Trump reacts to not winning the Nobel Peace…
Trump says mass government layoffs will be 'Democrat…
Oct. 10, 2025, 4:15 PM EDTBy Minyvonne Burke…
Are there health benefits to communal screaming?

Be that!

contact@bethat.ne.com

Menu ≡ ╳

Home
Travel
Culture
Lifestyle
Sport
Contact Us
Politics Politics

Be that!

Berlin Zoo welcomes baby hippo in rare birth

admin - Latest News - October 8, 2025

admin

7 views 6 secs 0 Comments

Berlin Zoo welcomes baby hippo in rare birth

Source link

TAGS:

PREVIOUS

Oct. 7, 2025, 5:17 PM EDTBy Gary Grumbach and Dareh GregorianPresident Donald Trump suggested numerous times this week that he could invoke the sweeping presidential powers granted by the Insurrection Act “if necessary.””It’s been invoked before,” Trump told reporters Tuesday, adding, “We want safe cities.”Using the Insurrection Act was something Trump repeatedly suggested he might do in his first term, although he never actually did.A spokeswoman for the White House, Abigail Jackson, said in a statement Tuesday that the president has “exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets. President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities.”Here’s a look at what the Insurrection Act is, and what it would enable the president to do.What is the Insurrection Act?While the military is generally barred from being deployed for domestic law enforcement without congressional authorization, the Insurrection Act gives the president power to deploy the U.S. military domestically and to federalize National Guard troops during specific circumstances.It was signed into law by President Thomas Jefferson in March 1807.Has it ever been used before?Many times, but not in decades.George Washington used an earlier version of the law to stamp out the Whiskey Rebellion in 1792.President George H.W. Bush was the last to use it during the deadly 1992 Los Angeles riots, following a request from the city’s Democratic mayor and the state’s Republican governor.What can trigger the use of the Insurrection Act?While one justification for invoking the act is clear — that the president can take action if asked to do so by a governor or a Legislature — the other standards mentioned in the statute are broad and vague, giving the president wide latitude.“Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion,” the statute reads.Another section says the president, “by using the militia or the armed forces, or both,” shall “take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” if it “hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State,” or if it “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”The statutes don’t define the terms, essentially leaving it up to the president to determine what constitutes an insurrection or rebellion, and when it’s been quelled.A 2022 review from the Brennan Center, a progressive policy group, called that provision “so bafflingly broad that it cannot possibly mean what it says, or else it authorizes the president to use the military against any two people conspiring to break federal law.”How does Trump define insurrection?The president — who was impeached on a charge of inciting insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021 — has indicated he has a low bar for what he considers insurrection, but has also said he doesn’t believe the criteria to use the act have been met.Trump mentioned the word insurrection — which the Encyclopaedia Britannica defines as “an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority” — five times on Monday.”Portland is on fire. Portland’s been on fire for years. And not so much saving it — we have to save something else, because I think that‘s all insurrection, really criminal insurrection,” Trump said at one point in the Oval Office on Monday. He told Newsmax later in the day that the situation in Portland was “pure insurrection.”Earlier in the day, he said he’d invoke the act “if it was necessary. So far it hasn’t been necessary but we have an Insurrection Act for a reason. If I had to enact it, I’d do that. If people were being killed and courts were holding us up, or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure I’d do that. I want to make sure that people aren’t killed.”Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, he broadened his definition, saying “these Democrats are like insurrectionists” because they opposed his “big beautiful bill.”How would using the Insurrection Act be different from what Trump is already doing?The Insurrection Act gives the military more freedom to perform law enforcement duties, such as conducting searches and making arrests.When Trump deployed the National Guard and the Marines in Los Angeles amid protests over his immigration policies, they were publicly assigned a more limited role, focused on protecting federal buildings and activities.A federal judge in California last month found they actually did more than that, and violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the president from using the military as a domestic police force without approval from Congress or under special circumstances — such as an invocation of the Insurrection Act.“The evidence at trial established that Defendants systematically used armed soldiers (whose identity was often obscured by protective armor) and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles,” U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer wrote in his ruling.“In short, Defendants violated the Posse Comitatus Act,” he said.The administration is appealing the ruling and an appeals court has put the ruling on hold while the case proceeds.Gary GrumbachGary Grumbach is an NBC News legal affairs reporter, based in Washington, D.C.Dareh GregorianDareh Gregorian is a politics reporter for NBC News.Tara Prindiville contributed.

NEXT

Trump participates in White House roundtable

Related Post

September 22, 2025

Donald Trump Jr. gives speech at Charlie Kirk memorial

October 2, 2025

Police respond to deadly car ramming and stabbing at U.K. synagogue

October 10, 2025

NY AG Letitia James Indicted on Heels of James Comey Charges

September 30, 2025

By Lawrence HurleyWASHINGTON — A federal judge on Tuesday heavily criticized the Trump administration’s crackdown on free speech as he ruled in favor of foreign students the government has targeted for their support of Palestinian rights.Massachusetts-based Judge William Young, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, ruled that foreign students enjoy the same free speech protections under the Constitution’s First Amendment as American citizens do.He found that government officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, “deliberately and with purposeful aforethought, did so concert their actions and those of their two departments intentionally to chill the rights to freedom of speech and peacefully to assemble.”Touching upon tensions within the judiciary on how to respond to harsh criticism from the administration, Young included a threatening message he had received via a postcard from an anonymous critic that read, “Trump has pardons and tanks …. what do you have?”Young responded in a note at the top of his ruling, saying he had “nothing but my sense of duty.”The 161-page decision included a final 13-page section that served as a damning indictment of President Donald Trump’s second term in office so far, portraying him as a vainglorious bully who is enacting an agenda based on retribution.Young cited Trump’s orders that targeted law firms, universities and the media, which have fared badly in court, as examples.”The Constitution, our civil laws, regulations, mores, customs, practices, courtesies — all of it; the President simply ignores it all when he takes it into his head to act,” Young wrote.”The president’s palpable misunderstanding that the government simply cannot seek retribution for speech he disdains poses a great threat to Americans’ freedom of speech,” he added.U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston.U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts / ReutersThe lawsuit — brought by the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association — alleged that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment by creating an ideological deportation policy to remove non-citizen campus activists for expressing pro-Palestinian sentiments.During the trial, Department of Homeland Security officials confirmed that a majority of the names of student protesters flagged to the agency for potential deportation came from Canary Mission, a website run by an anonymous group that maintains a database of students, professors and others who, it claims, shared anti-Israel and antisemitic viewpoints.High-profile examples include the detention of Mahmoud Khalil, who was involved in protests at Columbia University, and Tufts University graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk.Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute, which represents the challengers, said in a statement the ruling should have an immediate impact on the Trump administration’s policies.”If the First Amendment means anything, it means the government can’t imprison people simply because it disagrees with their political views,” he added.The foreign students’ case is not the first occasion on which Young has been involved in a high-profile dispute involving the Trump administration.He previously blocked a Trump administration effort to cut teacher training grants, a decision that the Supreme Court overturned.Young subsequently issued a similar decision against the administration over its planned cuts to health research grants. This too was blocked by the Supreme Court, prompting conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch to accuse Young of defying the justices.In response, Young said in a later court hearing he had no intention to disobey the Supreme Court.Lawrence HurleyLawrence Hurley is a senior Supreme Court reporter for NBC News. Chloe Atkins and Tyler Kingkade contributed.

Comments are closed.

Home
Travel
Culture
Lifestyle
Sport
Contact Us
Politics

© Copyright 2025 - Be That ! . All Rights Reserved