Los Angeles erupted in violent protests over the weekend as demonstrators took to the streets to denounce the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration‐enforcement actions. In downtown LA, protesters set self‐driving cars ablaze, hurled chunks of concrete and motorized scooters at law enforcement officers, and blocked major thoroughfares. Police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets, and mass arrests, escalating tensions in a city already grappling with the impact of high‐profile ICE raids targeting undocumented communities.
Governor Newsom: “An Illegal Federal Overreach”
On Monday, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) announced that his administration would file suit against the federal government over President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy roughly a dozen National Guard troops—alongside Department of Homeland Security personnel—to assist local police in LA. “This order is plainly illegal,” Governor Newsom declared in a statement released from Sacramento. “The President does not have the authority to federalize our National Guard or deploy them against peaceful assembly and free expression.”
Attorney General Bonta Files Lawsuit
State Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) confirmed that his office had officially filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges that the federal deployment violates both the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment—by chilling free speech and peaceful assembly—and the National Guard Mobilization Act, which restricts the circumstances under which a president may assume operational control of state National Guard units. The suit seeks a temporary restraining order to bar further federalization of California’s Guard and a permanent injunction against any additional troop deployments for domestic demonstrations.
Legal Basis: Militia Act and Insurrection Act Limits
Under the Militia Act of 1903 and attendant state‐federal statutes, the governor of a state typically serves as commander‐in‐chief of the National Guard unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act of 1807. The Insurrection Act authorizes a president to federalize the Guard only to suppress insurrection, enforce federal law where civil authorities cannot, or to protect civil rights that state officials refuse to uphold. Governor Newsom’s lawsuit argues that neither condition was met: Los Angeles had a functioning police force, local authorities did not request federal assistance, and protesting against immigration policy does not constitute “insurrection” against federal authority.
Trump Responds: “Great Decision” and Calls Newsom “Incompetent”
At a White House press conference, President Trump defended his move as necessary to “restore order in a city that has been overwhelmed by violent agitators.” He described Governor Newsom as “grossly incompetent” for criticizing the deployment. When pressed on whether he would formally invoke the Insurrection Act, Trump demurred, saying only, “I made a great decision. If more troops are needed, they’re on their way.” He further threatened to use the same authority in other states he deemed “unsafe.”
Tensions Flare Over Calls for Newsom’s Arrest
In a remarkable twist, former ICE chief Tom Homan suggested that Governor Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass could face federal charges for allegedly impeding immigration agents. President Trump endorsed the notion, declaring on X (formerly Twitter) that “Tom should arrest Gavin if he has the guts.” Governor Newsom fired back, calling the idea “an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism. The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting governor. This is a line we cannot cross.”
Mayor Bass Condemns Federal Troops as “Dangerous Escalation”
LA Mayor Karen Bass (D) also condemned the presence of uniformed troops in her city. “We do not want to play into the administration’s hands,” she said. “Deploying federalized troops on the streets of LA is a dangerous escalation that only incites further violence. Our city has a capable police department; this was an unnecessary provocation.” Bass urged her constituents to remain peaceful, even as she mobilized additional LAPD resources and called for state and federal lawmakers to defuse the conflict.
Pentagon and ICE Clarify Roles
U.S. Northern Command announced that 300 California National Guard members were activated, focusing on “force protection” around federal facilities rather than crowd control. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stated on CBS’s Face the Nation that Guard troops would secure buildings to allow peaceful protesters and law enforcement to remain safe. Marines from Camp Pendleton also stood by on high alert to backfill if more federal forces were requested.
Political Fallout: Republicans and Democrats Dig In
Republican lawmakers largely supported Trump’s decisive action. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) praised the president for “restoring discipline” in a city “run by sanctuary‐state politicians.” by contrast, Democratic senators—including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)—denounced the move as “an overreach that tramples free speech.” Schumer asserted that “a protest against immigration raids is not an insurrection, and federal troops have no place policing American citizens who are exercising their constitutional rights.”
Calls for Deeper Immigration Reform
Amid the unrest, some advocates sympathize with the protestors’ broader concerns over the administration’s immigration raids. Nonprofit America’s Voice issued a statement decrying “the misuse of federal power to intimidate immigrant communities.” Meanwhile, the Mexican government, through President Claudia Sheinbaum’s press office, urged all parties to respect the rule of law and refrain from violence—while condemning excessive force.
Implications for Federal‐State Relations
Legal experts warn that this showdown could set far‐reaching precedents regarding presidential authority over the National Guard. Constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky of UC Berkeley observes, “If the courts allow this deployment without a formal Insurrection Act invocation, it could erode the checks on executive power and undermine the principle of dual state‐federal control over the militia.”
READ MORE: Trump and Musk Clash Over “Slim Beautiful Bill” as Debt Ceiling Legislation Faces Pushback
Next Steps: Court Hearings and Possible Injunction
California’s lawsuit requests an immediate temporary restraining order to withdraw federal troops until a full hearing can be held. The court is likely to schedule a hearing within days, amid widespread public attention. Governor Newsom has vowed to pursue every legal avenue to protect Californians’ right to protest. Meanwhile, President Trump faces a delicate balance: sustaining his hard‐line immigration message without overstepping constitutional bounds—and potentially alienating swing‐state voters concerned about federal overreach.
Conclusion
California’s unprecedented legal challenge to the Trump administration’s use of the National Guard marks a critical flashpoint in modern federal‐state relations. As the nation watches, the case will clarify the scope of presidential authority over domestic troop deployments and test America’s constitutional commitment to both public order and the right to dissent. With the Fourth of July holiday on the horizon, and further immigration raids anticipated, tensions are likely to remain high in Los Angeles—and the courtroom—in the coming weeks.
