Trump deploys 2,000 National Guard troops to quell Los Angeles protests

In early June 2025, protests erupted in Los Angeles, California, primarily triggered by immigration raids conducted by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. Demonstrations began in nearby cities such as Paramount and Compton, escalating in size and intensity over a weekend. Law enforcement reported clashes with protesters who reacted violently, resulting in injuries among police officers and several arrests. As tensions mounted, President Donald Trump announced he would deploy National Guard troops in response to the unrest, asserting that the situation demanded a strong federal presence to maintain law and order amidst perceived lawlessness. California Governor Gavin Newsom openly criticized Trump's plan, describing the deployment as unnecessary and a breach of state sovereignty. He argued that local law enforcement had the situation under control and that federal involvement was only inflaming tensions. Newsom asserted that the actions taken by the federal government were primarily aimed at creating a spectacle rather than genuinely addressing the issues at hand. His position reflects broader concerns regarding the militarization of law enforcement in civilian contexts, particularly when state leaders feel their authority is undermined. In contradiction to Trump's claims of violent protests, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass characterized the gatherings as relatively minor and peaceful before federal troops were sent in. The deployment was a significant move—potentially breaching the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the military's involvement in domestic law enforcement. Trump justified his decision by highlighting an ongoing “invasion” stemming from immigration issues, pointing to his interpretation of existing laws that permit military deployment under specific circumstances. The situation highlights a deep political division over how to handle these tensions. This clash between state and federal responses sheds light on the broader implications of immigration policy and law enforcement strategies going forward. As protests showed no sign of abating, the responses from both the state and federal government drew attention to state rights, federal authority, and how such dynamic interactions may shape future policies. The deployment of the National Guard and the reactions from local authorities signify a critical point in addressing civil unrest tied to immigration issues and raise questions about the balance of power in addressing domestic protests.