Trump administration deploys 2,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles.
The Trump administration has once again crossed a line that should disturb every American—regardless of party, ideology, or view on immigration policy. The weekend decision to federalize 2,000 California National Guard troops and deploy them to Los Angeles is not merely an overreaction to a series of protests. It is a calculated, authoritarian escalation meant to provoke confrontation, suppress dissent, and consolidate executive power. California Governor Gavin Newsom called it “deranged behavior.” He’s right.
This deployment was not requested by the state, not coordinated with city or county officials, and not justified by the facts on the ground. Federal authorities claim the action was necessary due to “violence and disorder” following immigration enforcement operations, but local authorities have consistently pushed back on that narrative. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, for example, stated unequivocally that the protests, while including some vandalism and violence, were relatively minor and did not require military intervention. And yet, federal agents launched flash-bang grenades, deployed tear gas, and made arrests during what began as peaceful protests against aggressive ICE raids. Then the Trump administration escalated.
At the center of this storm is not just immigration enforcement but the arrest of SEIU California President David Huerta, a longtime ally of Newsom and one of the most prominent labor leaders in the state. Huerta’s arrest during Friday’s protest was symbolic and strategic. It sent a clear message to organized labor, immigrant communities, and civil rights advocates: speak out, and you will be punished. This is not law enforcement; this is political suppression.
The Trump administration claims it is acting to protect ICE agents and federal facilities. But this rationale is paper-thin. Local law enforcement had already been mobilized. The LAPD, L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, and California Highway Patrol had coordinated responses. There was no indication that state or local agencies lacked the personnel or capacity to manage the protests. In fact, as Newsom pointed out, there were no “unmet needs.” Yet Trump invoked Title 10, a federal law allowing the president to activate National Guard troops without the governor’s consent. This move—typically reserved for natural disasters or widespread civil unrest—was used here for what legal scholars have rightly described as “isolated incidents” that could have been handled by conventional law enforcement.
Newsom condemned the deployment as “purposefully inflammatory,” warning it would “erode public trust.” And it already has. Californians are now watching federal troops patrol their streets not to assist in emergencies but to reinforce an agenda that prioritizes fear, domination, and spectacle. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth added fuel to the fire by suggesting that active-duty Marines stationed at Camp Pendleton could soon be mobilized. In Newsom’s words, that threat to deploy Marines against U.S. citizens was not only inflammatory—it was deranged.
The legal and constitutional implications are deeply alarming. The use of Title 10 to override a governor’s authority is rare and intended for extreme cases. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law, noted that while the president likely has the legal authority under the Insurrection Act and Title 10, the use of that authority in this context is dangerous. “It is using the military domestically to stop dissent,” he warned. This is not hyperbole—it is a clear and chilling abuse of executive power.
The historical comparisons are instructive. In 1992, during the L.A. riots following the Rodney King verdict, then-Governor Pete Wilson requested federal assistance because local law enforcement could not contain the violence. In 2020, during the George Floyd protests, Mayor Eric Garcetti requested National Guard support after widespread looting and destruction. In both cases, state and local officials led the response, and the federal government responded to their request. What’s happening now is different. This is not a case of local governments calling for help—it is a federal occupation against their will.
This moment represents a dramatic and dangerous shift in how federal power is being deployed. Trump is not responding to crisis; he is manufacturing it. He is creating the conditions for chaos—launching raids in immigrant communities, arresting union leaders, provoking protests—and then using the resulting unrest as a pretext for military deployment. This is textbook authoritarianism: create disorder, claim only you can restore order, and silence those who dare resist.
The victims of this strategy are not just the individuals arrested or the protesters injured by federal munitions. The real target is democratic governance itself. By overriding the authority of state leaders, criminalizing dissent, and militarizing civil enforcement, the Trump administration is undermining the very structure of American federalism. What is unfolding in Los Angeles is not a localized policy dispute—it is a test case for how far executive power can be pushed in the face of opposition.
This is also an attack on the very idea of California—its values, its independence, and its refusal to bend to Washington’s authoritarian turn. California has consistently challenged the Trump administration on immigration, climate policy, reproductive rights, and social equity. And for that, it is now being punished with federal troops and legal threats. The deployment of the National Guard is not about restoring order; it is about sending a message: dissent will not be tolerated.
And make no mistake—this message is being heard not just in Sacramento or Los Angeles but across the country. Every governor, every mayor, every civil rights leader should be watching closely. Because what is happening in L.A. today could happen anywhere tomorrow. If the federal government can override a state’s deployment of its own National Guard, what powers are left to check a president bent on retribution?
This moment requires moral clarity. Violence and destruction of property must be condemned, as both Bass and Newsom have done. But so too must the political manipulation of law enforcement and the militarization of protest response. We must not allow “law and order” rhetoric to be weaponized into martial law.
What’s most disturbing is how normalized this has already become. Flash-bangs on city streets. Federal troops deployed without request. Protesters being tracked, detained, and threatened. Union leaders jailed. These are not the scenes of a healthy democracy. They are the signs of a government unraveling from within, inching ever closer to authoritarian rule.
Newsom’s words, while sharp, are proportionate to the danger. This is deranged. It is a deliberate provocation wrapped in the language of national security. It is a power grab, not a peacekeeping mission. It is a threat to the people of California, and to every American who believes the Constitution still means something.
“Violence and destruction of property must be condemned, as both Bass and Newsom have done.”
Is ‘condemning’ considered action in your book?
Shocking the range of perspectives I’ve heard from different media sources on these riots. It’ as if they are reporting on different events.
The problem is that you still believe the truth is somewhere in the middle
That is a problem