Trump Bypasses California Leadership to Deploy National Guard During L.A. Protests

JB Quinnon
Jun 8
2 min read

June 9, 2025

When federal agents conducted large-scale ICE raids in Los Angeles on June 6–7, it sparked an immediate wave of protests, including violent clashes in neighborhoods like Paramount and Compton. In a rare and controversial move, former President Donald Trump responded by invoking Title 10 of the U.S. Code to deploy roughly 2,000 National Guard troops to the city—without the consent of California Governor Gavin Newsom.

This federalization of the California National Guard—something that has not occurred since the civil rights marches in Selma in 1965—was met with immediate backlash from both state and local leaders. Governor Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass condemned the action, stating that it bypassed democratic processes and escalated tensions unnecessarily.

Trump’s decision also placed active-duty U.S. Marines on alert for possible deployment. While the protests included property damage and confrontations with law enforcement, local officials insisted the situation was under control and did not warrant military intervention.

Legal experts quickly weighed in, calling the move “unprecedented,” “potentially unconstitutional,” and “a threat to state sovereignty.” Organizations like the ACLU argued it set a dangerous precedent for federal overreach and the militarization of civil unrest.

Critics also noted the political implications of deploying troops during a time of national debate over immigration, especially given the optics of sending federal forces to quell protests triggered by ICE raids. Some viewed it as an effort to galvanize Trump’s base by appearing tough on immigration and civil disobedience.

What makes this deployment especially contentious is the use of Title 10, which allows the president to call up the National Guard without a governor's approval. While legal, it is typically reserved for extreme circumstances, not civilian protests within a state that has explicitly refused assistance.

Conclusion:This incident could have lasting implications for how federal authority is exercised in times of protest, especially in states that disagree with Washington’s political agenda. It also raises concerns about balance of power, military force on U.S. soil, and civil liberties during moments of social unrest.