President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles on June 7, 2025, marked a significant and controversial escalation in response to widespread protests against recent federal immigration raids. This move, made over the explicit objections of California Governor Gavin Newsom, is notable for its rarity and the legal and political questions it raises regarding federal authority over state-controlled military forces.

The unrest in Los Angeles was sparked by a series of coordinated immigration enforcement operations conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) beginning on Friday, June 6. These raids resulted in the arrest of at least 44 individuals and triggered immediate, large-scale protests in various parts of the city, particularly in heavily Latino neighbourhoods such as Paramount and downtown Los Angeles. Protesters sought to block ICE vehicles and disrupt deportation operations, leading to tense standoffs with federal agents.

Law enforcement, including federal officers, responded with force—deploying tear gas, flash-bang grenades, and non-lethal rounds to disperse crowds. Several federal law enforcement officers were reportedly injured during these confrontations, and dozens of protesters were arrested as authorities sought to regain control and reopen major freeways that had been blocked by demonstrators.

President Trump, citing what he described as “lawlessness” and “rebellion,” signed a presidential memorandum invoking Title 10 of the United States Code, which allows the federalisation of the National Guard under specific circumstances—such as insurrection or when state authorities are deemed unable to enforce federal law. This action bypassed the traditional protocol requiring a governor’s request for National Guard assistance, a step not taken since the 1965 civil rights era and the 1992 Los Angeles riots, though in those cases, the governor consented to federal intervention.

The White House justified the deployment as necessary to “address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester” and to protect federal personnel and property, particularly ICE facilities that had become focal points for protests. Trump’s statements on social media further inflamed tensions, labelling the protesters as “troublemakers and insurrectionists” and criticising state and local officials for their handling of the situation.

Governor Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, and other California officials strongly condemned the federal intervention. Newsom described the move as “purposefully inflammatory” and accused the Trump administration of manufacturing a crisis for political spectacle rather than public safety. Local authorities, including the LAPD, emphasised their compliance with state laws that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and expressed confidence in their ability to manage the protests without federal troops.

Civil rights organisations, including the League of United Latin American Citizens and Amnesty International, also denounced the deployment, warning that it risked escalating violence and undermining public trust in law enforcement. They characterized the move as a dangerous attempt to suppress dissent and punish those defending human rights.

By Sunday, June 8, about 300 National Guard troops had arrived in downtown Los Angeles, primarily stationed at federal facilities such as the Metropolitan Detention Center. The deployment was initially concentrated in a small area, with the rest of the city largely unaffected. However, the presence of military vehicles and heavily armed troops heightened tensions, and clashes between protesters and authorities continued, leading to further arrests and the declaration of downtown Los Angeles as an “unlawful assembly” zone.

The LAPD reported a total of 39 arrests over the weekend, while federal officials claimed that as many as 1,000 people had participated in the protests at their peak, though independent verification of these numbers was not immediately available.

The deployment of the National Guard without the governor’s consent is widely regarded by legal and security experts as an extraordinary and potentially dangerous precedent. Analysts warn that such federalization of state military forces, especially in the absence of clear mission guidelines or rules of engagement, increases the risk of violence and further erodes the relationship between federal and state governments.

Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth indicated that active-duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on standby for possible mobilization if unrest continued, underscoring the seriousness with which the federal government views the situation. Meanwhile, the political stand-off between Trump and Newsom has intensified, with threats from the president to cut federal funding to California over ongoing policy disputes.

President Trump’s unprecedented deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles in response to immigration protests has sharply divided federal and state authorities, escalated tensions on the ground, and raised critical questions about the limits of presidential power in domestic crises. As protests continue and both sides remain entrenched, the situation in Los Angeles stands as a flashpoint in the broader national debate over immigration, civil rights, and federalism.

Based On ANI Report