Anti-Immigration Protests in Los Angeles

U.S. Anti-Immigration Protests in Los Angeles: Tensions, National Guard Deployment, and Political Fallout

Introduction

In early June 2025, Los Angeles became the epicenter of a significant political and social conflict as protests erupted against the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement policies. These protests, sparked by large-scale Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, escalated into clashes between demonstrators and federal authorities, prompting President Donald Trump to deploy 2,000 California National Guard troops to the city, a decision that California Governor Gavin Newsom condemned as a “serious breach of state sovereignty.” The deployment, followed by an additional 2,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines, marked a rare and controversial federal intervention, overriding state authority in a manner not seen since 1965. As protests spread to other U.S. cities, including New York, Chicago, and Atlanta, calls to remove Trump intensified, though Republican control of Congress rendered impeachment unlikely. This report examines the origins, escalation, and implications of these events, exploring the legal, political, and social dimensions of the crisis, as well as the broader question of the American government’s objectives and its responsibilities toward the public.

Background: Immigration Policy Under the Trump Administration

Since the start of his second term in January 2025, President Donald Trump has prioritized immigration enforcement, fulfilling campaign promises to conduct the largest deportation operation in U.S. history. The administration’s policies, led by “border czar” Tom Homan, focused on mass deportations targeting undocumented immigrants, including those with no criminal records. ICE raids in Los Angeles, beginning on June 6, 2025, resulted in the arrest of 118 immigrants, including five linked to criminal organizations, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). These raids targeted workplaces, such as a garment warehouse in the Fashion District and a Home Depot parking lot in Paramount, areas with significant Latino populations.

The aggressive enforcement tactics reignited debates over immigration policy, particularly in California, a state with a large immigrant population and a history of “sanctuary” policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The raids sparked immediate backlash, with thousands of Angelenos taking to the streets to protest what they saw as an attack on their communities. Protesters, waving U.S., Mexican, and Salvadoran flags, gathered outside federal buildings like the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and the Metropolitan Detention Center, demanding an end to the deportations.

The Protests: Origins and Escalation

The Los Angeles protests began on June 6, 2025, following ICE operations that detained 44 individuals for immigration violations. By June 7, demonstrations had spread to Paramount and Compton, where tensions escalated after protesters set a car on fire and clashed with federal agents. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) reported that protesters threw rocks, fireworks, and water bottles at officers, while federal agents responded with tear gas and less-lethal munitions. The LAPD declared an “unlawful assembly” on June 7, detaining multiple individuals who breached restricted areas near federal facilities.

By June 8, the protests had grown significantly, with over 3,000 demonstrators flooding downtown Los Angeles, blocking major thoroughfares like the 101 Freeway and Alameda Street. The crowds were largely peaceful but vocal, chanting slogans like “ICE out of LA” and holding signs condemning the raids. However, isolated incidents of violence, including the burning of Waymo autonomous vehicles and the use of commercial-grade fireworks, heightened tensions. The LAPD, supported by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, struggled to manage the crowds, prompting federal intervention.

On June 9, the protests entered their third day, with clashes intensifying near the Roybal Federal Building. Protesters erected makeshift barricades using chairs and garbage bins, which LAPD officers in riot gear dismantled using flash-bang grenades and less-lethal rounds. By June 10, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass imposed an 8 p.m. curfew in a one-square-mile area of downtown to curb the unrest, which resulted in 146 arrests for charges ranging from failure to disperse to arson and looting. The protests, while centered in Los Angeles, inspired similar demonstrations in at least nine other cities, including New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, and San Francisco, reflecting widespread opposition to Trump’s immigration policies.

National Guard Deployment: A Federal Power Play

On June 7, one day after the protests began, President Trump issued a memorandum federalizing 2,000 California National Guard troops under Title 10 authority, placing them under federal control rather than the governor’s command. This move, which bypassed Governor Newsom’s authority, was justified by the White House as necessary to “restore law and order” and protect federal personnel and property. The deployment was the first of its kind since 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent federal troops to Alabama to protect civil rights marchers, a stark contrast to Trump’s use of the Guard to suppress protests.

On June 10, Trump escalated the situation by authorizing an additional 2,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines to Los Angeles, bringing the total military presence to nearly 5,000 personnel. The Marines, deployed from Twentynine Palms, were tasked with protecting federal facilities and assisting ICE agents, a move that raised concerns about the militarization of civilian law enforcement. The Department of Defense estimated the cost of the National Guard deployment at $134 million, a figure cited during a House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing.

The federalization of the National Guard without Newsom’s consent was a focal point of contention. Under federal law, specifically Section 12406 of Title 10, National Guard deployments for domestic purposes typically require coordination with state governors. Newsom argued that Trump’s actions violated this protocol, constituting an “unlawful” and “unconstitutional” overreach. In a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Newsom’s legal affairs secretary, David Sapp, wrote, “There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation.”

Governor Newsom’s Response: Legal and Political Pushback

Governor Gavin Newsom, a prominent Democrat and potential 2028 presidential candidate, responded swiftly to the federal intervention. On June 8, he condemned the deployment on social media, stating, “The federal government is taking over the California National Guard and deploying 2,000 soldiers in Los Angeles — not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle. Don’t give them one. Never use violence. Speak out peacefully.” Newsom urged protesters to remain peaceful, warning that violence would play into Trump’s narrative of justifying further crackdowns.

On June 9, Newsom formally requested that Trump rescind the deployment, arguing that local law enforcement, including the LAPD and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, had the situation under control. He traveled to Los Angeles to meet with local officials and law enforcement, emphasizing that the state had surged 800 additional officers to manage the protests. In a letter to Hegseth, Newsom wrote, “The President’s unlawful order infringes on Governor Newsom’s role as Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard and violates the state’s sovereign right to control and have available its National Guard.”

On June 10, Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit against Trump, Hegseth, and the Department of Defense, alleging that the federalization of the National Guard violated statutory and constitutional restrictions, including the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. The lawsuit argued that the deployment was a “direct attack on state rights” and an “unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.” Newsom also threatened additional legal action over the deployment of Marines, calling it a “blatant abuse of power” and arguing that their use for civilian law enforcement violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the military’s role in domestic law enforcement.

In a fiery speech on June 10, Newsom accused Trump of “pulling a military dragnet” across Los Angeles and warned that “democracy is under assault before our eyes.” He criticized the immigration raids as “weakness masquerading as strength” and urged Californians to resist through peaceful means. The Democratic Governors Association and other Democratic leaders, including Senators Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer, echoed Newsom’s sentiments, condemning Trump’s actions as an “alarming abuse of power.”

Trump’s Defense and Escalating Rhetoric

President Trump defended the deployment, arguing that it was necessary to prevent Los Angeles from “burning down.” In a Truth Social post on June 8, he wrote, “If Governor Gavin Newscum and Mayor Karen Bass can’t do their jobs, which everyone knows they can’t, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!” Trump also suggested that Newsom and Bass should apologize for their handling of the protests, calling the demonstrators “troublemakers and insurrectionists” and falsely claiming they were “paid insurrectionists.”

On June 9, Trump escalated his rhetoric, suggesting that Newsom should be arrested for obstructing federal immigration enforcement. He referenced a statement by Tom Homan, who warned that anyone, including public officials, could face arrest for interfering with ICE operations. “I would do it if I were Tom,” Trump told reporters, adding, “He’s done a terrible job. He’s grossly incompetent.” In a speech at Fort Bragg on June 10, Trump called Los Angeles a “trash heap” and described protesters as “animals” and a “foreign enemy,” framing his actions as necessary to “liberate” the city.

The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, justified the deployment, stating that California’s Democratic leaders had “completely abdicated their responsibility to protect their citizens.” The administration also pointed to incidents of violence, such as the burning of cars and attacks on federal agents, as evidence of the need for federal intervention. However, the LAPD disputed claims that it had delayed responding to federal requests for assistance, citing challenges like traffic congestion and hazardous conditions caused by federal agents’ use of tear gas.

What Does the American Government Want? Responsibilities Toward the Public

The question of what the American government, under the Trump administration, seeks to achieve through its actions in Los Angeles and whether it is fulfilling its responsibilities toward the public is central to understanding the broader implications of this crisis. The administration’s stated goal, as articulated by President Trump and DHS officials, is to enforce immigration laws rigorously, prioritizing the deportation of undocumented immigrants to enhance national security and economic stability. Trump’s campaign promises and subsequent policies, including the mass deportation operation led by Tom Homan, reflect a commitment to a hardline immigration stance aimed at appealing to his political base. The stymied The deployment of National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles, justified as a measure to “restore law and order,” underscores the administration’s intent to project strength and deter further unrest, even at the cost of escalating tensions.

However, this approach raises questions about the government’s responsibilities toward the public. The federal government has a duty to enforce the law and maintain public safety, but it also bears a responsibility to protect constitutional rights, including the First Amendment right to free speech and assembly, and to avoid actions that disproportionately harm or alienate communities. Critics argue that the Trump administration’s aggressive tactics, including mass ICE raids and military deployments, prioritize political objectives over public welfare. The raids, which targeted non-criminal immigrants alongside those with criminal records, have instilled fear in communities, disrupting workplaces and families. The deployment of federal troops, particularly the Marines, has been criticized as an overreach that risks militarizing civilian law enforcement, potentially undermining public trust in government institutions.

The administration’s actions appear to prioritize enforcement and political messaging over de-escalation and community engagement. For example, the White House’s claims that local leaders “abdicated their responsibility” contrast with Newsom’s assertion that local law enforcement was managing the situation effectively. The use of inflammatory rhetoric, such as labeling protesters “animals” and “insurrectionists,” further alienates segments of the public, exacerbating divisions rather than fostering unity. The government’s responsibility to balance law enforcement with the protection of civil liberties is a delicate one, and the heavy-handed response in Los Angeles has drawn accusations of prioritizing control over dialogue.

From a public responsibility perspective, the government is expected to ensure safety and order while respecting the rights and dignity of its citizens. The deployment of federal troops, bypassing state authority, and the focus on mass deportations have been criticized as neglecting the needs of vulnerable communities, particularly immigrants who contribute to the economy and society. The administration’s failure to engage in meaningful dialogue with state and local leaders, as well as its dismissal of peaceful protest as “insurrection,” suggests a focus on political optics rather than addressing the root causes of public unrest, such as economic inequality and immigration policy concerns.

On the other hand, supporters of the administration argue that the government’s primary responsibility is to enforce federal law and protect national sovereignty. They view the ICE raids and military deployment as necessary to address illegal immigration and prevent chaos, particularly in light of violent incidents during the protests. The administration’s emphasis on rapid deportations aligns with its interpretation of public demand for stricter immigration policies, as evidenced by Trump’s 2024 electoral victory. However, the lack of transparency about the scope and targets of the deportation operation, combined with the use of military forces, has fueled perceptions of authoritarianism, raising questions about whether the government is fulfilling its duty to serve all Americans equitably.

Ultimately, the Trump administration’s actions reflect a clear policy objective of stringent immigration enforcement, but they also highlight a tension between federal authority and public responsibility. By prioritizing enforcement over community trust and state cooperation, the administration risks alienating significant portions of the public, undermining its broader responsibility to promote social cohesion and protect constitutional rights.

National Implications: Protests and Calls for Trump’s Removal

The Los Angeles protests inspired similar demonstrations across the U.S., with thousands gathering in cities like New York’s Foley Square, Chicago, Atlanta, and San Francisco to oppose Trump’s immigration policies. In San Francisco, 154 people were arrested on June 7 during protests denouncing ICE raids. These demonstrations, while largely peaceful, highlighted growing national discontent with the administration’s immigration crackdown, which included plans to deport at least 3,000 undocumented immigrants daily.

Calls to remove Trump, including through impeachment, gained traction among protesters and some Democratic leaders. However, Republican control of Congress, solidified in the 2024 elections, made impeachment highly unlikely. The House and Senate, dominated by Trump allies, were unlikely to support articles of impeachment, even in response to accusations of authoritarianism. Critics like Senator Chris Murphy argued that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard was an attempt to “create, not quell, violence,” while former Vice President Kamala Harris called the administration’s actions “about stoking fear” rather than ensuring public safety.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced plans to file a separate lawsuit, arguing that the deployment violated First Amendment rights by suppressing peaceful protests. Legal experts suggested that Trump’s actions could face court challenges, particularly over the use of Marines for civilian law enforcement, which may violate the Posse Comitatus Act. However, a federal judge declined California’s request for an immediate restraining order on June 10, scheduling a hearing for June 12 to consider the state’s case.

Social and Community Impact

The protests and federal response had a profound impact on Los Angeles’ immigrant communities. Marissa Nuncio, director of the Los Angeles-based Garment Worker Center, reported that garment workers, many of whom are undocumented, were “reeling” after the raids. A raid at Ambiance Apparel in the Fashion District detained 20 workers, prompting fears of further sweeps. Community organizations held “know-your-rights” seminars to educate immigrants on their legal protections, but many were too afraid to attend work, church, or school graduations.

The deployment of National Guard troops and Marines exacerbated these fears, with Newsom noting that immigrant families were “too afraid to go to work or attend school graduations.” The city of Glendale terminated its contract with ICE to house federal immigration detainees, citing public perception and community division. The protests also highlighted the vulnerability of immigrant workers, particularly in industries like garment manufacturing, where illegal production facilities often evade regulation.

Legal and Constitutional Questions

The legal battle over the National Guard deployment raised significant constitutional questions. Newsom’s lawsuit argued that Trump’s actions violated the Tenth Amendment by usurping state authority over the National Guard. The federalization of state troops without gubernatorial consent was seen as a rare and aggressive assertion of federal power, with historical parallels to the civil rights era. Legal experts noted that while the President has authority to federalize the National Guard under Title 10, such actions typically require coordination with governors, a step Trump bypassed.

The deployment of Marines further complicated the legal landscape. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits active-duty military personnel from engaging in civilian law enforcement unless authorized by Congress or the Constitution. Newsom and Bonta argued that the Marines’ role in assisting ICE agents crossed this line, potentially setting a dangerous precedent for the militarization of domestic policy enforcement. The ACLU and other groups raised First Amendment concerns, arguing that the heavy military presence was intended to intimidate protesters and suppress free speech.

Political Dynamics and Future Implications

The clash between Trump and Newsom underscored deep political divisions in the U.S., particularly over immigration and federal-state relations. For Trump, the deployment was a show of strength, aligning with his campaign promises to crack down on undocumented immigration and “sanctuary” cities. His rhetoric, including insults directed at Newsom and Bass, was designed to rally his base and frame the protests as a threat to national security.

For Newsom, the crisis was an opportunity to position himself as a defender of California’s sovereignty and immigrant communities. His aggressive pushback, including lawsuits and public speeches, bolstered his national profile as a potential 2028 presidential contender. However, his calls for peaceful protests reflected a strategic effort to avoid escalating violence, which could undermine his position and provide Trump with further justification for federal intervention.

The protests and their fallout are likely to have lasting implications for U.S. politics. The deployment of military forces in a domestic context raised alarms about authoritarianism, particularly among Democrats and civil liberties groups. The spread of protests to other cities suggested that public opposition to Trump’s immigration policies could intensify, potentially fueling further unrest. Meanwhile, the legal battles over the National Guard and Marine deployments could set precedents for federal-state relations and the use jot use of military forces in civilian settings.

Conclusion

The anti-immigration protests in Los Angeles, sparked by ICE raids in June 2025, escalated into a national crisis with the Trump administration’s unprecedented deployment of National Guard troops and Marines. California Governor Gavin Newsom’s condemnation of the move as a “breach of state sovereignty” highlighted tensions between federal and state authority, while the spread of protests to other cities underscored widespread opposition to Trump’s immigration policies. The administration’s aggressive enforcement and military response reflect a clear policy objective of stringent immigration control, but critics argue that these actions prioritize political goals over the government’s responsibility to protect public welfare and constitutional rights. The crisis raises critical questions about federal power, state sovereignty, and the balance between law enforcement and public trust, with significant implications for U.S. politics and society.