Gov. Greg Abbott to deploy Texas National Guard in anticipation of protests
Brandon Bell/Getty Images
(SAN ANTONIO) — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said he was deploying the Texas National Guard to multiple locations across the state to “ensure peace and order.”
The deployment comes ahead of planned protests this week in Texas, including on in San Antonio.
A statement from Abbott’s office obtained by ABC News’ affiliate KSAT confirmed the deployment, saying Guardsmen were ready to “uphold law and order across our state.”
“Peaceful protests are part of the fabric of our nation, but Texas will not tolerate the lawlessness we have seen in Los Angeles,” Abbott’s office said in a statement. “Anyone engaging in acts of violence or damaging property will be swiftly held accountable to the full extent of the law.”
Abbott’s move comes amid the escalating protests in Los Angeles, where activists have been protesting the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
The protests in Los Angeles have at times turned violent. And President Donald Trump ordered both the National Guard and the Marines to Southern California in recent days.
“Peaceful protest is legal,” Abbott said on Tuesday. “Harming a person or property is illegal & will lead to arrest.”
He said the Texas National Guard would “use every tool & strategy to help law enforcement maintain order.”
Assistant Chief of the San Antonio Police Department Jesse Salame also confirmed to KSAT that Guard members have been sent to San Antonio.
(WASHINGTON) — For decades, Donald Trump has used a signature phrase to show his contempt for countries he says cheat and take advantage of the U.S.: “They’re ripping us off.”
He used those very words again Wednesday as he capped off his long-standing personal grievance by announcing sweeping tariffs in the Rose Garden.
From trade deals to NATO security procedures, Trump has claimed that the U.S. has been given less return value, resources and, ultimately, respect for the amount of money, political will power and other resources that America has given the world.
While Trump’s rhetoric has gone well beyond the norms of traditional international diplomacy, his views have been shared by other U.S. leaders for a long time, according to Paul Poast, an associate professor in the department of political science at the University of Chicago.
“He’s saying the quiet part out loud,” Poast told ABC News. “You can go all the way back to [President Harry] Truman, where U.S. leaders have made that comment, that the U.S. has been doing more than its fair share. He’s just using an extreme version of a complaint made.”
While Trump’s unprecedented approach has made headlines and seen pushback from world leaders from allies, including Canada and Mexico, the two nations he’s previously targeted with tariffs, Poast said it was too early to tell if the continued tough talk will affect international relations but he noted the rest of the world is taking notice.
US being ‘laughed at’ Trump has long blasted other countries for what he claimed are unfair practices toward the U.S. and its businesses. In 1987, he took out full-page ads in the New York Times, Washington Post and other major newspapers arguing that the U.S. needed to scale back its support of Japan at a time when that country’s economy was dominating Americas.
“Let’s not let our great country be laughed at anymore,” he wrote.
Two years later, Trump continued his criticism of Japan along with Saudi Arabia and West Germany in an interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer where he argued for taxes and tariffs.
“America is being ripped off. And I’ll tell you what. We’re not going to have an America in 10 years if it keeps going like this. We’re a debtor nation, and we have to tax, we have to tariff, we have to protect this country. And nobody’s doing it,” he said.
The phrase would be repeated for years and amplified on the 2016 campaign trail, during his first term, his first and second reelection campaigns and now in his current term.
[“With] great consistency, actually, because I’ve been talking about it for 40 years, but because I saw what was happening 40 years ago,” the president said Wednesday during his tariff announcement.
Poast said that Trump’s grievance is derived from the perceived value of their exports versus imports, which he said can be oversimplified.
To the average American, seeing more foreign-based products versus U.S. made goods gives an appearance that there is an imbalance, but when it comes to foreign relations and the economy — the impact is more nuanced, he said.
“The U.S. trade policies always included limited import, and we are getting a lot from other countries economically,” Poast said.
Regarding the intangible benefits to support such as the economic aid, the military, assistance and political backing, the arguments about being “ripped off” get more obtuse, according to Poast.
“I think during the Cold War it was easier to convince people to spend it. You had a key figure you’re trying to stop Russia from winning and spreading communism,” Poast said. “Now it’s much harder to have that argument because of how divided we are.”
In many cases, trade deals and agreements also have come with benefits to the U.S. such as military bases, reduced rents for U.S.-based offices and other reimbursements, he added.
Nonetheless, Poast said that U.S. presidents of all political backgrounds have pushed allies to do more when it comes to trade and support, and many times come up short of their negotiations.
“The big difference is that Trump gets angry and starts name calling, whereas someone like [President Barack] Obama would be like ‘I’m not mad, I’m disappointed,'” Poast said.
Trump’s rhetoric during his first term did appear to make strides with one nation: Japan.
Then-Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who was well-versed with Trump’s war of words toward his country, curried favor with the president shortly after he won the 2016 election.
“He was like, ‘I need to show Trump the value of cooperating with Japan and I need to convince him that we are important,'” Poast said of Abe. “And it worked to the point where Trump came around and invited him to the White House, and Trump visited him in Japan and they had a strong partnership.”
Trump mentioned his dealings with Abe in his Rose Garden unveiling.
“They all understand they’re ripping us off,” he said.
“Shinzo Abe, he was a fantastic man … I went to him and I said, ‘Shinzo, we have to do something’ — trade is not fair.’ He said, ‘I know that. I know that,'” Trump said Abe responded.
Countries such as France, Germany and China have not been as flattering to Trump compared to Japan during his administrations in the public eye, but they have continued to negotiate trade and foreign policy plans, but rarely gave Trump everything he wanted.
“When it comes to his demands, this is the question always ask for Trump. What extent is he making demands and trying to be a deal maker?” Poast said. “It’s the idea that you come out with the outrageous idea and then negotiate down.”
Trump’s second term, however, has seen the president push through with his proposals, including the worldwide tariffs and increased calls for the takeover of Greenland, Canada and Panama.
The talk has resulted in more verbal pushback from world leaders calling out Trump for his rhetoric.
“We have to accept that the U.S. is not the single global power anymore, and other countries are now adjusting,” Poast said.
Poast said it doesn’t know if Trump’s tactics will set a new norm for international relations but did note that the political polarization of the international community and the magnified scope of the world stage has shifted the conversations and visible tensions.
“I think any adjustment that does happen will be less with Trump and his rhetoric but the changing power structure in the world system. We are living a world that is more multi-polar and we will see more shifts. Trump did not create that he may be more of a product of that and make light of that,” he said.
(MIDDLE EAST) — An F/A-18E fighter jet rolled off the side an aircraft carrier and sank to the bottom of the Red Sea, the Navy announced on Monday.
There was one enlisted crew member aboard the jet and a second enlisted crew member inside the tractor when the incident occurred.
Both personnel were able to jump out in time with only one person sustaining a minor injury, according to officials.
In the extraordinary mishap, the $70 million jet was being towed out of the hanger bay of the USS Harry S. Truman when the crew lost control.
“The F/A-18E was actively under tow in the hangar bay when the move crew lost control of the aircraft. The aircraft and tow tractor were lost overboard,” the Navy wrote in a statement.
“Sailors towing the aircraft took immediate action to move clear of the aircraft before it fell overboard. An investigation is underway,” the service added.
The USS Harry S. Truman has been operating in the Red Sea since last September when it was deployed to help protect commercial ships against near-constant attacks by Houthi rebels in Yemen.
It’s not clear what contributed to the crew members losing control of the aircraft aboard the carrier, which has previously been targeted by the Houthis. According to a U.S. official, initial field reports suggest a sudden movement of the carrier due to Houthi fire might have been a factor in the incident.
But those reports remained unconfirmed while the investigation plays out.
The Truman carrier was involved in another incident earlier this year when it collided with a merchant ship near the Suez Canal. Its commanding officer was subsequently fired.
The carrier was slated to come home last month, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth extended its deployment while ordering another carrier — the USS Carl Vinson — to the region to bolster military power.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect additional reporting.
(WASHINGTON) — In the nearly three months since President Donald Trump’s inauguration, lawyers challenging his actions in court have alleged that his administration has violated court orders on a half dozen occasions, according to court records reviewed by ABC News.
From unilaterally freezing federal funding to the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport noncitizens, the clashes have raised concerns about the separation of powers and the potential for a constitutional crisis.
Plaintiffs suing the Trump administration have alleged the government violated or ignored court orders on at least six different occasions, but no judge so far has held a member of the Trump administration in contempt of court. On at least four occasions, judges have expressed concerns about the Trump administration’s compliance with court orders.
Lawyers with the Justice Department have vigorously defended the actions of the Trump administration and argued that federal officials have strictly complied with lawful court orders, while also questioning the legality of some orders. Each of the cases are ongoing or being appealed, so the district court orders may be vacated as higher courts weigh in.
Trump has repeatedly vowed to respect a court order even if a judge rules against parts of his agenda, though he has attempted to cast doubt on the authority of some judges.
“Well, I always abide by the courts and then I’ll have to appeal it,” Trump told ABC’s Rachel Scott in February, referencing cases involving Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. In those cases, Trump suggested a judge’s order “slowed down the momentum, and it gives crooked people more time to cover up the books. You know, if a person’s crooked and they get caught, other people see that and all of a sudden it becomes harder later on.”
The Trump Administration now faces arguably its most high-profile legal battle, as it attempts to keep Kilmar Abrego Garcia in Salvadoran custody despite the Supreme Court ordering his administration to facilitate his release.
Using the Alien Enemies Act to remove alleged members of Tren de Aragua
Last month, the Trump administration removed more than 100 alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua to a Salvadoran prison under the Alien Enemies Act despite a federal judge ordering they be returned to the U.S.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a directive that two planes carrying the men to El Salvador be returned to the United States on March 15. Despite both planes still being in the air at the time of the order, the planes landed in Honduras before flying to El Salvador.
Lawyers representing the Venezuelan men have argued that the Trump administration violated the court order, and Judge James Boasberg remarked that the government “acted in bad faith” when it rushed the deportation flights.
The Supreme Court vacated his order blocking any future removals under the Alien Enemies Act because the plaintiffs lacked jurisdiction to bring a case in D.C. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, Judge Boasberg was considering beginning contempt proceedings.
Trump defended his use of the Alien Enemies Act – telling reporters last month that he has the authority to remove noncitizens under the law – and has repeatedly criticized Judge Boasberg for blocking the removals.
“[Secretary of State Marco Rubio has] the authority to get bad people out of our country. And you can’t stop that with a judge sitting behind a bench that has no idea what goes on, who happens to be a radical left lunatic,” Trump told ABC’s Karen Travers.
Removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia
After the Trump administration acknowledged it had deported a Salvadoran native who was living in Maryland under protected legal status due to an “administrative error,” a federal judge ordered the government to facilitate his return to the United States.
After the Trump administration appealed the decision, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Judge Paula Xinis “properly” required that the U.S. facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from Salvadoran custody; however, the high court ordered Judge Xinis determine what “deference” Trump is owed related to his conduct of foreign affairs.
Since the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Trump administration has doubled down on its allegation that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13 — without providing any evidence — and claimed it lacks the authority to return him to the U.S. During a meeting with Trump in the Oval Office on Monday, Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele told reporters that he lacks the power to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S.
“The question is preposterous. How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States?” Bukele said.
Benjamin Osorio, an attorney for Abrego Garcia, told ABC News that he believes the Trump administration is defying the court’s order and that a contempt order might be the only thing to prompt the U.S. government to return his client from El Salvador.
Before his meeting with Bukele, Trump told reporters that he would respect an order from the Supreme Court to return Abrego Garcia.
“If the Supreme Court said bring somebody back, I would do that. I respect the Supreme Court,” Trump said.
Removal of migrants to third countries
During a hearing last week, a federal judge gave lawyers with the Justice Department two weeks to provide more information about three recent removals of noncitizens to El Salvador that took place two days after he issued a temporary order blocking similar deportations to countries other than their place of origin without a hearing to raise concerns about their safety.
Judge Brian Murphy described the “potential violations of the temporary restraining order” as “concerning” and set an April 28 hearing to learn more about the deportations.
“This is something that is concerning to me,” Judge Murphy said. “I do think it’s something that we need to address.”
Lawyers with the Justice Department agreed to provide more information about the removals and defended the administration’s conduct.
Judge Murphy is considering extending his court order that prevents the Trump administration from removing noncitizens to countries other than their place of origin without allowing the noncitizens to raise concerns about their safety.
Two days after Judge Murphy temporarily blocked the deportations, the Trump administration announced that it had removed 17 alleged members of Tren de Aragua and MS-13 to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison. According to the plaintiffs, some of the men on those flights had final orders of removal to Venezuela and were never given the right to challenge their removal to El Salvador.
Unilaterally freezing funding to states
In February, U.S. District Judge John McConnell said that a group of state attorneys general presented evidence that the Trump administration “continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds” to states despite a “clear and unambiguous” order barring them from blocking the funding.
He ordered the government to “immediately restore frozen funding” though the state attorneys general later provided evidence that the Trump administration continued to pause funding from FEMA. Many of the funding streams were restored in the months following Judge McConnell’s order.
Lawyers representing the Trump administration have argued the limiting of funds was a lawful way to identify and limit alleged fraud.
Blocking FEMA grants
Two months after Judge McConnell ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze funding to states, he determined that the government “covertly” paused millions of dollars in FEMA funding in direct violation of a court order.
Judge McConnell ordered the Trump Administration to “immediately cease” its efforts to impede the disbursement of federal funds, finding the government directly violated his order.
Last month, a coalition of 22 attorneys general asked Judge McConnell to stop the freeze after they presented evidence that FEMA continued to restrict more than 215 federal grants despite a court order blocking Trump’s unilateral funding freeze.
Lawyers with the DOJ pushed back on the request, arguing that FEMA was “merely implementing a manual review process” of each grant.
Judge McConnell disagreed, finding that the states presented “undisputed evidence” that FEMA “essentially [imposed] an indefinite categorical pause on payments” in direct violation of his preliminary injunction. He said the manual review process cited by the Trump administration “violates” a preliminary injunction issued in the case.
Freezing billions in foreign aid
A federal judge in February determined that the Trump administration was improperly withholding nearly $2 billion in foreign aid despite an order to restore the funding.
U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali blocked the Trump administration from imposing a blanket freeze on funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, yet the freeze continued for weeks, according to lawyers representing the foreign aid nonprofits. Lawyers representing the Trump administration have argued the funding freeze was necessary to identify and block potential fraud.
In an order, Judge Ali wrote that the Trump administration justified the freeze by advancing “an unbridled view of Executive power that the Supreme Court has consistently rejected—a view that flouts multiple statutes.”
After the Trump administration appealed the order, a divided U.S. Supreme Court denied the request to block the order, though the justices ordered the lower court to clarify its original order.
