LOS ANGELES — Tensions escalated dramatically in Los Angeles over the weekend as President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to quell growing unrest sparked by aggressive Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids. The move, bypassing California Governor Gavin Newsom’s authority, has ignited a fierce legal and political battle over federal overreach and the militarization of immigration enforcement.
The protests began on June 6, following a series of coordinated ICE operations across Los Angeles County that resulted in the arrest of at least 44 individuals suspected of immigration violations. The raids targeted various locations, including a clothing warehouse, Home Depot parking lots, and a doughnut shop. Demonstrations erupted in response, leading to confrontations between protesters and law enforcement.
By June 8, the protests had intensified, with thousands of demonstrators rallying in downtown Los Angeles and surrounding areas. Clashes between protesters and law enforcement escalated, with reports of tear gas, rubber bullets, and flash-bang grenades used to disperse crowds. Several injuries and arrests were reported, including the detention of David Huerta, the California president of the Service Employees International Union, who was arrested for allegedly blocking a vehicle during the protests.
President Trump justified the deployment of the National Guard by invoking Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which allows the federal government to mobilize state National Guard units without a governor’s consent in cases of “insurrection” or when state authorities are deemed incapable of maintaining public order. This marks the first such federalization of a state’s National Guard without gubernatorial approval in over six decades.
Governor Newsom condemned the federal intervention as “purposefully inflammatory” and announced plans to challenge the deployment in court, arguing that it violates state sovereignty and constitutional protections. “This is a serious breach of state sovereignty — inflaming tensions while distracting from the hard work needed to restore peace,” Newsom stated.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass also criticized the federal response, emphasizing the need for de-escalation and dialogue. “As Mayor of a proud city of immigrants, who contribute to our city in so many ways, I am deeply angered by what has taken place. These tactics sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city,” Bass said.
The deployment has drawn sharp criticism from civil liberties groups and legal experts, who warn that the use of military force in civilian protests sets a dangerous precedent. “This is a dangerous departure from established norms, potentially laying the groundwork for more aggressive domestic military use in politically oppositional regions,” said a legal analyst from the Brennan Center for Justice.
Meanwhile, the protests continue, with demonstrators demanding an end to mass deportations and the militarization of immigration enforcement. Organizers have called for peaceful demonstrations and have vowed to continue their efforts until their demands are met.
The situation in Los Angeles remains tense, with the potential for further escalation as legal challenges to the federal deployment proceed. The outcome of this confrontation could have significant implications for the balance of power between state and federal authorities, as well as the future of immigration enforcement in the United States.