Protests erupted in Los Angeles over the weekend as President Trump announced the deployment of National Guard troops to the city. This decision came despite strong objections from California Governor Gavin Newsom. The president invoked federal powers that have rarely been used, citing a need to protect federal personnel, particularly those from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
On Saturday, Trump ordered at least 2,000 National Guard members to be activated under Title 10, which allows for federal service deployment. In his memo to the Defense and Homeland Security departments, he mentioned “numerous incidents of violence and disorder” as justification for this action. The memo suggested that protests against ICE operations were impeding the enforcement of federal laws.
Governor Newsom criticized the move, stating that local law enforcement was already equipped to handle the situation. He described the deployment as inflammatory and likely to escalate tensions. During a 40-minute phone call with Trump, Newsom expressed his concerns, but the president remained firm in his decision.
Legal experts have raised alarms about the implications of using National Guard troops to manage domestic protests. Erwin Chemerinsky, a prominent constitutional law scholar, called it “chilling” that the federal government would take control of the California National Guard without the governor’s request. He warned that this action sends a troubling message about the use of military force against dissent.
As tensions rose, protesters gathered in various locations, including Compton, where a car was set ablaze during the demonstrations. Activists confronted ICE agents during raids, leading to heated exchanges. Tom Homan, a key figure in the Trump administration’s immigration policies, defended the deployment, stating that the federal government would not apologize for enforcing the law.
The deployment of the National Guard has sparked fears of further military involvement in civilian affairs. Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, argue that this use of federal troops is unnecessary and dangerous. They emphasize that military involvement in domestic matters should be a last resort.
As the situation unfolds, the focus remains on how this deployment will impact the ongoing protests and the broader conversation about immigration enforcement in the United States. The National Guard’s presence in Los Angeles could change the dynamics of these demonstrations and raise new questions about the balance of power between state and federal authorities.