TEHRAN – When the Trump administration sent 2,000 National Guard members to Los Angeles on June 7, 2025, it significantly strengthened its immigration enforcement strategy and made citywide protests the focus of national debate.
This unprecedented action, presented by the White House as a necessary response to “lawlessness” and “rebellion,” sparked fierce debate over the boundaries of federal government power, degradation of civil liberties, and the use of military force to curb domestic objections.
The Los Angeles crisis now serves as an important litmus test for the future of American democracy and constitutional limitations.
Federal State Clash: The Fight for Management
The immediate catalyst for the crisis was a series of Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) attacks from June 6-7 targeting workplaces in Los Angeles fashion districts, South Lasakirisi and Paramount. More than 120 arrests, including union leader David Fuerta, began peacefully, but came under protests that escalated into a clash in which federal agents deployed tear gas, flash bang hand rena bullets and non-fatal ammunition.
Despite the protests of Governor Gavin Newsom, the deliberate use of federal power was demonstrated by President Trump’s decision to federate the California State Guard to the federal government under Title 10 powers. Newsom said local law enforcement continued its protest within Los Angeles boundaries and denounced the deployment as “deliberately inflammatory.”
But White House aide Stephen Miller accused the protesters of undermining US sovereignty and framing the demonstrations as “riots” that required military intervention.
Legal and Constitutional Lines of Obstacles
Although it suggested that the Trump administration’s use of the 1807 Rebellion Act was not clearly stated by Defense Secretary Pete Hegses, it faces legal challenges.
The law allows the military to intervene to control anxiety only if local leaders are unable to handle it or are not seeking federal assistance. Governor Newsom, who says California’s clear pushback and local police are administering the protest, is undermining the administration’s debate that there’s a need to act.
The Trump administration’s use of the 1807 Rebellion Act, which was mentioned by Defense Secretary Pete Hegses, but not actually spelled out, faces several serious legal issues. This law allows the military to step into handling civil unrest only if the state leader cannot or does not want to care for it.
The reason for the administration’s stepping in is volatile as California’s clear pushback and governor Newsom says local police were able to manage the protests.
Instead, Trump chose to use Title 10 powers to send the National Guard.
Many experts believe the protests do not meet that legal standard. Irwin Kemenski, who leads UC Berkeley law school, criticized the move, risking using the military to address domestic issues and setting a worrying precedent by mixing civilian leaders with military action.
The administration’s actions also strain the Comittatas Act of rallies that ban federal troops from domestic law enforcement unless expressly permitted. By threatening the deployment of Active Duty Marines, Secretary of Defense Hegses risked violating this principle, further eroding safety measures against militarized policing.
Social influence: fear, resistance, polarization
The raid and subsequent action shows simply deepen the rifts within Los Angeles immigrant communities. Ice’s methods, including workplace raids and court arrests, are consistent with Trump’s promise to carry out “the biggest deportation operation in history” in 2025.
Ice and Trump’s Crusade are criminalizing creativity and collaboration, which has led to trust among community members. For many, the presence of security guards is similar to an authoritarian government, with community organizers reporting increased fear of deportation or family loss.
The power sector exposed by the crisis reveals a broken landscape. Local governments, including La Mayor Karen Bass and the city council, have openly ignored federal actions by denounced the attack as “atrocity disguised as policy.”
Meanwhile, grassroots resistance has condemned the arrest of SEIU leader David Huerta, supported by trade unions, as protesters advocated “Ice Out Out Out of LA” mobilised legal aid network and sanctuary policies.
Media narratives further polarize discourse, with right-wing outlets like Fox News portraying protests as rebellions to strengthen Trump’s “law and order” framing, while international channels such as Al Jazeera and the BBC highlighting similarities with global authoritarianism, which emphasized the deepening of state power and civil rights.
Criticism of the administration’s narrative
The Los Angeles administration designation is protesting as a “rebellion.” While there have certainly been several reports of property destruction at Paramount, the LAPD report concludes that the majority of the protests are in peace.
The White House’s coordination of immigration enforcement and national security, indicated by Hegses’ reference to “foreign terrorist organizations,” appears to be intended to justify drastic and aggressive behavior. The story not only exaggerates the threat posed by protesters, but also seeks to fundamentally normalize the militarization of civil issues.
The obvious contradictions and hypocrisy of the government continue in its approach to enforcement prioritization. ICE targets cities like Los Angeles and New York, where Democrat mayors have predominantly sided, but in a politically motivated way, it directs its resources (over 80% of its personnel) towards those cities, without rationally justifying its decision.
Ice’s goal of developing an Amazon Prime deportation system for humans shows a prioritization of productivity over human rights and dignity.
The broader meaning of democracy
American democracy has been heavily influenced by these developments. The use of the National Guard to quell protests represents a significant increase in administrative authorities, and risks normalizing the use of force in response to political discord.
According to California, which has continued opposition to Trump’s immigration agenda, the conflict represents a broader struggle for the rights of states in the United States and the future of pluralistic democracy.
There are significant long-term risks. The potential for national control to be a top priority could establish precedents for federal invasion in other controversial policy areas, including abortion and climate regulations. The threat of military deployment may discourage legitimate protests, particularly among historically marginalized groups. And globally, the image of America as a democracy is undermined as colleagues and enemies cite Los Angeles as an example of authoritarian change.