LOS ANGELES, CA — In an unexpected escalation, President Donald Trump has ordered the federalization and deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles, bypassing California Governor Gavin Newsom and prompting widespread outrage from elected officials, legal advocates, and community leaders across the state.
The move, coming on the heels of aggressive ICE raids targeting immigrant communities, has been denounced as an abuse of power and a deliberate provocation designed to sow fear and chaos.
The operation unfolded quickly. Over the course of several days, federal immigration authorities executed mass sweeps across Los Angeles, with arrests reported in the city’s bustling fashion district, in the parking lots of retail chains like Home Depot, and in working-class Latino neighborhoods such as Paramount and Compton.
According to community advocates and legal observers, some of those arrested were lawful permanent residents or had pending immigration cases. Civil defenders have reported a spike in calls from family members searching for missing loved ones and claim that several individuals were swept up without warrants or due process.
Outraged Angelenos began to organize. On Friday, protests erupted in downtown Los Angeles. By Saturday, they had spread to surrounding areas. By Sunday, a coalition of immigrant rights groups, labor unions, students, and civil society organizations had mobilized thousands of demonstrators in coordinated actions. Protesters blocked major arteries, including the 101 Freeway. Some threw objects at law enforcement vehicles. Several self-driving Waymo cars were set on fire, sending dark plumes of smoke into the city’s skyline.
While LAPD officers initially maintained crowd control, things changed dramatically after federal troops arrived. National Guard members in full tactical gear formed lines outside federal buildings, including the Metropolitan Detention Center, where immigrant detainees were reportedly being held. Officers on horseback patrolled downtown boulevards. Protesters chanted “Shame!” and “Go home!” as the Guard was flanked by federal agents in riot gear. Soon, tear gas was deployed. Flash-bang grenades were launched. Police declared unlawful assemblies and began clearing streets. Observers noted that the confrontational turn only began after the Guard’s deployment, contradicting federal claims of restoring order.
Legal experts say the deployment is unprecedented in California history. While presidents have federalized National Guard troops before—such as Lyndon B. Johnson’s intervention in Selma, Alabama, during the civil rights era—those actions typically involved threats to human life or the protection of civil rights activists. In this case, no request for assistance was made by the state. On the contrary, Governor Newsom explicitly opposed the move, stating in a public letter that there were no unmet law enforcement needs and that California’s own agencies had the situation under control.
Newsom denounced the federalization of the Guard as a “serious breach of state sovereignty” and demanded the troops be withdrawn immediately.
“The deployment of National Guard troops without the consent of California’s Commander in Chief undermines the core principles of our federal system,” he wrote. “This is not about restoring order — this is about asserting domination.”
Former Vice President Kamala Harris, a longtime resident of Los Angeles, issued a powerful statement from her office condemning the Trump administration’s actions. “Los Angeles is my home. And like so many Americans, I am appalled at what we are witnessing on the streets of our city,” Harris wrote. “Deploying the National Guard is a dangerous escalation meant to provoke chaos. In addition to the recent ICE raids in Southern California and across our nation, it is part of the Trump Administration’s cruel, calculated agenda to spread panic and division.”
Harris continued: “This Administration’s actions are not about public safety — they’re about stoking fear. Fear of a community demanding dignity and due process. Protest is a powerful tool — essential in the fight for justice. And as the LAPD, Mayor, and Governor have noted, demonstrations in defense of our immigrant neighbors have been overwhelmingly peaceful. I continue to support the millions of Americans who are standing up to protect our most fundamental rights and freedoms.”
Those sentiments have echoed through every level of California’s government. Senator Alex Padilla called the move “completely inappropriate and misguided.” Senator Adam Schiff warned that the deployment “sets a dangerous precedent” and is “designed to inflame tensions, not de-escalate them.” Dozens of members of Congress, from Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove to Rep. Mike Levin, released statements denouncing the president’s actions as an authoritarian overreach. Rep. Dave Min declared: “This is not a rebellion. This is not an invasion. There is no legal basis for this action. Trump is trying to take this country into tyranny.”
Across Los Angeles, the reaction has been one of fear and defiance. Immigrant families have begun avoiding public spaces. Community clinics and legal service organizations have extended their hours. Churches have opened their doors as informal sanctuaries. Despite the repression, protest leaders have doubled down on calls for peaceful resistance. “We will not be silenced,” said Angelica Salas of CHIRLA, a major immigrant rights organization. “What we are witnessing is not immigration enforcement. It is racialized political warfare.”
The California Public Defenders Association issued its own rare public statement condemning the raids and the Guard deployment. “These state-sponsored raids are part of a broader war on migrants — our neighbors, clients, and family members — who are integral to the fabric of our communities,” said CPDA Board President Tracie Olson. “We will not stand by while ICE terrorizes our communities, or while law enforcement attacks those who dare to oppose it.”
ACLU Southern California also pledged legal action. In a forceful statement, Victor Leung, the organization’s chief legal and advocacy officer, described the National Guard deployment as “a declaration of war on all Californians.” Leung continued, “Workers in our garment districts or day laborers seeking work outside of Home Depot do not undermine public safety. They are our fathers and mothers and neighbors going about their day and making ends meet. Rather, the only threat to safety today is the masked goon squads that the administration has deployed to terrorize the communities of Los Angeles County.”
The optics of the deployment have alarmed national observers as well. The Democratic Governors Association released a statement calling the federalization of the Guard “an alarming abuse of power.” It added, “Threatening to send the U.S. Marines into American neighborhoods undermines the mission of our service members, erodes public trust, and shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement.”
Meanwhile, the Trump administration appears to be leaning into the conflict. Speaking to reporters at Morristown Airport, President Trump claimed that Los Angeles was “teetering on rebellion” and that his actions were necessary to “restore very strong law and order.” He added that “troops will be everywhere,” and blamed the unrest on “radical leftists, illegal immigrants, and the media.”
That rhetoric has only heightened fears that the president may be laying the groundwork for further federal crackdowns in other major cities. Already, rumors have surfaced that similar deployments may be under consideration for San Francisco, New York, and Chicago, cities with large immigrant populations and progressive local governments.
Back in Los Angeles, the situation remains tense. As of Monday morning, National Guard troops remain stationed across several downtown blocks. Reports suggest that as many as 500 Marines from Camp Pendleton are on standby for possible deployment. Protesters have vowed to continue their demonstrations, and legal groups are preparing a slew of lawsuits challenging both the raids and the deployment under the Tenth Amendment and the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement.
Local officials have been clear: the federal government has turned a policy dispute into a constitutional crisis. “This isn’t just about Los Angeles,” said Mayor Karen Bass. “This is about whether a president can weaponize fear, override state authority, and silence dissent with soldiers. We must all decide — together — where we stand.”
For now, California’s leadership remains unified, and its people defiant. What happens next may determine the future of federalism, civil liberties, and democratic accountability in the United States.
“We’ve been in touch with local law enforcement in LA. They have the resources they need to meet the moment, and we stand ready to assist should the need arise. There is no emergency and the President’s order calling in the National Guard is unnecessary and counterproductive,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta
Senator Adam Schiff added, “The Trump Administration’s calling on the California National Guard without the authorization of the Governor is unprecedented. This action is designed to inflame tensions, sow chaos, and escalate the situation. If the Guard is needed to restore peace, the Governor will ask for it. But continuing down this path will erode trust in the National Guard and set a dangerous precedent for unilateral misuse of the Guard across the country.”
Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove who represents parts of Los Angeles said, “The Trump Administration’s immigration policies are sowing chaos and division in our communities. Deploying the National Guard to Los Angeles will only escalate an already tense situation and put more people at risk. I strongly urge Trump and the National Guard to stand down.”
“blamed the unrest on “radical leftists, illegal immigrants, and the media.”
One can’t argue that.
As always he threw gas on the fire even if you believe all of that
So the left wants it both ways as usual.
They condemned Trump for not calling in the National Guard during the Jan. 6 Capitol protest and now they condemn him for calling in the Guard for the L.A. protests.
You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t, at least according to the left.
In one case the local government was begging for help, and in the other no one from the local government wanted federal involvement, but somehow, in Keith’s mind, these are parallel situations.
Yup, democrats try to blame the violence on the people that are actually trying to stop the violence.
Typical spin coming from the left and biased media.
Are we surprised?
Militarizing a conflict is generally not an effective method of stopping the violence.
It’s a good way to escalate it
“civil society organizations”
What the heck are those?
“Observers noted that the confrontational turn only began after the Guard’s deployment, contradicting federal claims of restoring order.”
This seems to be the crux of the widely differing reports on the riots – did the Guard come because of excessive violence, or did the Guard coming escalate the violence? And was it because of what the Guard did, or because protestors clashed with the Guard because of who they represent?
Having the Governor slam the President for deploying troops . . . this is turning towards full on civil war.’
“demonstrations in defense of our immigrant neighbors have been overwhelmingly peaceful.”
So ‘mostly peaceful protests’, we are seriously going with that gaslight again? Blocking freeways and setting cars on fire . . . but mostly peaceful. At least acknowledge the violence and explain what you are claiming — don’t just make statements that clash with what the news is showing.
““civil society organizations”
What the heck are those?”
Facetious?
Nope. I suppose I could Google it.
“So ‘mostly peaceful protests’, we are seriously going with that gaslight again? Blocking freeways and setting cars on fire . . . but mostly peaceful. At least acknowledge the violence and explain what you are claiming — don’t just make statements that clash with what the news is showing.”
Exactly Alan, burning cars, using fireworks and launching large rocks and pieces of concrete at law enforcement officers.
Mostly peaceful? LOL
If that is really your worry, you are going to make things worse by doing this
I think this has been the plan all along. It’s looking like a summer of insurrection brought to you by democrat run cities across the country.
I guess militant democrats want to burn and destroy their own cities.
The Blue City riots across America coming soon will further entrench the GOP in power for many years.
Go for it!
This seems to be the crux of the widely differing reports on the riots – did the Guard come because of excessive violence, or did the Guard coming escalate the violence? And was it because of what the Guard did, or because protestors clashed with the Guard because of who they represent?
Good questions, but it does make for some entertaining TV news, regardless. Nothing like a good old-fashioned out-of-control protest/riot. (But I do miss the guy with the horns, in regard to January 6th – the winner of the all-time “best riot costume” award. (I still wonder if anyone tried to adopt that on the following Halloween.)
In regard to this latest riot, I’m impressed by the guy who tried to ride a motorcycle through a gauntlet of police, as well as the relative restraint of the police in regard to that individual. (For sure, the motorcyclist knew that he had an immediate “problem” to de-escalate, himself.)
How dare you Trump! You’re not allowed to save our cities and keep people from looting!
Democrats are once again on the wrong side of an 80/20 issue.
Keith is full on supporting authoritarianism – you believe in a democratic society that a president can unilaterally send the military into a US city, without consulting and against the wishes of state and local authorities?
I suggest a quick review of how the Kent State killings unfolded in May 1971.
I’ve been thinking about that today.
Whatever happens it won’t come out of a conversation with Keith. I have no idea what he really believes. And I guess that’s by design.
I’m sure sending in a battalion of Marines to quell a mundane protest will calm things down right away :eyeroll
There is no “insurrection.” Local authorities can handle these protests with assistance from the state. LAPD, LA County sheriff, and CHP are managing it. The National Guard is not just unnecessary but highly provocative. US Marines should never patrol in American cities; it is a constitutional nightmare.
Evidently some modern conservatives have no red lines when it comes to due process, habeas corpus, appropriate role of the military, states rights, bodily autonomy, and basic human decency.
I’m full on supporting law and order, keeping law abiding people safe and not burning our cities due to the lawlessness of violent leftist extremists.
You always forget that in a democracy there has to be a process – otherwise its tyranny. No one asked the federal government for help.
I suggest a quick review of the summer riots of 2020 and how the local leadership of democrat run cities allowed things to spiral and get out of control.
” . . . you believe in a democratic society that a president can unilaterally send the military into a US city, without consulting and against the wishes of state and local authorities?”
What about the (apparent) wishes of the American people at large, who are opposed to local/state politicians who take steps to support illegal immigration?
Isn’t this essentially a proxy fight regarding THAT underlying issue?
In other words, local/state officials have aligned themselves with the protestors, and view the president and those like him as the enemy. As such, are they even inclined to ask for his “help” in the first place regarding situations like this? Also, do they ask the president for help in deporting those here illegally (when they themselves support illegal immigration, and oppose the president regarding U.S. law)?
Seems to me that the answer to that is “no” (almost regardless of how “out of control” this gets).
“What about the (apparent) wishes of the American people at large, who are opposed to local/state politicians who take steps to support illegal immigration?”
You have to navigate through a system that is designed to thwart rather than facilitate change. Do it capriciously and then it becomes tyranny of the majority.
I don’t understand your comment. (For what it’s worth, my comment is unrelated to my personal opinion.)
But it seems to me that places like California are at war with places like Texas (which has a majority view closer to Trump’s). But what California does (e.g., in regard to openly encouraging illegal immigration) impacts places like Texas.
That seems to be what the underlying fight is about. As such, local/state officials (who openly support illegal immigration – the issue regarding these protests) are not going to be encouraging Trump to send in reinforcements, regardless of whether or not it turns out to be needed.
The only time Trump is welcome in California is if state/local officials think they can get some money out of him (e.g., the Los Angeles wildfires). That’s when Newsom does some smooching (which sometimes turns out to be ineffective, anyway). Other than that, state/local officials want nothing to do with Trump, or his “help” (ESPECIALLY regarding illegal immigration protests).
Again, local and state officials were already openly defiant against Trump – especially regarding THIS issue.
You once told me you never took a Pol Sci class. My comment was a structural comment about the political system. Just as the structure of the system thwarts housing policy changes to your advantage, it also makes it harder to carry out other policies as well. Part of the problem is that Trump is trying to circumvent what would normally be checks on executive power.
“My” advantage? (I can think of a lot of other, less time-consuming ways to ensure that I personally could receive some “advantage”. Also, if I was driven by personal advantage (in regard to development issues), I’d probably argue for more commercial development. (Instead, I’ve realized that this is what’s actually CAUSING the so-called housing crisis in some areas.)
I’m pure at heart (says I, semi-humorously). But there’s actually truth to that regarding my own political views/advocacy. (I suspect that most people view themselves that way – regardless of their views, even when others don’t view them the same way.)
But in regard to your primary point, I think those like Trump would argue the exact opposite: The system thwarts efforts to CONTROL illegal immigration. (And truth be told, I think that’s far more-accurate regarding what actually occurs.)
I don’t believe these protestors are necessarily concerned about “process” or “how” those here illegally are deported. They don’t want them deported AT ALL.
Generally speaking the federal government only nationalizes the National Guard or sends in troops when state and local government ask for assistance. In this case, neither the state nor the local governments wanted federal forces and so Trump overstepped his authority and will likely be smacked down again by the courts. That has nothing to do with immigration. It has to do with federalism.
Again, I’m suggesting this is a proxy war, resulting in all of the positions described above (e.g., no way would local/state officials “want” Trump’s help regarding the issue underlying the protest). Again, most of them are openly on the same side as the protestors.
Now, if there were a bunch (or even a handful) of January 6th types causing a ruckus, those same officials would be complaining in the media that Trump is refusing to help. (Which probably would be Trump’s reaction. In that case, local/state officials would be calling the protestors all kinds of derogatory names (and “begging” for help via the media), while Trump would call them “freedom fighters”.)
The same type of thing might occur regarding Israel vs. Gaza protestors. (Can you guess which side each set of politicians would be more-supportive of? Though it’s somewhat less clear regarding that.)
But no, I’m not becoming cynical. :-)
Of course it’s a proxy war, but the problem is it was unnecessary, unlawful and causes many many more problems than it solves. It’s mind boggling what people will defend.
“Trump overstepped his authority and will likely be smacked down again by the courts.”
Can you imagine if some rogue judge rules against Trump and the National Guard is pulled from the state and all Hell breaks loose? Trump will win again in the eyes of public opinion.
“It’s mind boggling what people will defend.”
It sure is. It’s also mind-boggling regarding what they’re willing to protest (for, or against something), and the degree to which they personally identify with it.
Fortunately, I’ve never been that way (except regarding land use – especially public land). But even then, there’s a limit to what I’m willing to sacrifice. (Plus, there aren’t actually any protests in the street regarding that type of thing. The closest thing we have to that is when someone camps out in a redwood tree for a year or two, which seems to generate a fair amount of respect regardless of one’s views.) Of course, you also have those types who imbed metal spikes in redwood trees, which is just hateful toward others.
“Fortunately, I’ve never been that way”
Maybe that makes it hard for you to empathize with people who view things differently.
It is true that I don’t have much empathy for people who harm others (or society at large) via their protests. That goes for those shutting down freeways, causing property damage, assaulting others who “disobey” them, etc.
Actually, I also don’t have a lot of empathy for those engaged in other criminal activity that harms others, either.
I DO have empathy for those victimized because someone else thinks they’re entitled or justified to harm others. I also have empathy for those just trying to go about their lives by going to school, jobs, doctor appointments, etc.
Seems to me that you generally have more empathy for the “victimizers”, rather than the “victims”.
But if you’re referring to my lack of empathy regarding those pushing for more development, I’d classify that (in general) as true – since I don’t believe that most of them are driven by need. I do believe that some people struggle financially, and this is part of why I support rent control.
Just talked to someone in LA…
The disinformation coming out of the right about Los Angeles right now is not just dishonest—it’s dangerous. A Republican congressman from North Carolina actually claimed that “lawless mobs burned LA to the ground.” Trump went even further, saying Los Angeles would’ve been “completely obliterated” if he hadn’t sent in the National Guard.
Turn on Fox News, and you’d think the entire city is engulfed in flames. They make it sound like mobs are looting every store, like every car in LA is on fire. It’s not just false—it’s reckless.
The truth is, the overwhelming majority of people protesting are doing so peacefully. LAPD has acknowledged that themselves. We’re talking about isolated incidents on a few streets in a city of nearly 4 million people. Most of LA went to work today. Most of the city wasn’t even affected.
The facts clearly don’t matter to Trump or the right-wing media ecosystem that props him up. They’re not interested in the truth. They’re manufacturing chaos to justify authoritarian crackdowns. And we need to call that out for exactly what it is.
“Turn on Fox News, and you’d think the entire city is engulfed in flames. They make it sound like mobs are looting every store, like every car in LA is on fire.”
Sounds like the network to watch for infotainment. (Though truth be told, this was a lead story on “regular” network news last night, and probably will be again tonight.)
Which would be alright if that’s what people did…
They ARE doing it. I’ve already seen some videos which show that, as have you no doubt. So far, there aren’t a lot of AI-generated videos which show incidents that don’t exist in reality.
It’s sort of like focusing on police misconduct videos – which can distort the magnitude of those type of incidents. Same thing regarding any video that shows criminal activity.
As far as relying upon ANY media source to “tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” – that was barely even true during the Walter Kronkite era. (But it was at least “more true” back then.)
Anyone who watches FOX News (or MSNBC) already knows this.
Ron, I’ve seen the videos too of actual attacks on police with rocks and chunks of concrete being thrown at police cars and officers with injuries.
“Cronkite” – took a guess at first, turned out to be wrong (which became more-obvious when I looked at my own comment.) But he’s been off the air (and dead) for a long time, so that’s my excuse.
In any case, Bill Marshall is turning over in his grave at that mistake. Right-alongside Mr. “Kronkite”.
But seriously, that goes to show the Mr. Marshall is actually remembered – just from commenting on the Vanguard alone.
At least one person, Chris Cuomo, is calling out both sides and telling it like it is. If Democrats talked like this, I could be a Democrat again (haven’t been in 40 years). This is my view 100%:
6 minute watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnhHTmKlo-o
Democrat Senator John Fetterman:
“I unapologetically stand for free speech, peaceful demonstrations, and immigration—but this is not that. This is anarchy and true chaos. My party loses the moral high ground when we refuse to condemn setting cars on fire, destroying buildings, and assaulting law enforcement.”