LOS ANGELES — In a sweeping and emotional address this week, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued a direct challenge to President Donald Trump’s unauthorized use of federal military power in Los Angeles, warning that the country stands at a crossroads between democracy and authoritarianism.
The televised address, aimed at the nearly 40 million residents of California but resonating far beyond the state, offered one of the strongest rebukes yet of Trump’s recent actions—actions that include the federalization of over 4,000 California National Guard troops and the deployment of more than 700 U.S. Marines into city streets, all without state consent.
“What we’re witnessing is not law enforcement—it’s authoritarianism,” Newsom said, his tone solemn but resolute. “What Donald Trump wants most is your fealty. Your silence. To be complicit in this moment. Do not give in to him.”
The Governor’s remarks came in the wake of multiple days of escalating federal operations in Los Angeles, operations that began with aggressive immigration raids targeting Latino neighborhoods and quickly evolved into what Newsom described as a military “dragnet” across the city.
According to eyewitness reports and footage circulated widely on social media, plainclothes ICE agents emerged from unmarked vans near a Home Depot parking lot, seizing people off the street.
Raids on a downtown clothing factory followed. In the course of these actions, a pregnant U.S. citizen was arrested, a four-year-old child was taken into custody, and entire families were separated without explanation or notice.
Rather than defuse tensions, the Trump administration’s response poured gasoline on an already smoldering fire. Newsom explained that when protests broke out in response to these ICE operations, the State of California and the City of Los Angeles deployed local police to help maintain order.
In large part, they were successful. But shortly after peaceful demonstrations began, federal agents arrived, using tear gas, flash-bang grenades, and rubber bullets. No coordination was made with state or city officials. No warnings were issued. That same day, President Trump activated 2,000 California National Guard members for federal duty without the Governor’s consent—something explicitly required by law.
“This brazen abuse of power by a sitting President inflamed a combustible situation,” Newsom said. “He doubled down on his dangerous National Guard deployment by fanning the flames even harder.”
As anxiety spread throughout Los Angeles, protests intensified. By nightfall, a small number of demonstrators turned destructive—burning cars, damaging property, clashing with officers. Newsom made clear that such behavior would not be tolerated.
“If you incite violence or destroy our communities, you are going to be held accountable. Full stop.”
More than 370 people were arrested, and the state is actively reviewing footage to identify additional suspects. However, Newsom was unequivocal that this violence was not representative of the broader movement.
“Thanks to our law enforcement officers and the majority of Angelenos who protested peacefully, this situation was winding down and was concentrated in just a few square blocks downtown.”
Nevertheless, the Trump administration again escalated, ordering an additional 2,000 Guard members into the area and deploying over 700 Marines—military personnel trained for foreign combat, not domestic policing.
According to Newsom, the President’s motivations had little to do with public safety. “He chose escalation. He chose more force. He chose theatrics over public safety,” Newsom said. “We honor the bravery of the men and women in uniform, but we do not want our streets militarized by our own Armed Forces. Not in L.A. Not in California. Not anywhere.”
The Governor described scenes of unmarked vehicles stationed in school parking lots, children too afraid to attend graduation, and immigrant workers arrested for nothing more than showing up to their jobs.
“Dishwashers, gardeners, day laborers, and seamstresses,” Newsom said. “That’s not strength. That’s weakness—weakness masquerading as strength.” He accused the Trump administration of deliberately terrorizing vulnerable communities under the guise of immigration enforcement and law and order. “Donald Trump’s government isn’t protecting our communities—they are traumatizing our communities. And that seems to be the point.”
As these events unfolded, Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta launched an aggressive legal response. Together, they filed a lawsuit and an emergency motion asking the courts to immediately block what they call an unlawful and unconstitutional deployment of the military and the federalized California National Guard in Los Angeles.
“The President is looking for any pretense to place military forces on American streets to intimidate and quiet those who disagree with him,” said Bonta. “It’s not just immoral—it’s illegal and dangerous.”
The legal argument is rooted in both the Constitution and Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which governs the activation of the National Guard by the federal government. According to that statute, a President may only federalize state National Guard units under specific conditions: invasion, insurrection, or the inability of a state to enforce federal law.
Moreover, such a move requires gubernatorial consent, which Newsom made clear was never given. “The President’s unlawful order infringes on my role as Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard,” Newsom said, “and violates this state’s sovereign right to control and utilize its Guard forces.”
Furthermore, state officials argue that the factual conditions on the ground never justified federal intervention. The protests were largely peaceful. Local law enforcement was in control. No request for assistance was made. In fact, state and local authorities had already surged more than 800 officers into the region to restore order. By the time the federally activated Guard arrived, the streets were quiet. “The military presence actually inflamed the very protest and violence it was supposedly meant to suppress,” the Governor said.
The lawsuit warns that Trump’s memorandum—which authorized the Defense Department to activate Guard units for 60 days and cited a vague “form of rebellion”—is not only unconstitutional but dangerously broad. Though triggered by events in California, the order applies to all 50 states, meaning the President could, in theory, seize control of any state’s militia without clear legal justification. “This action puts every state at risk,” Bonta noted. “California may be the first target—but it won’t be the last.”
Newsom did not mince words in characterizing the President’s broader intentions. “This is a President who, in just over 140 days, has fired government watchdogs, declared war on culture and history, erased public databases, delegitimized the press, and threatened universities,” he said. “Now, he’s using the United States military to intimidate Americans and celebrating his birthday with a vulgar show of force. This is not democracy. This is tyranny.”
The Governor also pointed to the President’s growing pattern of retribution, including what he described as an unconstitutional threat to have him arrested simply for being elected. “We live in a democracy—and the President’s actions and subsequent threats put it at risk,” Newsom said. “He’s taking a wrecking ball to our founding fathers’ historic project.”
In their emergency motion, Newsom and Bonta also criticized the diversion of the California National Guard from critical state functions. In recent months, Cal Guard has been deployed to assist with drug interdiction, border operations, and disaster response—most recently during the devastating Los Angeles wildfires in January. “They have work to do—real work to protect Californians,” Newsom said. “Instead, they’ve been hijacked by a federal government that wants to make a political point at the expense of public safety.”
The hypocrisy, he added, is glaring. In 2020, Trump vowed not to federalize the Guard without state approval. His own cabinet officials acknowledged that doing so would be a “direct attack on state rights.” Yet here we are, with 4,000 Guard members and hundreds of Marines standing watch outside federal buildings, while local police do all the work of maintaining order.
As protests swell again in response to this show of force, Newsom warned that the cycle of provocation and escalation cannot be allowed to continue unchecked. “Authoritarian regimes begin by targeting people who are least able to defend themselves,” he said. “But they do not stop there.”
He ended his remarks with a call to action, urging Californians and all Americans to recognize the stakes and reclaim their role in the democratic process. “Justice Brandeis said it best: in a democracy, the most important office is not President. It’s not Governor. The most important office is citizen.”
“Do not give in to fear. Do not give in to silence. And do not, under any circumstance, give in to Donald Trump.”
This is all a gift to the GOP.
Rioters pummeling cops and police cars with rocks and pieces of concrete and burning cars while waving the Mexican flag.
During all of this you have Newsom and Karen Bass attacking ICE and Trump while their police force is getting attacked instead of condemning the mob.
Trump and the GOP couldn’t buy better advertising for their brand if they paid a billion dollar$.
It’s a gift to Newsom for sure – he gets his wish, he’s the national face of opposition, and he was on TV from coast to coast.
A gift to Newsom?
He’s branded himself as the appeaser of people rioting burning the American flag while waving the Mexican flag. Not a good look for someone w wants to be president.
This is an example. You could be right that it won’t work, but he’s playing that card for sure.
Seems to me that (in general), there’s a connection between those engaging in anti-semitic acts and destruction/violence related to anti-government protests. (In other words, the same type of angry people.)
Participating in anti-Israeli (anti-Jewish) protests on one weekend, and anti-government protests (e.g., regarding immigration) the next weekend. Or, showing up at Charlie Kirk-type events intent on the same type of destruction, and at George Floyd/Defund the Police protests a few years ago, engaging in freeway shutdowns, takeovers of police stations and entire sections of towns in places like Portland, Seattle, etc. Also on the same side as those who attack people like Beth Bourne to some degree, and in support of the assassination of the CEO of United Healthcare.
In other words, the “tolerant” and “empathetic” side of the political spectrum, especially in “tolerant” cities.
But what I don’t see discussed is how many of those type of people there actually are. I certainly don’t see them when walking around doing every day tasks, nor can I tell if it’s actually a sign of significant/broader civil unrest. Yesterday, I mentioned the book “Rich Dad, Poor Dad”. The author of that book thinks that we’re essentially entering a period of a type of civil war.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rich-dad-poor-dad-author-175134107.html
In any case, here’s what happened to one Jewish cafe owner in San Francisco, even though he was apparently on the same side as the anti-government protests to some degree.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/mannys-cafe-ice-protests-20370306.php?utm_campaign=trueanthem%2B3988&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwY2xjawK10H1leHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFEY1o3Sk1FSnV2UXZpWDJYAR4cG1w0y32zQli9z-EWxYeA1oDjNCj6CJdvwWQ78YcJnAMwfSCxJDpMM5lrpg_aem_jjmXSqqdYgj0EB3wf06mPw
“The protests were largely peaceful.”
You, and the Democratic machine, cannot possibly believe that gaslight is going to work a second time around. I have no doubt that percentage-wise, most people are sincerely and peacefully protesting. That isn’t the issue. It’s like you have a giant fire that burns down a couple of tall buildings and saying the town is a mostly fire-free town. No, the issue isn’t the town, the issue is the burning buildings. I’m not defending all Mr. T is doing. From my understanding, he is within his rights to protect federal property, which is a target since protestors seem to equate federal property with Trump, which is about as stupid a burning Teslas, but that seems to be the demented logic.
This puts it into perspective
Perhaps it also provides perspective regarding the percentage of people (even within Los Angeles) who strongly oppose Trump’s efforts to “reverse” illegal immigration?
That’s one of the few main issues that led to Trump’s victory. Turns out that videos of migrants pouring over the border, day-after-day in an uncontrolled manner are not viewed in a positive light. And that massive numbers of asylum claims are viewed as an abuse of the system.