• Police seek suspects in deadly birthday party shooting
  • Lawmakers launch inquires into U.S. boat strike
  • Nov. 29, 2025, 10:07 PM EST / Updated Nov. 30, 2025,…
  • Mark Kelly says troops ‘can tell’ what orders…

Be that!

contact@bethat.ne.com

 

Be That ! Menu   ≡ ╳
  • Home
  • Travel
  • Culture
  • Lifestyle
  • Sport
  • Contact Us
  • Politics Politics
☰

Be that!

Oct. 6, 2025, 7:40 PM EDTBy Zoë RichardsPresident Donald Trump said Monday that he would consider invoking the Insurrection Act “if it was necessary,” particularly if the courts or state and local officials delay his plans to deploy the National Guard.”I’d do it if it was necessary. So far it hasn’t been necessary. But we have an Insurrection Act for a reason,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office when he was asked under what conditions he would consider the rarely used 19th century law.”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 mean, I want to make sure that people aren’t killed. We have to make sure that our cities are safe,” he added.The Insurrection Act of 1807 allows the president to mobilize the U.S. military to conduct civilian law enforcement activities under certain circumstances. It was last used during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.Trump was speaking about his efforts to federalize troops and crack down on crime in Democratic-run cities.A federal judge in Oregon on Sunday blocked the Trump administration from deploying federalized National Guard members from California or other states to Portland’s streets.U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, had also blocked the administration from deploying Oregon National Guard troops in Portland.”Portland’s been on fire for years, and not so much saving it,” Trump told reporters Monday. “We have to save something else, because I think that’s all insurrection. I really think that’s really criminal insurrection.”Oregon AG: Trump shouldn’t deploy troops to cities unless under ‘extreme circumstances’02:44Trump and his allies similarly referred to protesters opposing Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles as “insurrectionists,” and Trump offered a similar answer in June when he was asked about any plans to invoke the Insurrection Act. “Depends on whether or not there’s an insurrection,” he said at the time, without ruling out the possibility of using it in the future.A key Trump ally argued earlier Monday that such action is needed now.In a text message to NBC News before Trump’s Oval Office remarks, former White House strategist Steve Bannon said Trump “needs to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 immediately and deploy active duty U.S. Army personnel and assets to Portland and Chicago — he needs to put Pritzker and Newsom in their place.”California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, both Democrats, have opposed Trump’s National Guard efforts in their states.At a news conference earlier Monday, Pritzker suggested that Trump is trying to sow unrest so he can invoke the Insurrection Act.”The Trump administration is following a playbook cause chaos, create fear and confusion, make it seem like peaceful protesters are a mob by firing gas pellets and tear gas canisters at them,” Pritzker said. “Why? To create the pretext for invoking the Insurrection Act so that he can send military troops to our city.”Illinois sued Monday to block the Trump administration from deploying federalized National Guard troops to Chicago. A judge declined to immediately block the administration’s move and instead scheduled a hearing for Thursday.White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement that Pritzker had failed to address violence in his state.“Amidst ongoing violent riots and lawlessness, that local leaders like Pritzker have refused to step in to quell, President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets,” Jackson said. “President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities.”During his first term, despite nudging from allies, Trump ultimately did not invoke the Insurrection Act, which the White House said was a possibility in response to demonstrations stemming from the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May 2020.Zoë RichardsZoë Richards is a politics reporter for NBC News.Katherine Doyle and Dareh Gregorian contributed.

admin - Latest News - October 7, 2025
admin
22 views 14 secs 0 Comments




The 1807 law, which allows the military to conduct civilian law enforcement activities under certain circumstances, hasn’t been used since the 1992 Los Angeles riots.



Source link

TAGS:
PREVIOUS
Savewith a NBCUniversal ProfileCreate your free profile or log in to save this articleOct. 6, 2025, 6:07 PM EDTBy Erika EdwardsThe booming IV hydration spa industry operates with virtually no oversight or data backing up its claims, according to the first comprehensive national analysis of hydration clinics. At clinics nationwide, people pay hundreds of dollars to have vitamins and minerals dripped directly into their veins as a detox, to ease headaches or boost immunity, “almost completely without evidence,” said Dr. Peter Lurie, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and co-author of the study, published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine. “As a result, there’s a real danger to consumers.”Hydration clinics, combined with the growing number of med spas offering intravenous vitamin drips, skin care and cosmetic procedures, have ballooned into a $15 billion wellness industry in recent years, according to the American Med Spa Association. The group represents med spas, which often offer IV treatments, nationwide. Alex Thiersch, chief executive officer of the American Med Spa Association, said some IV hydration clinic providers don’t realize that they’re actually practicing medicine and may lack proper training.“We have had folks who are surprised by that,” Thiersch said. “They thought, ‘I’m just doing an IV. It’s different. It’s vitamins.’”“If you’re putting a needle in someone’s vein,” he said, “that’s 100% medical practice.”There are no federal health regulations or national standards for procedures for med spas. Instead, the facilities fall under the authority of each state.As of June 2024, no state or jurisdiction had enacted legislation specifically to regulate IV hydration spas, according to the new study.Thirty-two states did have some kind of policy addressing IV hydration spas, including rules either for prescribing or compounding drugs or how clinics should dispense medications.Four states — Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina and Vermont — had the most comprehensive oversight. “This is a medical system that exists largely outside of conventional medicine,” Lurie said. “We’re worried that people will spend their money on these without reason to expect benefits. We’re also worried that there will be adverse effects related to this.”The potential for injury is real: Products or equipment could be contaminated, or a provider might not have appropriate training to give an IV safely.There’s no official count of the number of people injured at med spas. Infections and allergic reactions aren’t often reported to health departments. The new research cited NBC News’ previous reporting on med spas as evidence of “rising concerns of their safety, with reports of infections and contaminated products.” Of 255 clinic websites analyzed, more than half offered IV hydration therapy touting therapies like magnesium for headaches and muscle cramps, glutathione as a potential immune system booster, or other substances advertised to increase energy.Just two of those sites listed tangible sources for those health claims. None mentioned potential risks, like infection or allergic reactions. One aspect of the research involved a secret shopper investigation, in which researchers placed calls to 87 randomly chosen spas.Only about 1 in 4 required a medical consultation beforehand. More than 85% recommended specific IV cocktails when callers mentioned symptoms like a headache or cold, often without verifying a patient’s medical history.Fewer than 1 in 4 warned about potential side effects, like bruising or infections. The Food and Drug Administration previously warned consumers about the potential for severe infections and skin deformities from unauthorized shots touted to dissolve fat at med spas.Erika EdwardsErika Edwards is a health and medical news writer and reporter for NBC News and “TODAY.”
NEXT
FAA announces possible staffing issues potentially caused by government shutdown 
Related Post
November 18, 2025
Nov. 17, 2025, 7:44 PM ESTBy Phil Helsel, Daniel Arkin and Adam ReissThe Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is investigating a sexual battery allegation from five years ago against Sean “Diddy” Combs, the hip-hop mogul who is serving a 50-month prison sentence on two interstate prostitution convictions.The new allegation was made in Largo, Florida, on Sept. 20, according to a police report. A male music publicist and producer said he was invited to a photoshoot in a Los Angeles warehouse in 2020 about an upcoming project, according to the police report.The accuser said that at that shoot, Combs allegedly began masturbating under a shirt while watching pornography, and then exposed himself and told the accuser to assist, according to the report.The producer did not respond to Combs, who continued before throwing the shirt at him, he told police, according to the document.The man told police that he did not tell anyone about the event out of embarrassment, according to the police report. In March 2021, while in Santa Monica about the music project, two men at a house grabbed the producer, threw something over his head, and took him to a room where Combs berated him and called him a snitch, the man told Largo police, according to the report.The name of person who made the new sexual battery complaint is redacted in the Largo police report. The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department said that it received a copy of the Largo police report Friday.“Special Victims Bureau will be investigating the allegations,” the LASD said.A spokesperson for Combs did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday evening.The allegations are separate from those that sent Combs to prison.Combs was convicted by a jury on July 2 of two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution at the conclusion of an eight-week federal trial in New York. He was acquitted on two more serious charges: racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion.The Grammy-winning rapper and Bad Boy Records founder pleaded not guilty. He is incarcerated at FCI Fort Dix, a low-security federal prison in New Jersey.In the trial, prosecutors accused Combs of leading a criminal enterprise spanning decades. Two of his former girlfriends, Casandra “Cassie” Ventura and a woman known pseudonymously as “Jane,” accused Combs of forcing them to participate in marathon, drug-fueled sexual encounters known as “freak offs.”Combs, 56, still faces a raft of civil lawsuits accusing him of rape and sexual assault. He has denied wrongdoing.Phil HelselPhil Helsel is a reporter for NBC News.Daniel ArkinDaniel Arkin is a senior reporter at NBC News.Adam ReissAdam Reiss is a reporter and producer for NBC and MSNBC.Meriam Bouarrouj and Juliette Arcodia contributed.
October 24, 2025
Oct. 24, 2025, 11:24 AM EDTBy Lawrence HurleyWASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s strategy to persuade the Supreme Court to uphold his sweeping tariffs is not subtle.To some opponents of his tariffs, Trump’s frequent use of apocalyptic rhetoric about his signature policy ahead of the Nov. 5 oral argument is an obvious attempt to influence the court by focusing on the potential consequences of a ruling against him.“I will tell you that’s one of the most important cases in the history of our country because if we don’t win that case, we will be a weakened, troubled, financial mess for many, many years to come,” Trump said at the White House on Oct. 15, in just one example of his repeated comments on the subject.Trump, who has a long history of harshly criticizing judges who rule against him, has even suggested he might attend the Supreme Court in person for the oral argument Nov. 5. There is no official record of any sitting president ever attending a Supreme Court argument, according to the court and the nonprofit Supreme Court Historical Society.The White House did not respond to a request seeking comment about Trump’s remarks, whether he intends to influence the court or if he will attend the oral argument.Trump threatens new tariffs on China02:33It is not the first time a president has used his bully pulpit to lean on the Supreme Court in a case crucial to his agenda. In 2012, President Barack Obama faced criticism when he said it would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” if the Supreme Court struck down the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare.The court later that year narrowly upheld the law, which was Obama’s signature domestic achievement.Trump is known to take a keen interest in cases in which he is personally involved, including criminal and civil cases that were brought against him after he completed his first term as president. He frequently appeared in court for hearings in those cases, even when not required to.Last year, during his criminal trial in New York over “hush money” payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels, the judge refused to allow Trump permission to attend Supreme Court oral arguments in April in the separate election interference case regarding the scope of presidential immunity. Trump secured a major win in that case.This time around, the court, with a 6-3 conservative majority including three justices Trump appointed, will be considering whether Trump had the power to unilaterally impose the tariffs under a law reserved for use in times of emergency called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.Although the court has ruled in Trump’s favor on numerous occasions in the first few months of his term, experts believe the tariffs case is a closer call.Trump’s remarks over the course of this year reflect a consistent theme: In his view, the tariffs are raising so much revenue and are so important to the country that a court ruling saying that he does not have the authority to impose them would be cataclysmic.”If we win the tariff case, which hopefully we will, it’s vital to the interests of our country. We’re the wealthiest country there is. If we don’t, we’ll be struggling for years to come,” Trump said on the Fox News show “Sunday Morning Futures” on Oct 19.He has also weighed in on the litigation via his Truth Social feed.On Aug. 8, he said there would be a “Great Depression” if the tariffs were not upheld. Later that month, he said that it would be a “total disaster for the country” if they were struck down.Trump is also quick to accuse others of seeking to put pressure on the justices. On Thursday night, he posted that he was ending trade negotiations with Canada because he thought the country was trying to influence the Supreme Court to rule against him on tariffs via an ad sponsored by the province of Ontario.“They only did this to interfere with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, and other courts,” Trump wrote.Tariff revenues for the year have raised $174.04 billion, according to the most recent Treasury Department numbers. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, on Sept. 7, told “Meet the Press” that the government would have to issue refunds for about half the tariff revenues it has collected if the administration loses at the Supreme Court.To some lawyers who oppose the tariffs, Trump’s remarks are easy to label.”It’s partial intimidation, it’s mostly trying to scare them in terms of consequences,” said Thomas Berry, a lawyer at the libertarian Cato Institute.”Presumably he hopes these statements will influence the Supreme Court,” said Elizabeth Goitein, a lawyer at the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice.Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat who, along with other state attorneys general and some small businesses, challenged the tariffs in court, said in a statement that Trump was only “right about one thing” in his public statements: It is a significant case on the scope of presidential power.”We can’t normalize this behavior. We have to draw a line in the sand and hold him accountable,” Rayfield added.Trump’s characterization of how bad the consequences would be if he loses the case is massively overstated, according to Maury Obstfeld, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a nonpartisan think tank.”The rhetoric and hyperbole have no basis in fact,” he said. “Large swaths of the economy and all consumers would benefit if tariffs were lowered.”Goldman Sachs recently said that American consumers are bearing more than half the cost of tariffs, while companies have warned prices will start to increase as the impact of the tariffs are felt.Major companies like General Motors and Mattel have said they expect to take financial hits as a result of tariffs, while the impact on small businesses is even greater.The administration has both overestimated potential revenue from tariffs and used those projections to claim that Trump’s signature legislative victory, the “big, beautiful bill,” is largely revenue neutral, Obstfeld added.”The job of the courts is to interpret the law, not to save the government from the consequences of its own bad decisions,” he said.Trump’s focus on the potentially drastic consequences of a loss are echoed in court papers filed by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who was previously one of the president’s personal lawyersThe opening paragraphs of the brief he filed outlining the government’s arguments use language that is just as colorful as Trump’s and sometimes quotes the president.His tone departs from the usual dry style of the Justice Department, which traditionally focuses on the technical legal arguments rather than colorful rhetoric.The tariffs, Sauer wrote, are “necessary to rectify America’s country-killing trade deficits” and limit the distribution of illegal drugs across the border by targeting countries including Mexico and Canada that, the administration alleges, have failed to stem trafficking. Sauer’s filing included a quotation from Trump saying that before he imposed the tariffs, the United States was “a dead country” but is now booming.”To the president, these cases present a stark choice,” Sauer wrote. “With tariffs, we are a rich nation; without tariffs, we are a poor nation.”Lawrence HurleyLawrence Hurley is a senior Supreme Court reporter for NBC News. Steve Kopack and Katherine Doyle contributed.
October 8, 2025
Blue Origin launch carries astronauts to edge of space
October 21, 2025
Man trapped as house floats away during Alaska storms
Comments are closed.
Scroll To Top
  • Home
  • Travel
  • Culture
  • Lifestyle
  • Sport
  • Contact Us
  • Politics
© Copyright 2025 - Be That ! . All Rights Reserved