proscriptive military power

Last Spring, up to 4,000 federal troops and National Guard members were sent to Los Angeles, ostensibly to quell the so-called "riots." Around 300 National Guard members remain.

In his first term (2017-2021), California filed 123 lawsuits against the Trump administration.In the first six months of his second term, which began in January 2025, Bonta representing California has filed 37 lawsuits against the Trump administration and filed more than 40 amicus briefs in support of other litigation, including defending birthright citizenship, banning diversity initiatives in government agencies, implementation of tariffs, cuts in federal funding to schools and mass firings at federal agencies 

California has had a high success rate in these early cases, succeeding in 17 of the 19 cases where the state sought and a district court ruled on early relief, with 13 orders blocking Trump's actions still in effect. California's litigation efforts have also led to the restoration of an estimated $168 billion in federal funding and the protection of an estimated $11.1 billion in federal grant funding.

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X or at the blog Views From the Edge. Now on BlueSky.

In California, hate crimes against Asians dip, while hate 'incidents' increase

Illustration: Jason Leung/Unsplash

Hate crimes against Asian Americans may have dipped in California but hate and xenophobia continues to tarnish the American dream.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta recently released the 2024 Hate Crime in California Report. The report finds that anti-Asian hate attacks have reduced slightly in California from 2023 to 2024.

However, reported hate crime events in California have increased by 2.7% from 1,970 in 2023 to 2,023 in 2024. In particular, reported hate crimes against our LGBTQ+ and Jewish communities have increased, and too many communities continue to be unacceptably targeted by hate.

“There is absolutely no place for hate in California. Transparent and accessible data is a critical part of understanding where we are and how we can end hate crimes in our communities,” says  the state's Attorney General Bonta.

Amidst this increase in reported hate crime offenses and events, Bonta urges local partners and law enforcement to review the resources highlighted today and to recommit themselves to taking action.

“Everyone has a part to play as we continue to fight intolerance in California, and I urge leaders up and down the state to review the data and resources available and recommit to standing united against hate. The California Department of Justice remains steadfast in our commitment to continue working with law enforcement, elected leaders, and community organizations across California to keep our communities safe.”

It's important to differentiate between "hate incidents" tracked legally defined hate crimes. In California in 2024, hate crimes targeting Asian individuals saw a decrease of 4.8%, with 119 reported incidents compared to 125 in 2023, according to by Stop AAPI Hate, which issued its own report earlier this month. California Attorney General Bonta reported a slight decrease in anti-Asian bias crimes, from 125 in 2023 to 119 in 2024. This difference highlights the value of considering multiple data sources.

A significant number of Asian adults in California, nearly half (48%), reported experiencing hate in 2024, according to Stop AAPI Hate. This figure is similar to the 49% reported in 2023. The data also indicates that over half (53%) of Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) adults experienced some form of hate, including incidents of bullying, discrimination, harassment, and physical violence.

The 2024 data collected by Stop AAPI Hate reveals that while overall hate crimes targeting race and ethnicity decreased slightly (0.6%), anti-Black bias remained the most prevalent, followed by anti-Latino and anti-Asian bias. Specifically, anti-Asian hate incidents decreased from 125 in 2023 to 119 in 2024. 

However, the attorney general's report highlights the ongoing need to address hate incidents and crimes against Asian communities.

The report also acknowledges the impact of racist rhetoric blaming Asian communities for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Stop AAPI Hate has also reported a surge in online hate against the Asian community, particularly targeting South Asians, since November 2024. These findings highlight a concerning trend of both in-person and online hate incidents affecting the Asian community in California. The organization also notes that the data collected by law enforcement agencies may not fully capture the extent of hate incidents, as many incidents are not reported as crimes. 

The California DOJ has collected statewide data on hate crimes since 1995. Under California law, a hate crime is a criminal act committed in whole or in part because of a victim’s actual or perceived disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or association with someone with one or more of these characteristics.

Hate crimes are distinct from hate incidents, which are actions or behaviors motivated by hate that may be protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of expression. Examples of hate incidents include name-calling, insults, and distributing hate material in public places. If a hate incident starts to threaten a person or property, it may become a hate crime.

IIf you believe you or someone you know has been the victim of a hate crime, notify local law enforcement and consider taking the following steps:  

• If you are in immediate danger, call 911 and if needed, seek medical attention.
• Write down the exact words that were used and take note of any other relevant facts.
• If safe to do so, save all evidence and take photos.
• Get contact information for other victims and witnesses.
• Reach out to community organizations in your area that deal with hate crimes or incidents.

Hate crimes can be reported to the California Civil Rights Department's CA v. Hate online portal at any time in 15 languages or by calling the CA v. Hate hotline at (833) 866-4283 or 833-8-NO-HATE, Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., and talking to a trained civil rights agent in over 200 languages. Outside of those hours, people can leave a voicemail or call 211 to report a hate incident and seek support from a professional trained in culturally competent communication and trauma-informed practices.

Historically, hate crime data has generally been underreported and the California Department of Justice recognizes that the data presented in its reports may not adequately reflect the actual number of hate crime events that have occurred in the state. Caution should be used when comparing 2024 hate crimes data to prior years, as not all agencies were able to submit a full year of data for 2024. For more information, please reference the “Understanding the Data, Characteristics and Known Limitations” section in the report.

Some of the key findings from the 2024 Hate Crime in California Report include: 

• Reported hate crime events increased 2.7% from 1,970 in 2023 to 2,023 in 2024.
• Hate crime offenses increased 8.9% from 2,359 in 2023 to 2,568 in 2024.
• The number of victims of reported hate crimes increased 8.2% from 2,303 in 2023 to 2,491 in 2024. 
• Reported hate crime events involving a racial bias decreased 0.6% from 1,017 in 2023 to 1,011 in 2024. 
• Anti-Black bias events remained the most prevalent, despite a 4.6% decrease from 518 in 2023 to 494 in 2024. 
• Anti-Asian bias events decreased 4.8% from 125 in 2023 to 119 in 2024. 
• Reported hate crime events involving a religion bias increased 3% from 394 in 2023 to 406 in 2024. 
• Anti-Jewish bias events rose from 289 in 2023 to 310 in 2024, an increase of 7.3%.
• Anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias events fell from 40 in 2023 to 24 in 2024. 
• Between 2023 and 2024, hate crime events motivated by sexual orientation bias increased by 12.3% from 405 in 2023 to 455 in 2024, anti-transgender bias events increased by 12.3% from 65 in 2023 to 73 in 2024, and anti-LGBTQ+ bias events increased by 13.9% from 2023.
• From 2023 to 2024, the number of hate crimes referred for prosecution increased from 679 in 2023 to 818 in 2024. Of the 818 hate crimes that were referred for prosecution, 506 cases were filed by district attorneys and elected city attorneys for prosecution. Of the 506 cases that were filed for prosecution, 327 were filed as hate crimes and 179 were filed as non-bias motivated crimes.

In California, it is considered a hate crime if you are targeted because of your actual or perceived nationality, including your immigration or citizenship status. Earlier this year, Bonta released updated guidance and resources on hate crimes for law enforcement, prosecutors, and the victims of these crimes in preparation for a potential increase in violence against immigrants as a result of Donald Trump’s xenophobic rhetoric.

These resources include an updated law enforcement bulletin on laws prohibiting hate crimes, a hate crimes rapid response protocol for the deployment of DOJ resources, guidance to prosecutors to help strengthen hate crimes prosecution enforcement, and a fact sheet to help Californians understand their rights and protections under hate crime laws. These, and other resources can be found on oag.ca.gov/HATECRIMES.

Bonta launched the Racial Justice Bureau, which, among other things, supports the California Department of Justice’s broader mandate to advance the civil rights of all Californians by assisting with new and ongoing efforts to combat hate and bias.

Beginning in 2021 when he took office as the state's first Filipino American Attorney General, Bonta began proactively engaging with local city leaders in the biggest cities in California through roundtables in San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, San Diego, Riverside, Long Beach, Santa Ana, San Jose, Stockton, Anaheim, Bakersfield, Fresno, and Irvine.

More broadly, the Attorney General is deeply committed to responding to the needs of historically marginalized and underrepresented communities and, in July 2021, also launched the Office of Community Awareness, Response, and Engagement to work directly with community organizations and members of the public as part of the effort to advance justice for all Californians.

FOR YOUR INFORMATION

• DOJ's Office of Community Awareness, Response, and Engagement will host a virtual Community Briefing on Wednesday, July 30th at 1pm PT to share highlights and findings from the report. People interested can register here: https://doj-ca.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_vDq6h0e1TbKG3D-DWByjfQ#/registration

• Members of the public can further explore the most recent hate crime data on OpenJustice.

• The 2024 Hate Crime in California Report can be found here.

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X or at the blog Views From the Edge. Now on BlueSky.

L.A. protests: “Donald Trump is creating fear and terror," says governor

National Guard soldiers were ordered to 

The heavy-handed tactics used by federal immigration authorities has sparked angry  protests and a lawsuit against Donald Trump and his questionable use of the California National Guard that appears to be escalating the tension and anger in Los Angeles.

Trump's use of the National Guard to quell protests against tactics used by federal immigration agents in Los Angeles has California's Filipino American Attorney General Rob Bonta filing his 24th lawsuit against Donald Trump and his administration

Bonta and California Governor Gavin Newsom are suing Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth in response to their orders seeking to federalize the California National Guard for 60 days under 10 U.S.C. § 12406.

 In the early hours of Sunday morning, the US Department of Defense, at the direction of Donald Trump, redirected hundreds of National Guard troops from San Diego to Los Angeles, without authorization from the Governor and against the wishes of local law enforcement. In total, the Department intends to deploy 2,000 troops from across the state, an inflammatory escalation unsupported by conditions on the ground. 

Lawsuit filed against Trump

In the lawsuit filed Tuesday, Bonta and Newsom asks the court to hold unlawful and set aside the Trump’s order federalizing the National Guard by way of a rarely used law, arguing that such action exceeds the federal government’s authority under the law and violates the Tenth Amendment.

“President Trump’s order calling federalized National Guard troops into Los Angeles – over the objections of the Governor and local law enforcement – is unnecessary and counterproductive. It’s also deeply unfair to the members of the National Guard who are hard at work every day protecting our state, preparing for and responding to emergencies, and training so that, if called, they can fight our nation’s wars,” says  Bonta. 

        RELATED: California challenges Trump's tarriffs

“Let me be clear: There is no invasion. There is no rebellion. The President is trying to manufacture chaos and crisis on the ground for his own political ends," says Bonta. "Federalizing the California National Guard is an abuse of the President’s authority under the law – and not one we take lightly. We’re asking a court to put a stop to the unlawful, unprecedented order.”

“Donald Trump is creating fear and terror by failing to adhere to the US Constitution and overstepping his authority. This is a manufactured crisis to allow him to take over a state militia, damaging the very foundation of our republic,” says Newsom. 

On Friday and Saturday, June 6 and 7, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted multiple immigration raids in downtown Los Angeles; at a Home Depot and at apparel manufacturers Around 3 p.m. Friday. Crowds began gathering in shouting at the federal agents and trying to stop the federal agents' vehicles.

These raids were met with multiple protests. 

Following threats to send in the National Guard from several Trump Administration officials, on the evening of June 7, Trump issued a formal memorandum entitled “Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions,” purporting to authorize the Department of Defense to call up 2,000 California National Guard personnel into federal service for a period of 60 days. 

In implementing this directive, the Department of Defense circumvented authorization from the Governor and began deploying National Guard troops to Los Angeles over the objections of local law enforcement actively on the ground. Notably, by the time the National Guard arrived Sunday morning, the protests had dissipated and streets were quiet, but soon after the National Guard arrived, tensions reignited, leading to the very sort of unrest the National Guard was supposedly sent in to quell. 

Concerningly, Trump has already made clear his intention to expand the use of these National Guard troops to conduct interior civil immigration enforcement activities normally conducted by civil immigration law enforcement officers, creating fear and terror in California communities.

Trump’s unprecedented order attempts to usurp state authority and resources via 10 U.S.C. § 12406, a statute that has been invoked on its own only once before in modern history and for highly unusual circumstances — when President Richard Nixon called upon the National Guard to deliver the mail during the 1970 Postal Service Strike. This is also the first time since 1965 — when President Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators — that a president has activated a state’s National Guard without a request from the state’s governor. 

In this case, Newsom did not request that the state’s National Guard be federalized, as local authorities were managing the situation on the ground, and openly expressed concern that bringing in the National Guard could inflame the situation. After the President plowed ahead with his order, the Governor sent a letter to Secretary Hegseth requesting that the Department of Defense rescind its unlawful deployment of troops in the state and return them to his command.

In the lawsuit filed Tuesday, Bonta and Newsom asks the court to hold that Trump's and Department of Defense’s orders federalizing the California National Guard are unlawful, arguing that:The federalization of the California National Guard deprives California of resources to protect itself and its citizens, and of critical responders in the event of a state emergency.

Newsom had filed an emergency motion with the courts Tuesday in an attempt to prevent Trump's expansion of the military in LA - a federal judge denied it and set the hearing for Newsom's lawsuit for Thursday

        FYI: A copy of the lawsuit is available here.

10 U.S.C. 12406 requires that the Governor consent to federalization of the National Guard, which Newsom was not given the opportunity to do prior to their deployment.

Trump’s unlawful order infringes on Newsom’s role as Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard and violates the state’s sovereign right to control and have available its National Guard in the absence of a lawful invocation of federal power.

“State and local law enforcement have repeatedly said they have the resources necessary to handle the situation. It is completely un-American and needlessly provocative for Donald Trump to deploy the National Guard and Marines to Southern California," said California Rep. Ted Lieu, whose district includes part of Los Angeles. 

"So, I want to talk about the National Guard first. Their legal authority Trump is using is 10 U.S.C. Section 12406. I encourage all of you to read it. It very specifically says the only way he can do this is through the orders of the Governors of the states. Governor Newsom clearly has not given this order; the National Guard troops are following unlawful orders. I ask every National Guard person who is under this order to read the order, to see if it came from Governor Newsom and then to read the law and then decide for themselves if they are following unlawful orders," Lieu implored.

“Like millions of Americans across the country, I am deeply concerned by the administration’s use of aggressive tactics against immigrant communities. Armed agents have raided schools, workplaces, and homes—terrorizing our neighbors and ripping families apart,” said Congressmember Grace Meng (NY-06), chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. 

“This is not about public safety, this is about exerting control and striking fear in immigrant communities," said Meng. "As Members of Congress, we will continue to exercise our legal authority to conduct oversight of detention centers and demand accountability from the administration, and we will fight for immigration policies that reflect our nation’s values of fairness and dignity for all—not cruelty disguised as law and order.”

Protestors take to the streets

The protests were in response to raids by ICE and Homeland Security at workplaces, schools and when immigrants arrived at their immigration check-ins which they agreed to in order to remain in the country.

“Mass raids without warrants has been what has started this whole thing,” alleges Rep. Judy Chu, D-CA., “It was started by Donald Trump.”

On Friday, June 6, the federal government, through IICE, began conducting widespread operations throughout Los Angeles without providing notification to local law enforcement. During the course of these operations, ICE officers took actions that inflamed tensions, including the arrest and detainment of children, and military-style operations that sparked panic in the community. The Department of Homeland Security reported that its enforcement activities on June 6 resulted in the arrest of 44 individuals, two of whom appear to have been minors. Only five of those arrested reportedly had any criminal history.

In response, community members began protesting to express opposition to these Gestapo-like tactics, the Trump’s heavy-handed, violent immigration agenda, and the arrest of innocent people, and to express solidarity with and concern for the individuals and families most directly impacted by the enforcement actions taking place in their community. 

Protests continued for two more days, and although some violent and illegal incidents were reported — leading to justified arrests by state and local authorities — these protests were largely nonviolent and involved citizens exercising their First Amendment right to protest. 

As the protests moved into a third day, Tuesday night L.A. Mayor Karen Bass instituted a curfew in downtown Los Angeles. Small bands of people ignored the curfew and the LAPD began making arrests.

At no point did these protests necessitate federal intervention, and local and state law enforcement remained in control of the situation. Local law enforcement, despite no communication or advanced notice from the federal government, responded quickly and did not request federal assistance.

“Every governor, red or blue, should reject this outrageous overreach," says Newsom. "This is beyond incompetence — this is him intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities, and endangering the principles of our great democracy. It is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism. We will not let this stand.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X or at the blog Views From the Edge.

California challenges legality of Trump's terrible tariffs

SCREEN CAPTURE

Attorney General Rob Bonta announces his 15th lawsuit against the Trump administration.

It is the 15th lawsuit California Attorney General Rob Bonta has filed in his seemingly neverending battle against the Trump administration's allegedly illegal actions. This time, he's challenging Donald Trump's tariffs.

The Filipino American AG and California Gov. Gavin Newsom April 16 filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s unlawful use of power to impose tariffs and direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Patrol (CPB) to implement and enforce those tariffs without the consent of Congress.

“The President’s chaotic and haphazard implementation of tariffs is not only deeply troubling, it’s illegal. As the fifth largest economy in the world, California understands global trade policy is not just a game,” said Bonta in an April 16 press conference held on a farm in rural Turlock.

Since early February, the Trump Administration has issued over a dozen executive orders under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to impose tariffs that have sent shockwaves through financial markets, businesses, and consumers in every corner of the globe.

In the latest lawsuit, Bonta and Newsom challenge Trumpt’s use of the IEEPA to levy those tariffs, arguing that the IEEPA does not authorize Trump to impose these tariffs. The emergency tariffs challenged under the lawsuit are projected to, at a minimum, shrink the US economy by $100 billion annually, increase inflation by 1.3%, and cost the average American family $2,100.

Bonta said Trump was “attempting to override Congress and steamroll the separation of powers” and that his “rogue and erratic tariffs” must be stopped to prevent further damage to California’s economy.

“Trump has had to resort to creating bogus national emergencies that defy reason,” Bonta said. “Bottom line: Trump doesn’t have the singular power to radically upend the country’s economic landscape. That’s not how democracy works.”

The economic impact of Trump’s unlawful tariffs could have resounding impacts on California’s economy, budget, and consumers. The state is the world's fifth largest economy - outpacing every US state and most countries - and is home to the largest shares of manufacturing and agricultural production in the US.

California is also a significant and frequent purchaser of goods impacted by the tariffs and the projected increase in cost to the state is significant.

        FYI: A copy of the complaint is available here.

California is the nation’s largest importer and second-largest exporter. Trump’s tariffs will impact California’s businesses, including its ports and small businesses that rely on trade. California’s agricultural sector, which exports goods around the world, will also face particularized challenges as other countries impose retaliatory tariffs and decrease trade in response to President Trump’s tariffs. Furthermore, the tariffs directly harm California’s ability to contract, purchase, and sell goods. These effects are already too real: vendors who contract with California have indicated that they will pass their increased costs from President Trump’s tariffs on to the state directly.

 “These tariffs are having a devastating downstream impact on San Francisco’s economy — especially our small businesses that rely on global supply chains and export markets to survive.," said Rodney Fong, CEO of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. "From rising costs on imported goods to sudden disruptions in inventory and operations, our local entrepreneurs are bearing the brunt of an unpredictable trade policy. We support the state’s efforts to restore certainty and stability to the economic environment our businesses depend on.”

Claiming authority under the IEEPA, Trump has issued multiple executive orders to impose, pause, re-start, and modify 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada and a universal 10% tariff on every other U.S. trading partner.

Separately and in addition, Trump’s actions have goaded China into a full-blown trade war, with tariffs reaching 145% on Chinese goods, and China imposing reciprocal 125% tariffs on US goods. Additionally, Trump has imposed individualized reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on nearly 90 specific countries; they are currently paused for 90 days before going into effect. Once the 90-day “pause” expires, the harms will only compound further. And new tariffs are being contemplated or announced nearly every day.

To justify his tariffs, Trump has declared national emergencies and extended prior declared emergencies beyond the bounds of reason. But with or without emergencies, the President does not have the power to levy tariffs under the IEEPA.

The impacts of President Trump’s dizzying array of tariff plans have already wreaked havoc on our financial systems: the U.S. stock market suffered the largest two-day loss in its history in the two days following the announcement of President Trump’s most sweeping tariffs. These actions and the near-daily threats to impose new tariffs have already inflicted and continue to inflict serious financial harms on California.

The latest complaint alleges that the Constitution expressly gives the authority to impose tariffs to Congress, not the President, and the IEEPA does not provide the required congressional authorization for Trump to impose tariffs — Congress enacted the IEEPA to limit Presidential authority and to prevent Presidential abuse of power — not to give the President these powers. The complaint asks the court to declare that tariff orders made under the purported authority of the IEEPA are unlawful and void and to halt DHS and CPB from implementing and enforcing these orders.

"Our latest survey shows that economic pressure isn’t just theoretical — it’s showing up in rent, grocery bills, and the rising costs of essentials," says Jason Pagiou, President and CEO of the Asian Business Association of San Diego.

“Californians are bracing for fallout from the impact of the President’s choices — from farmers in the Central Valley, to small businesses in Sacramento, and worried families at the kitchen table — this game the President is playing has very real consequences for Californians across our state," said Bonta.

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news and views from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X or at the blog Views From the Edge.