National Guard Sparks Tension in Los Angeles Crackdown \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ President Trump deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles without state approval to stop immigration protest unrest. The move drew comparisons to historic civil rights crackdowns and ignited legal and public backlash. Experts question the legality and necessity of Trump’s unprecedented federal action.
Quick Looks
- Trump federalizes National Guard troops without California’s approval.
- Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass condemn the action.
- Protests erupted after mass ICE arrests under Trump’s immigration policy.
- Trump claims the move counters “lawlessness” in California.
- Legal experts say the action stretches federal authority.
- Comparisons drawn to past National Guard deployments during civil unrest.
- Historians, activists, and locals voice concerns about escalating militarization.
- The 1965 Watts riots and 1992 Rodney King protests offer historical parallels.
Deep Look
President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy around 1,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles, amid escalating protests against his administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement actions, has reignited fierce debate over federal authority, civil rights, and historical precedent. The troops were mobilized on Saturday without the consent of California Governor Gavin Newsom or Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass—both Democrats—marking one of the rare occasions a president has acted unilaterally to send military forces into a state over objections from local leadership.
The catalyst was a wave of immigration raids across Los Angeles, resulting in over 40 arrests. On Friday, demonstrations erupted outside a federal detention center where protestors demanded the release of detainees and denounced what they described as cruel and excessive policies. By Saturday, Trump had invoked federal authority to override state objections, claiming the troop deployment was necessary to “address the lawlessness” spreading in California.
California leaders pushed back. Governor Newsom called the deployment a “complete overreaction,” accusing the president of inflaming tensions intentionally. Mayor Bass echoed the sentiment, warning that the militarized response would only further polarize and provoke communities already on edge.
From a legal perspective, Trump’s move bypassed the more commonly used Insurrection Act, opting instead for a rarely utilized federal statute that allows for National Guard mobilization without the consent of governors under certain emergency circumstances. Legal scholars questioned the justification. Stanford constitutional law professor Bernadette Meyler called the action “an exception to the norm,” and emphasized that the situation in Los Angeles does not meet the historical threshold required for such federal intervention.
The use of the National Guard in civil unrest has a long and mixed history in the United States. While such deployments have at times restored order, they have also deepened distrust, especially in communities advocating for civil rights. The echoes of past confrontations—particularly in Los Angeles—are impossible to ignore.
During the 2020 George Floyd protests, then-Governor Newsom deployed 8,000 troops statewide, with a focus on Los Angeles. Though initially controversial, the deployment received local support from then-Mayor Eric Garcetti. Despite media portrayals of violent protests, Yale historian Elizabeth Hinton argues that most demonstrations were peaceful—and even more so now. “There is no imminent threat that would require the mass deployment of militarized troops,” Hinton said in response to Trump’s actions.
Looking further back, the 1992 Rodney King riots offer a potent comparison. After four white LAPD officers were acquitted in the brutal beating of Black motorist Rodney King, six days of violent unrest left 63 people dead. Then-President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act to bring in federal troops. For residents like Syreeta Danley, who lived through the riots as a teenager, the trauma remains vivid. “Once the National Guard left, the police had the green light to continue brutalizing people,” she said.
The trauma stretches even deeper. The 1965 Watts uprising, sparked by years of systemic neglect and police abuse, resulted in over 30 deaths—most at the hands of law enforcement or National Guard troops. Breeze McDonald, a doctoral student from South Central Los Angeles, recalled the injuries her aunt suffered during those protests and fears history is repeating. “Instead of stopping to listen, you decided to employ the National Guard,” she said, referring to Trump’s response.
These confrontations stand in contrast to earlier examples where the National Guard was used to enforce, rather than suppress, civil rights. In the 1950s and 1960s, presidents like Dwight D. Eisenhower and Lyndon B. Johnson deployed the military to protect Black students and marchers advocating for desegregation and voting rights. Eisenhower famously used troops to enforce integration in Little Rock, Arkansas. Johnson sent Guard members to protect Selma marchers in 1965 after they were violently attacked by state police.
Critics argue that Trump’s deployment falls far outside those constitutional examples. Rather than safeguarding rights, they say, he is using federal troops to suppress dissent and promote fear among immigrant communities. Unlike the Johnson-era response to “Bloody Sunday,” which paved the way for the Voting Rights Act, Trump’s move may inflame the very unrest it seeks to quell.
Trump maintains that his administration is merely upholding federal law and ensuring public safety. But the context—a deeply polarized nation, rising anti-immigration rhetoric, and mounting civil unrest—raises alarms about overreach, authoritarian tendencies, and the growing militarization of domestic issues.
Whether or not the courts eventually rule on the legality of Trump’s actions, the implications are clear: the role of the National Guard in American life is once again in the spotlight, and the struggle between federal power and states’ rights is far from resolved. For many Angelenos, the presence of troops on city streets doesn’t bring reassurance—it revives generational memories of injustice, resistance, and unhealed wounds.
National Guard Sparks
You must Register or Login to post a comment.